Some Reality Regarding Our Defense

[ausbacker]

I don't know Ian personally, but I'm fairly certain that he doesn't care that you got into a argument with Deus on this topic.

He probably a little busy mediate between the two of you.

I'll give you a monopoly dollar for every poster if you can show me a poster on Patsfans that hasn't been in a disagreement with Deus . I know I have.. too many times to count.

Luckily, we're all Patsfans and have that in common.

 

[Deus Irae]

20th in scoring defense isn't that bad when you consider how much actual garbage time has been in the games the Pats have played. Throw in a major rash of short-term injuries, and maybe even you could change your perspective.

My perspective is fine, thanks. Kid Brady posted the red zone and non-red zone data as far as league wide standings, and I posted what that meant overall as far as the scoring standings. Since I wasn't doing anything but supplying the end result to the data, perspective didn't matter and had nothing to do with it. The "perspective" stuff was a product of Smessy's response.

 

[everlong]

So, basically, you want us to ban Deus Irae because you don't agree with his point of vew?

I don't agree with what he's saying either. But no, PFiP, that's not how it works.

In life, people don't always agree with each other.

Disagreeing and backing it up and agreeing to disagree is part of life. Calling somebody a douche or demeaning them isn't even if you think their opinion is stupid. No he shouldn't be banned but there's no call for doing that. I might roll my eyes at the fire BOB posts or the we are the worst drafting team in the league posts but they're still welcome to their opinions. And honestly if he and I were arguing in a bar and he called me a douche I'd crack up laughing but on a forum it just stops any reasonable discourse and we get into a name calling war. It's not Deus in particular either. There's just way too much of it in general. I'm more shocked when the thread doesn't go that way lately.

 

[sevengables_2207]

random observation in regards to the raiders game...

i did not like the lack of execution and effort on defense after ridley was stuffed on 4th and 1.

it was absolutely disgusting to watch the team bend over and allow the raiders to march down the field for a garbage-time touchdown like that.

it reminded me of the belichick documentary, specifically the part where the defensive allowed garrard to waltz into the endzone after their impromptu rehearsal for dancing with the stars, breaking a shutout, and then we heard belichick really lay into the defense.

i am sure belichick chewed them out for that, and i expect a full 60 minutes of effort henceforth.

 

[Deus Irae]

Disagreeing and backing it up and agreeing to disagree is part of life. Calling somebody a douche or demeaning them isn't even if you think their opinion is stupid. No he shouldn't be banned but there's no call for doing that. I might roll my eyes at the fire BOB posts or the we are the worst drafting team in the league posts but they're still welcome to their opinions. And honestly if he and I were arguing in a bar and he called me a douche I'd crack up laughing but on a forum it just stops any reasonable discourse and we get into a name calling war. It's not Deus in particular either. There's just way too much of it in general. I'm more shocked when the thread doesn't go that way lately.

Why am I being brought into this? All I've done is respond to Smessy's "perspective" comment on something that didn't need perspective because it was just a common sense stat addition to a previous post. I didn't call anyone a douche, and I didn't demean anyone. From what I can read of this part of the thread, the person who used the word is someone I have on ignore.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Some reality regarding......


perspective

 

[shmessy]

Why am I being brought into this? All I've done is respond to Smessy's "perspective" comment on something that didn't need perspective because it was just a common sense stat addition to a previous post. I didn't call anyone a douche, and I didn't demean anyone. From what I can read of this part of the thread, the person who used the word is someone I have on ignore.

Everlong, Deus is correct - - he hasn't been the one namecalling in this thread.

It was PatsfaninPittsburgh who has been namecalling. Perhaps, you confused that. I warned PFiP to stop namecalling and to debate the subject. To his credit, he dropped the namecalling in his subsequent posts.

If you have a point to make, please get it right.

I agree with PFiP's point of view on this subject and strongly disagree with Deus' myopic view on this subject (after just 4 games, 75% of which were on the road and 75% against top-10 offensive teams). No matter - - debate the subject and no internet hero macho contests - - it's a waste of time and merely hijacks a thread.

