Does Belichick have any faith in his own defense?

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Seems like in the infamous 4th and 2 vs. the Colts and Sunday's game Belichick had absolutely no faith in his defense...for the HC to think no way does the defense stop them this drive gives me some worry.

I would think the defense,despite being horrific has to be somewhat insulted,as well all know most NFL players have some sort of ego even if its obvious they couldn't stop a nose bleed,how does a defense get any better when the HC himself thinks there is no chance they can stop the other team in a potential game winning situation?

I guess you could compare the 2 situations as both had games in limbo and gambles, but in the 4th and 2 the Pats were slightly ahead at the time and if they connected on that 4th down they would have won the game,this was a bit different.

Bottom line is I wonder if this will have some sort of effect on getting the defense back on track....I would think Wilfork was saying WTF when they decided to go for a pathetic onsides kick.

Another thing is,if you have no faith in your defense 2 out of the last 3 years why not do something about it?....I hope this time he does in the offseason.

If Belichick has no faith his defense can pull a stop in critical times,how does a fan have faith?

Leave gambling when you to the Mohegan Sun and rebuild this defense from top to bottom and get some faith back when the game is on the line .... we are 0-2 in these situations.

 

[cupofjoe1962]

I am sure he has far more faith in his offense than his defense.

I may be in the minority, but I still support gonig for it on 4th and 2.

I remember the 2006 AFC Championship game.
The defense fell apart in the 2nd half.

We had the ball and just needed a 1st down or two to eat up most of the remaining clock.

Faulk got us a too many men in the huddle penalty and we were 1st and 15
to start.

On 3rd and 5, Troy Brown turned inside and Bob Sanders broke up the
pass. Brady yelled at him going off the field because if he turned outside
he would have had the 1st down..

I remember thinking I wish they would just go for it on 4th and 5, because
I had no faith in the injured and tired defense.

Manning marched down the field (guys were wide open) and scored
the winning touchdown.

Brady had very little time and ended up throwing an interception.... game over.

If they got that 1st down, I think we would have won that superbowl
over Chicago.....

 

[BaltimorePatsFan]

I am sure he has far more faith in his offense than his defense.

I may be in the minority, but I still support gonig for it on 4th and 2.

I remember the 2006 AFC Championship game.
The defense fell apart in the 2nd half.

Wow. Thanks for reminding me of that game. I can still see Vince Wilfork getting pancaked by Jeff Saturday...Ted Washington would've never let that happen.

 

[stcjones]

I think it all starts with the draft and FA choices that he has made since 2004, and the fact that so many were either "washed out" of the system or traded.....they havent been able to establish consistency and reliability among the players. When you look at the defenses with seymour, bruschi, law,Vrabs,Milloy,Phifer,Mcginnest etc....they knew where each other was going to be at ALL times and could DEPEND ON EACH OTHER.For the past several years now it seems like we bring in some FA....or draft a new class.....and then cut a bunch, trade a few others....bring in some new guys.....cut a few more etc and the guys never get a chance to grow as a UNIT together.....I think BB's approach to the defense as far as building and MAINTAINING a good, consistent, well oiled machine....has been pretty flawed the past several years...Anyways, in answer to the question, I don't think he is 100% confident in the current crew on defense because once again we have so many new additions that have little or no experience playing with each other

Seems like in the infamous 4th and 2 vs. the Colts and Sunday's game Belichick had absolutely no faith in his defense...for the HC to think no way does the defense stop them this drive gives me some worry.

I would think the defense,despite being horrific has to be somewhat insulted,as well all know most NFL players have some sort of ego even if its obvious they couldn't stop a nose bleed,how does a defense get any better when the HC himself thinks there is no chance they can stop the other team in a potential game winning situation?

I guess you could compare the 2 situations as both had games in limbo and gambles, but in the 4th and 2 the Pats were slightly ahead at the time and if they connected on that 4th down they would have won the game,this was a bit different.

Bottom line is I wonder if this will have some sort of effect on getting the defense back on track....I would think Wilfork was saying WTF when they decided to go for a pathetic onsides kick.

Another thing is,if you have no faith in your defense 2 out of the last 3 years why not do something about it?....I hope this time he does in the offseason.

If Belichick has no faith his defense can pull a stop in critical times,how does a fan have faith?

Leave gambling when you to the Mohegan Sun and rebuild this defense from top to bottom and get some faith back when the game is on the line .... we are 0-2 in these situations.

