Greg Bedard - Spot-on Analysis in this Morning's Globe

[letekro]

The bolded part is a deliberate attempt to mislead that tries to focus on an untruth (every year... secondary) as if it's a given, when the issues have been with the defense overall, and not always the same area. The coaching staff has been good enough to cover up for the defensive flaws against lesser teams with lesser coaches. Once the playoffs come around, and the coaching advantage is minimized, the talent is exposed. That's been abundantly clear since 2009.

The current secondary sucks. It's got nowhere near enough talent.


I hope that helps.

No it doesn't, because your judgments about "talent" are worthless. What we KNOW is that current performance is poor. We also know there is a history under this regime of poor secondary performance early in the season as well as improvement in the secondary over the course of the season, even with players who much of the fanbase would have said "sucked". My point is that they might suck now, but they have a good chance of not sucking later, which means that something other than talent is at play, and that there is hope for improvement.

 

[Deus Irae]

No it doesn't, because your judgments about "talent" are worthless.

No, actually, they aren't. You may perceive them as such, but that's really just because you're not being very observant on the topic. My judgments about "talent" have history backing them, and they've generally been sound. In addition, it's not just MY judgment. Go take a look at the secondary that the Patriots brought with them this past weekend. Most of them weren't drafted and/or have been cut, often multiple times, meaning what you dismissively call "my " judgments are the judgments of many, including many experts in the applicable field. That being the case, you may choose to believe counter to my judgment, but you'd be foolish to believe that it's one that's worthless.

What we KNOW is that current performance is poor. We also know there is a history under this regime of poor secondary performance early in the season as well as improvement in the secondary over the course of the season, even with players who much of the fanbase would have said "sucked". My point is that they might suck now, but they have a good chance of not sucking later, which means that something other than talent is at play, and that there is hope for improvement.

Please list all the Patriots defenses in BB's tenure that have gone from "one of the worst ever" to an excellent defense, or even a very good defense, in the same season. It certainly didn't happen last year.

 

[Betterthanmost]

Just saw that Haynesworth just had 22 defensive snaps, if he can't play or we can't use him, why are we keeping him?

 

[BlueThunder]

Fat Al still isn't in game shape yet...give him time

 

[condon84]

While it's good to see people like Bedard and Reiss shining the light on the personnel issues, the media is late to the party. They've been carrying the team's water as much as many of the homers here have been doing. Maybe now we can finally have an honest discussion about what's been going on with this team since the end of 2008, instead of all the "But... BB knows everything, and you don't know anything about what's going on there!" nonsense that's just a way to stifle the debate and discussion.

There's been a good amount of posters railing on some of the defensive players BB has picked for the past few years now. And whether we can have an honest discussion or not, there are posters here that will always drown out honest criticism by screaming "trolls, pink hats, and scoreboard" replies.

For instance, there are some posters that refuse to acknowledge that Dowling was considered a risk because of injuries coming out of college. For the life of me, how do they work this out in their heads?

 

[letekro]

No, actually, they aren't. You may perceive them as such, but that's really just because you're not being very observant on the topic. My judgments about "talent" have history backing them, and they've generally been sound. In addition, it's not just MY judgment. Go take a look at the secondary that the Patriots brought with them this past weekend. Most of them weren't drafted and/or have been cut, often multiple times, meaning what you dismissively call "my " judgments are the judgments of many, including many experts in the applicable field. That being the case, you may choose to believe counter to my judgment, but you'd be foolish to believe that it's one that's worthless.



Please list all the Patriots defenses in BB's tenure that have gone from "one of the worst ever" to an excellent defense, or even a very good defense, in the same season. It certainly didn't happen last year.

Fascinating watching you dig your hole ever deeper. OK, so a player who has been cut by another team (or multiple teams) is not talented, is that it? OK, got it. Make sure to tell Wes Welker that. Meriweather also not talented then, right?

I'll take your challenge and I only have to look to last year. Last week after 6 weeks Pats were 25th in points allowed (giving up more points per game than this year's version: "one of the worst ever" defenses, according to you). At the end of the season they were 8th in points allowed. I would call that improvement from a crappy defense to a very good defense over the course of the year, but I'm sure you will object even to that unavoidable conclusion in your own inimitable style.