If Deus' opinions annoy you, just put him on Ignore.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

We should change his name to patsfaninPerspective

 

[shmessy]

We should change his name to patsfaninPerspective

LOL! All posters can change their own name anytime. I'm thinking of changing mine to SouthwestOklahomaStateHallofFame.

 

[condon84]

Yeah, FAILURE means being up THREE TOUCHDOWNS with 5 minutes to go on route to a two touchdown VICTORY.

FAILURE means giving up 268 TOTAL YARDS with 8 minutes to go when the game went well in hand because the defense made two great stops to let the offense ice it

If we want to talk FAILURE, it's time to discuss why we keep hearing the same complete nonsense from the village idiots.

Ian, really?

Our front 7 made some key goal line stops which was my point. Our front did it's job but our secondary wasn't up to par. Henne still threw for over 400 yards. You may want to discount that, but that's a fact and reality. If you can honestly say our secondary was good in that game then we'll agree to disagree.

Also, why complain to Ian when someone has a different point of view?

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree with PFiP's point of view on this subject and strongly disagree with Deus' myopic view on this subject (after just 4 games, 75% of which were on the road and 75% against top-10 offensive teams). No matter - - debate the subject and no internet hero macho contests - - it's a waste of time and merely hijacks a thread.

If Deus' opinions annoy you, just put him on Ignore.

The defense has been bad to this point. Do you disagree?

The secondary has been the team's biggest problem to this point. Do you disagree?

The safety play, outside of Chung, has mostly been terrible. Do you disagree?

Teams doing well against the Patriots would skew their offensive rankings upward through a small sample of 4 games. Do you disagree?

The Patriots have players who, hopefully, can help improve the situation if/when they return, are fully heathy and can mesh with the rest of the defense. Do you disagree?

The Patriots are currently ranked 20th in points allowed (according to Pro-Football-Reference.com). Do you disagree?



The above are all positions I've taken or posts I've made with regards to the current state of the Patriots defense. From what I've read of your posts, you don't disagree with many, if any of the above. Unless I've read your posts wrong, you don't "strongly disagree with Deus' myopic view on this subject". In fact, other than your claims about the Raiders game being great execution of a game plan, I believe you're pretty much in accord with my position.

 

[shmessy]

The defense has been bad to this point. Do you disagree?

The secondary has been the team's biggest problem to this point. Do you disagree?

The safety play has been absolutely terrible. Do you disagree?

Teams doing well against the Patriots would skew their offensive rankings upward through a small sample of 4 games. Do you disagree?

The Patriots have players who, hopefully, can help improve the situation if/when they return, are fully heathy and can mesh with the rest of the defense. Do you disagree?

The Patriots are currently ranked 20th in points allowed (according to Pro-Football-Reference.com). Do you disagree?



The above are all positions I've taken or posts I've made. From what I've read of your posts, you don't disagree with many, if any of the above. Unless I've read your posts wrong, you don't "strongly disagree with Deus' myopic view on this subject". In fact, other than your claims about the Raiders game being great execution of a game plan, I believe you're pretty much in accord with my position.

I disagree strongly with point one. They are 3-1 with the 20th ranked D by points scored. Almost all points scored by teams trying to claw their way back into games while our D is playing contain D.

I disagree strongly with point two - and note the cute way you change the term to "secondary" here but use the term "safeties" in the next point - - so I will address the CB play in point two. The pass rush has been a misnomer, leaving opposing QB's with loads of time. The CB's have been average so far.

I agree with point three. The fault there lies with the personnel management malpractice of Belichick regarding cutting Merriwether and Sanders for nothing.

Regarding point four, I disagree. Other than Miami, who gained the majority of it's yards in the 2nd half while way behind, the other three teams have been top-10 level scorers against other competition. In fact, Oakland scored 18 more points against the vaunted Jets D than against ours.