 

[Ring 6]

Seems like in the infamous 4th and 2 vs. the Colts and Sunday's game Belichick had absolutely no faith in his defense...for the HC to think no way does the defense stop them this drive gives me some worry.

Well you can make any argument if you misstate the parameters.
It wasn't saying no way the defense stops them, it was the chances of making it and ending the game or stopping them from 30 yards out were better than the chances of stopping them from 70 yards out.

I would think the defense,despite being horrific has to be somewhat insulted,as well all know most NFL players have some sort of ego even if its obvious they couldn't stop a nose bleed,how does a defense get any better when the HC himself thinks there is no chance they can stop the other team in a potential game winning situation?

In such a fantasy world I would question how they would get better simply by having the coach punt.

I guess you could compare the 2 situations as both had games in limbo and gambles, but in the 4th and 2 the Pats were slightly ahead at the time and if they connected on that 4th down they would have won the game,this was a bit different.

Bottom line is I wonder if this will have some sort of effect on getting the defense back on track....I would think Wilfork was saying WTF when they decided to go for a pathetic onsides kick.

The onside kick was clearly the right move. Had he kicked in deep we would have gotten the ball back with 19 seconds left still deep in our own end.
You have to stretch a REALLY long way to say an onside kick with 2 minutes left is an afront to the defense, even if it had played well.

Another thing is,if you have no faith in your defense 2 out of the last 3 years why not do something about it?....I hope this time he does in the offseason.

A) It is your creation that he has no faith in his defense
B) How many players on the 2009 defense are on the 2011 defense? How can you call that doing nothing about it.
Whether what he did was good or bad will be determined but you are just seeking things to complain about if you seriously are pretenidng no changes have happened since 2009

If Belichick has no faith his defense can pull a stop in critical times,how does a fan have faith?

Who cares.

Leave gambling when you to the Mohegan Sun and rebuild this defense from top to bottom and get some faith back when the game is on the line .... we are 0-2 in these situations.

We are 0-2 in the 2 games that you want to isolate where it didnt work. Hell we are 0--5 the last 2 years in games we didnt win. It would make more sense to include the successes than to say 2 failures is 2 for 2 becuase you ignored every other game.

 

[Dutchmaster617]

I think he would look at bigger FAs and possibly not cut vets like Sanders if he didn't. He might possibly have too much faith in whoever he throws out there.

 

[Serafino07]

I agree completely with stcjones. A solid defense is just as dependent on consistency/reliabilty/communication than it is with talent. I also think that the idea of BB trying to be both head coach and D coordinator has to be looked at. I think BB is trying to to do much and needs to learn to delegate. I think we need a dedicated D coordinator to build a system and philosphy which would bring consistency from year to year. Look at Pittsburg and LeBeau. Solid D every year. Yes we are winning but not because of our defense. I dont think the question should be does BB have any faith in his own defense? I think it may be that he has too much faith in it. And that right there could be the problem.

 

[slash83]

Nobody but BB knows if he has any faith in his defense or not, if he doesn't, its his own fault.

 

[Jangles]

Why would he?

I trust Belichick knows enough about football to realize how God awful his defense is. Surely he isn't delusional enough to think they could stop somebody.

 

[Sciz]

Belichick's "faith" is in whatever half of his team gives him the best chance to win statistically.

 

[Deus Irae]

Does Belichick have any faith in his own defense?

His decision(s) on Sunday made it abundantly clear that he had no faith in the defense. Whether that will continue moving forward remains to be seen.

 

[Kjmass1]

You don't think BB knew the odds of recovering an onside kick? If anything he trusted his defense by putting them in on a short field (again, like the Colts game) since statistically that was what was likely going to be the outcome.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Were'nt we all lauding the defense a couple weeks ago for making a big stop and giving the ball back to Brady to win the game?
How about the Jets game? they were making improvements and played like crap this week. We'll see next week what D shows up.
BTW, didnt Ghost audible the onside kick?

 

[Ring 6]

His decision(s) on Sunday made it abundantly clear that he had no faith in the defense. Whether that will continue moving forward remains to be seen.

You have mistakenly 'abundantly' for 'not'

 

[ausbacker]

You have mistakenly 'abundantly' for 'not'

I tend to agree with Deus on this one. BB appears to have considerably more faith in his HOF QB and supposedly high octane offense than the defense (which is fair enough and you have proposed in many many threads you want the ball in Brady's hands have you not?)

 

[Ring 6]

I tend to agree with Deus on this one. BB appears to have considerably more faith in his HOF QB and supposedly high octane offense than the defense (which is fair enough and you have proposed in many many threads you want the ball in Brady's hands have you not?)