 

[Sciz]

Just saw that Haynesworth just had 22 defensive snaps, if he can't play or we can't use him, why are we keeping him?

It says a lot about the average PatsFans poster's knowledge of the team when Leigh Bodden is released but Haynesworth and Ochocinco stay.

 

[Deus Irae]

Fascinating watching you dig your hole ever deeper. OK, so a player who has been cut by another team (or multiple teams) is not talented, is that it? OK, got it. Make sure to tell Wes Welker that. Meriweather also not talented then, right?

I don't know what you consider so fascinating, because it's obviously not what people actually write in response to your erroneous posts. Perhaps if you actually took the time to digest what I posted instead of choosing to falsely apply it you'd be better off.

I'll take your challenge and I only have to look to last year. Last week after 6 weeks Pats were 25th in points allowed (giving up more points per game than this year's version: "one of the worst ever" defenses, according to you). At the end of the season they were 8th in points allowed. I would call that improvement from a crappy defense to a very good defense over the course of the year, but I'm sure you will object even to that unavoidable conclusion in your own inimitable style.

Actually, last year is a perfect example of how the defense DID NOT do what you claim, and the fact that you go to points allowed as your argument is amusing, because we destroyed that angle in discussions multiple times last season. You keep living in that fantasy world, though.

 

[letekro]

There's been a good amount of posters railing on some of the defensive players BB has picked for the past few years now. And whether we can have an honest discussion or not, there are posters here that will always drown out honest criticism by screaming "trolls, pink hats, and scoreboard" replies.

For instance, there are some posters that refuse to acknowledge that Dowling was considered a risk because of injuries coming out of college. For the life of me, how do they work this out in their heads?

Dowling was NOT an injury risk. Gronkowski WAS an injury risk. Missing a handful of games over a 4-year college career with minor injuries does not make you an injury risk. Having major back surgery does, however. Funny how we play the result. Gronkowski could hurt his back tomorrow and clowns like yourself will be screaming about how stupid BB was to gamble on such an injury risk.

 

[letekro]

I don't know what you consider so fascinating, because it's obviously not what people actually write in response to your erroneous posts. Perhaps if you actually took the time to digest what I posted instead of choosing to falsely apply it you'd be better off.



Actually, last year is a perfect example of how the defense DID NOT do what you claim, and the fact that you go to points allowed as your argument is amusing, because we destroyed that angle in discussions multiple times last season. You keep living in that fantasy world, though.

OK, I'm done. Can't argue with someone that thinks points don't matter in football. You should definitely alert Bill of your statistical findings--it may usher in a new era in football.

 

[Deus Irae]

OK, I'm done. Can't argue with someone that thinks points don't matter in football. You should definitely alert Bill of your statistical findings--it may usher in a new era in football.

And again you don't actually think about what's posted, choosing instead to be deliberately foolish in your response. We're talking about the TALENT, and you're doing everything you can to avoid the subject you pointed to with your ridiculous notion about the talent level of this secondary:

They are plenty talented...

Yes, go run away. It's a waste of time watching you run away from your own words and trying to flip it around to attacks on my points.

 

[SpiderFox53]

The Patriots have to go on a spending spree this offseason. Pretty simple.

I'd look at:

WR Vincent Jackson
CB Cortland Finnegan
CB Tracey Porter
S Michael Griffin
LB Steven Tulloch
S Jim Leonhard (at the very least to drive the price up on the Jets)

we need a dislike choice.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't know what you consider so fascinating, because it's obviously not what people actually write in response to your erroneous posts. Perhaps if you actually took the time to digest what I posted instead of choosing to falsely apply it you'd be better off.



Actually, last year is a perfect example of how the defense DID NOT do what you claim, and the fact that you go to points allowed as your argument is amusing, because we destroyed that angle in discussions multiple times last season. You keep living in that fantasy world, though.

Points allowed is the best measure of a defense. That is a fact. You continue to make silly arguments then revisit them later as 'we discussed that before'. Someone once discussed and concluded the Earth was flat, and that is as sound a conclusion as the ones you try to dredge up as solved.

 

[jsull87]

He didn't say anything that hasn't been discussed ad nauseum here. Not enough playmakers.