The last two points I agree. Who wouldn't?

Your first point, however, is such a gross generalization that it overrides any minor particular fishing points you make later on to get someone to say yes somewhere under that umbrella.

Your argument here is like a greasy prosecutor's line of questioning:

- Did you murder the chef?

- Do you go to restaurants?

- Do you like food?

- So you must have murdered the chef!

 

[Deus Irae]

I disagree strongly with point one. They are 3-1 with the 20th ranked D by points scored. Almost all points scored by teams trying to claw their way back into games while our D is playing contain D.

I disagree strongly with point two. The pass rush has been a misnomer, leaving opposing QB's with loads of time. The CB's have been average so far.

I agree with point three. The fault there lies with the personnel management malpractice of Belichick regarding cutting Merriwether and Sanders for nothing.

Regarding point four, I disagree. Other than Miami, who gained the majority of it's yards in the 2nd half while way behind, the other three teams have been top-10 level scorers against other competition. In fact, the Oakland scored 18 more points against the vaunted Jets D than against ours.

The last two points I agree. Who wouldn't.

So you disagree on two statements: Point 2, where McCourty has admitted to his struggles and you agree the safeties besides Chung have sucked, and Point 1, where I'm using objective standards rather than "perspective", given that the overall numbers show the overall struggles of the defense and that Big Vince noted the problems that better teams could have exploited, while you're focusing on much smaller sets of data that are more easily skewed by single plays and using teams trying to come from behind argument as justification for the defense getting smoked.

Well, at least we see where we differ.

 

[shmessy]

So you disagree on two statements: Point 2, McCourty has admitted to his struggles and you agree the safeties besides Chung have sucked, and Point 1, where I'm using objective standards rather than biased "perspective", given that the numbers show the overall struggles of the defense and that Big Vince noted the problems that better teams could have exploited).

Well, at least we see where we differ.

Wrong. I disagree on THREE points. Point number one being the point that is 95% of your argument. Once again - I eat in restaurants and I like food, but that doesn't mean I killed the chef. Your conclusion jumping is legendary here and is why you are the poster most put on IGNORE by the readers here (believe me, I get the complaints and see the stats).

McCourty has been merely average in the first 4 games (which is a big drop off for him compared to last season) and BB screwed up the safety position/depth royally. I have said this all along.

While the D has not been great or even good, it hasn't been "bad". I'd say it has been struggling to solidify under a new scheme and with much new personnel. I expect it to improve as the year goes on. It has played 75% on the road and against some top D's. It has taken away the Darren McFadden and Antonio Gates as points of emphasis as BB historically has startegized regarding opponents' strengths.

As to your overall statement that the entire Pats D has been bad - your "objectivity" is a joke. You jump to conclusions and then go Johnny Cochrane to lawyer the subject.

I've answered every one of your questions above and there is nothing more to say to you on it.

 

[reflexblue]

The reality is you can tell from they're Body Language that they aren't playing well.....yet.

 

[Deus Irae]

Wrong. I disagree on THREE points. Point number one being the point that is 95% of your argument. Once again - I eat in restaurants and I like food, but that doesn't mean I killed the chef. Your conclusion jumping is legendary here and is why you are the poster most put on IGNORE by the readers here (believe me, I get the complaints and see the stats).

McCourty has been merely average in the first 4 games (which is a big drop off for him compared to last season) and BB screwed up the safety position/depth royally. I have said this all along.

While the D has not been great or even good, it hasn't been "bad". I'd say it has been struggling to solidify under a new scheme and with much new personnel. I expect it to improve as the year goes on. It has played 75% on the road and against some top D's. It has taken away the Darren McFadden and Antonio Gates as points of emphasis as BB historically has startegized regarding opponents' strengths.

As to your overall statement that the entire Pats D has been bad - your "objectivity" is a joke. You jump to conclusions and then go Johnny Cochrane to lawyer the subject.

I've answered every one of your questions above and there is nothing more to say to you on it.