That is really not relevant to whether deciding to onside kick down 6 with 2 minutes left indicates a lack of faith in the defense.
I'm not commenting on whether he lacks or does not lack faith in the defense, simply that the decisions on Sunday do nothing to prove or disprove either side.

 

[Deus Irae]

I tend to agree with Deus on this one. BB appears to have considerably more faith in his HOF QB and supposedly high octane offense than the defense (which is fair enough and you have proposed in many many threads you want the ball in Brady's hands have you not?)

I don't know who or exactly what you're responding to while mentioning me, so my post may be a bit off topic, but let me put in this follow up:

The new kickoff spot is the 30. The recovery spot is the 40. In other words, if the kicking team does not recover the onsides kick, the receiving team is either in, or almost in, field goal range already. In this case, it would have been a 54 yard field goal, which is a tough kick in Pittsburgh but, obviously, doesn't even require a first down to put the kicker well in range.

Given that a field goal would have made it a 9 point game, the decision to go for the onsides kick is a concession that the game is basically over at that point if the Steelers recover. The irony of the situation is that it played out EXACTLY that way until the Steelers tried to give the game back to the Patriots by stupidly deciding to pass the ball after getting well within field goal range, and getting the back-to-back sacks.

So, unless Belichick had an agreement with the Steelers that Pittsburgh would be stupid enough to piss away an easy game sealing field goal, there's no way that kicking that onsides kick was a show of faith in a defense that had failed to force a single punt in the entire game to that point. It was just the opposite. BB was willing to put all his eggs in one basket, because the alternative was a lousy one.


edit: I reversed the yardage. The new/old spot is the 35, but the rest still holds.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't know who or exactly what you're responding to while mentioning me, so my post may be a bit off topic, but let me put in this follow up:

Really hard to pretend you ignore my posts isnt it?

The new kickoff spot is the 30. The recovery spot is the 40. In other words, if the kicking team does not recover the onsides kick, the receiving team is either in, or almost in, field goal range already. In this case, it would have been a 54 yard field goal, which is a tough kick in Pittsburgh but, obviously, doesn't even require a first down to put the kicker well in range.

Given that a field goal would have made it a 9 point game, the decision to go for the onsides kick is a concession that the game is basically over at that point if the Steelers recover. The irony of the situation is that it played out EXACTLY that way until the Steelers tried to give the game back to the Patriots by stupidly deciding to pass the ball after getting well within field goal range, and getting the back-to-back sacks.

So, unless Belichick had an agreement with the Steelers that Pittsburgh would be stupid enough to piss away an easy game sealing field goal, there's no way that kicking that onsides kick was a show of faith in a defense that had failed to force a single punt in the entire game to that point. It was just the opposite. BB was willing to put all his eggs in one basket, because the alternative was a lousy one.

As it was, when the Patriots got the ball back there were 19 seconds left. Kicking it deep to show you trust your defense to stop them and get the ball back with 19 seconds left giving up any chance at an onside kick is foolish.
A 54 yard FG would not have even been attempted in that stadium under those circumstances, in fact they would have had to make a 1st down to try a FG. There are 19 seconds left. Yuo don't attempt a very misable FG to give the ball over at the 44 and give the other team a chance.

Of course an onside kick isnt a show of faith in the defense just like it isnt a show of a lack of faith. It was the best chance to win the game given the situation and time remaining.

 

[WhoaDirty]

Wouldn't a FG from the 40 be a 57 yard FG?

I hated the onside kick call. So many things can go right for a team when the opponent has to get 10 yards, which we saw in the Monday night game. Only one thing has to go wrong for your own team to give the opponent the ball on an onside kick.

Edit: Checking the logs, a FG from the 40 would actually be a 58 yard FG, so the Steelers wouldn't automatically be in FG range.

 

[Ring 6]

Wouldn't a FG from the 40 be a 57 yard FG?

I hated the onside kick call. So many things can go right for a team when the opponent has to get 10 yards, which we saw in the Monday night game. Only one thing has to go wrong for your own team to give the opponent the ball on an onside kick.

But we went on defense anyway, so those things that could have gone wrong didn't. There just wasnt enough time left to have a great chance to get off the field and leave enough time to drive for a TD.
Lets say we kick deep. What are the odds of scoring? Not great, even with a 3 and out.
If we onside kick, we have the full 2 plus minutes and the timeouts if we get it, and if not we only have a little bit further to go after getting it back. We ended up at the 20 with 19 seconds left. If we kicked it deep, we would have been where, the 35?