What was interesting though were the comments from Cotchery:

I think some pats fans on here should have a listen to cotchery because what he said is true.

Although we can't close our eyes to where our D is at at the moment

 

[PatsSox363804]

I think some pats fans on here should have a listen to cotchery because what he said is true.

Although we can't close our eyes to where our D is at at the moment

We may very well be an 8 or 9 win team without Belichick given the talent (although I think Brady could most likely get us to 10 or 11) but the problem is that Belichick brought in the sub par talent. There really isn't anything that can be done about it unless we bring in a whole new staff so we just have to hope that Belichick starts making better personnel decisions.

 

[RDS11]

Points allowed is the best measure of a defense. That is a fact. You continue to make silly arguments then revisit them later as 'we discussed that before'. Someone once discussed and concluded the Earth was flat, and that is as sound a conclusion as the ones you try to dredge up as solved.

Points are a volume stats, and like any other volume stats they are misleading.
Obviously, a team needs to score more points than the opponents to win a game but that is a ''fact'' that is only applicable on a game by game basis, not good as a measure of comparison over an entire season. Yesterday game is an example that shows that looking only at the number of point given is misleading : the Steelers scored only 23 points on offense, but they only punted once, and that happened 59 minutes into the game. They took control of the game with a short passing attack, they didn't need to go for the quick score...they took 40 minutes of ball control, not giving the Pats offense any chance to get on track. The Steelers converted 10 of 16 3rd downs, a couple of 7+ yards (and one of 15 yards). This is abysmal.

The Steelers game plan yesterday wasn't to go for a shootout against the Pats, but to limit the number of time the Pats offense would get the ball. They decided to use the pass, and their game plan is obvious just by looking at Roethlisberger yard per pass attempt (YPA) stat :7.3. This is well below his season avg of 8.1. Since the Pats have the 2nd worse defensive YPA right now, behind only the Colts, it then become obvious that it was done on purpose, not because the Pats pass defense somewhat ''limited'' Roethlisberger, but because it was the Steelers game plan to control the ball with short passes. I couldn't care less that the Steelers only scored 25 points, which looks better on the score sheet than the 62 points the Colts give away a couple of weeks ago, because I never felt the Pats had a real chance to win after the 1st quarter either.

The Pats are near the bottom of the league in every efficiency defensive statistics : 3rd down conversion, yards per play (32th), yards per pass play (31st), defensive passer rating (27th), sack per pass attempt (25th).
That might be good enough to beat teams that are mistake-prone, but not a more efficient team like the Steelers were yesterday, or the Packers are at this time.

I believe the problem is roster-related at this time, but I'm also beginning to be questioning the bend-but-don't-break philosophy. The passing game is more efficient than ever, which means less mistake are done (the league avg passer rating was 80.1 in 2004, our last Super Bowl, it is now at 84.5) so before the opponent commits the drive-killing mistake, it takes a few more play each drive...thus better field position and more scoring opportunities.

 

[DonBlackmon55]

Points allowed is the best measure of a defense. That is a fact. You continue to make silly arguments then revisit them later as 'we discussed that before'. Someone once discussed and concluded the Earth was flat, and that is as sound a conclusion as the ones you try to dredge up as solved.

Fail. When a D cannot stop the opposing Offense, and the opposing offense uses that to control the clock, the Points allowed stats are meaningless.

Every team will gameplan this way vs pats. Even if they score, or for that matter do not score, eating up the clock shortens the game and posessions vs. Brady.

Steelers had a brilliant plan and while could have played a trackmeet game, effectively slowly put the dagger into the Pats by "preventing" Pats offense from having possession or rhythm.

 

[Ring 6]

Points are a volume stats, and like any other volume stats they are misleading.
Obviously, a team needs to score more points than the opponents to win a game but that is a ''fact'' that is only applicable on a game by game basis, not good as a measure of comparison over an entire season. Yesterday game is an example that shows that looking only at the number of point given is misleading : the Steelers scored only 23 points on offense, but they only punted once, and that happened 59 minutes into the game. They took control of the game with a short passing attack, they didn't need to go for the quick score...they took 40 minutes of ball control, not giving the Pats offense any chance to get on track. The Steelers converted 10 of 16 3rd downs, a couple of 7+ yards (and one of 15 yards). This is abysmal.