Actually, if you disagree with the notion that good games against ANY single opponent will skew results upward when you're dealing with just a four game sample, you're not just disagreeing with me, and are disagreeing with a simple trught of statistics and sample sizes. I assumed you'd just made a mistake there and moved on without commenting upon it.

Using the term "bad" is obviously suggestive and subjective to parsing. I look at a team last in many categories and 20th overall (when it was top 10 last year with a defense that the team pretty clearly felt wasn't good enough), and I see a defense playing bad, particularly in light of its collapse in the Buffalo game. You choose go with "struggling to solidify under a new scheme and with much new personnel". The reality is that we are basically saying the same thing with the exception of your believing that the Raiders game was a plan executed brilliantly versus my believing that nobody was expecting Jason Campbell to play catch with Chung in the endzone while not being under any pressure to make such a throw.

McCourty's admitted to his struggles. He's been less than average, as the numbers have shown, so it's you who's failing to show objectivity.

As for what there is to say to me on this subject, remember that you began this line by going after me for pointing out something as simple, and OBJECTIVE as the red zone numbers + the non red zone numbers have resulted in the team being #20 in points allowed. You were the one calling for "perspective", which in this case was nothing more than your attempt to spin objective data. You were the one cracking out the "Myopic" comment, when I'm using both objective data and the comments of the players, and noting that absent players may make a difference down the road. I was just responding to you.

 

[shmessy]

Actually, if you disagree with the notion that good games against ANY single opponent will skew results upward when you're dealing with just a four game sample, you're not just disagreeing with me, and are disagreeing with a simple trught of statistics and sample sizes. I assumed you'd just made a mistake there and moved on without commenting upon it.

McCourty's admitted to his struggles. He's been less than average, as the numbers have shown, so it's you who's failing to show objectivity.

As for what there is to say to me on this subject, remember that you began this line by going after me for pointing out something as simple, and OBJECTIVE as the red zone numbers + the non red zone numbers have resulted in the team being #20 in points allowed. You were the one calling for "perspective", which in this case was nothing more than your attempt to spin objective data. You were the one cracking out the "Myopic" comment, when I'm using both objective data and the comments of the players, and noting that absent players may make a difference down the road. I was just responding to you.

20th out of 32 is not "bad". It is not bad for a team that has played 75% on the road and against 3 top-10 offenses.

By your measures, the 3-1 Redskins are a top team (nailbiter tight wins over 1-7 Arizona and St Louis.). Perspective is important.

You're using comments to the media by Patriot players for your "insight". Wow! Because we all know how the Pats players are coached to speak their minds to the media! That's classic, Deus - thanks for the entertainment. Give us a link to the last Patriot player who said to the media "I am performing great".

There is a real world outside of your little stat sheet that actually gives those of us with the eyes to see it actual........get ready for it........PERSPECTIVE!

 

[sbpatfan]

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Our front 7 made some key goal line stops which was my point. Our front did it's job but our secondary wasn't up to par. Henne still threw for over 400 yards. You may want to discount that, but that's a fact and reality. If you can honestly say our secondary was good in that game then we'll agree to disagree.

Also, why complain to Ian when someone has a different point of view?

It's not about discounting, there are facts and some call for reality.

Again, it's a question of mind and matter.

I don't mind the 250+ yards surrendered when the game was won because it simply doesn't matter.

You play to win the game. 3 1/2 quarters of very solid defense was critical to winning the game.

My position at the time is correct, STILL. Good defense but sloppy during the prevent mode. That's what it was.

What is extremely tiring is it's week 5, the adults want to discuss football, and we have the same knuckleheads polluting the threads with the same nonsense than hasn't gotten anymore intelligent since week one.

The only positive is Clay Matthews hasn't been discussed for the last few weeks.

 

[shmessy]

The only positive is Clay Matthews hasn't been discussed for the last few weeks.

Way to jump into the lion cage with filet mignon underwear.