The Steelers game plan yesterday wasn't to go for a shootout against the Pats, but to limit the number of time the Pats offense would get the ball. They decided to use the pass, and their game plan is obvious just by looking at Roethlisberger yard per pass attempt (YPA) stat :7.3. This is well below his season avg of 8.1. Since the Pats have the 2nd worse defensive YPA right now, behind only the Colts, it then become obvious that it was done on purpose, not because the Pats pass defense somewhat ''limited'' Roethlisberger, but because it was the Steelers game plan to control the ball with short passes. I couldn't care less that the Steelers only scored 25 points, which looks better on the score sheet than the 62 points the Colts give away a couple of weeks ago, because I never felt the Pats had a real chance to win after the 1st quarter either.

The Pats are near the bottom of the league in every efficiency defensive statistics : 3rd down conversion, yards per play (32th), yards per pass play (31st), defensive passer rating (27th), sack per pass attempt (25th).
That might be good enough to beat teams that are mistake-prone, but not a more efficient team like the Steelers were yesterday, or the Packers are at this time.

I believe the problem is roster-related at this time, but I'm also beginning to be questioning the bend-but-don't-break philosophy. The passing game is more efficient than ever, which means less mistake are done (the league avg passer rating was 80.1 in 2004, our last Super Bowl, it is now at 84.5) so before the opponent commits the drive-killing mistake, it takes a few more play each drive...thus better field position and more scoring opportunities.

None of which refutes that the most important statistic to judge a defense by is points allowed.
Let me put it another way. You can argue statistics and situaitons and individual players to describe how good you think a particular defense is, or will perform. But the points a defense allow answers the question for games that have been completed.
The point of defense is to not allow points.
Using statistics is a means of arguing which factors you believe contribute to the success of a defense. When the results are in the argument is over.

To make an analogy, it is very easy to argue about what statistics and circumstances (bye, HFA) make the best playoff team. Record, bye, HFA are very good arguments of who will have the best post-season success. Last year GB had none of those and won the SB. They were the best team even though the metrics people would use to determine that before there is a result would say otherwise. Before the playoffs started the 'stats' didn't say GB had the best team. Once the results were in, the stats that included anything other than who won the SB were irrelevant.

 

[Ring 6]

Fail. When a D cannot stop the opposing Offense, and the opposing offense uses that to control the clock, the Points allowed stats are meaningless.

When a defense can't stop the opposing offense, the defense will allow more points than one that can.

Every team will gameplan this way vs pats. Even if they score, or for that matter do not score, eating up the clock shortens the game and posessions vs. Brady.

Eating up clock and not scoring is not favorable. Think about how foolish that comment is. I am going to take time off the clock and possessions away from both teams, but put no points on the board, and somehow that will help me win? Ridiculous.

Steelers had a brilliant plan and while could have played a trackmeet game, effectively slowly put the dagger into the Pats by "preventing" Pats offense from having possession or rhythm.

Hardly brilliant to have a game plan that was self described as 'taking what they are given'. Had the Gronk TD been called properly there is every likelihood the Pats get the ball back down 6 with over 2 minutes left in good field position.
There is no advantage in reducing the number of possessions for both teams unless you score points while you do it.

 

[Ring 6]

We may very well be an 8 or 9 win team without Belichick given the talent (although I think Brady could most likely get us to 10 or 11) but the problem is that Belichick brought in the sub par talent. There really isn't anything that can be done about it unless we bring in a whole new staff so we just have to hope that Belichick starts making better personnel decisions.

"The personell" is 19 and 5 the last 2 years.
"The personell" was the dominant team of the franchise.
"The personell" has allowed the 5th fewest points in the NFL from the last SB trip to today, and is within 19 points in 55 games of 3rd fewest.
"The personell" has won more games and had the largest point differential in the same time period, 2008 without Brady through today.

Are there weaknesses on this team? Of course there are. Are they reason to be concerned? Sure. But there are as many or more on every other team in the NFL.

Its disgusting how people on this board identify an issue this team has, like all teams do, and turn it into an 'embarrrassment', reason for one of the 5 most successful coaches in NFL history to be fired, or question 'the personell' as if we are talking about the Cleveland Browns.