The Current #1 seed in both conferences are the two "worst" defenses in the NFL

[Rob0729]

People are so hung up on the defensive yardage stats, but the funny thing is that the two worst teams in the NFL in terms of yards allowed are the #1 seed in each of their conference. The Pats are only giving up 14.3 more yards a game than the Packers. In fact, 4 of the 6 worst teams in terms of yards allowed are either strong first round bye contenders (Packers, Pats, and Saints) or legitimate division contenders (Giants).

 

[xmarkd400x]

People are hung up on yardage because the networks talk about it all the time.

Don't buy into their echo chamber. It's like asking why people care about the Kardashians. People care about them because cameras follow them around all day, and cameras follow them around all day because people care about them. ie, they are famous for being famous.

It's become difficult to be a part of the community here. Lots of future-worry, as another poster put it. I just enjoy game to game. I don't get my stomach in a knot fretting about whether or not the Pats will win it all.

Or, as somebody quite famous around here likes to put it, take it week to week =)

 

[andrewgarrr]

Says a lot about the YPG stat.

 

[PatriotFan77]

Doesn't make for great internet banter though huh? It's much more fun to just post "Defense sucks" "BB sucks" "BOB sucks" "McCourty sucks" "one and done" every week.

 

[randomk1]

Also what is likely one of the softest schedules.

 

[BradyManny]

I agree YPG is borderline meaningless. Heck, it is meaningless. Teams with great offenses are going to give up more yardage on defense as they'll play with leads much more often.

PPG, naturally, is a much, much more effective statistic.

But PPG is also moderately misleading. I say that b/c I think yielding long drives is poor complimentary football - and deprives your offense of possessions, which means points. Consider that basically this offense averages a point per minute, so every minute the D is on the field, we effectively lose an offensive point.

There is no one defense stat that can truly encapsulate how a defense is performing. Cold Hard Football Facts points to opposing QB rating, and I would tend to agree in this day and age in the NFL. Just looking at it ranked shows a much more realistic defensive ranking than YPG:

NFL Stats: by Team Category

 

[Ring 6]

I agree YPG is borerline meaningless.

PPG, naturally, is a much, much more effective statistic.

But PPG is also moderately misleading. I say that b/c I think yielding long drives is poor complimentary football - and deprives your offense of possessions, which means points. Consider that basically this offense averages a point per minute, so every minute the D is on the field, we effectively lose an offensive point.

There is no one defense stat that can truly encapsulate how a defense is performing. Cold Hard Football Facts points to opposing QB rating, and I would tend to agree in this day and age in the NFL. Just looking at it ranked shows a much more realistic defensive ranking than YPG:

NFL Stats: by Team Category

None is a perfect yardstick. Obviously the defense would prefer to allow less yards and would be a better defense if it did so. They were trying to not allow yards to the Colts, but in the context of having a big lead they prioritized the scheme in a way that it made it harder for them to shut down the Colts. What I mean here is if you play vanilla defense (whether its man or zone) you greatly reduce the risk of a big play, but you leave yuor underneath coverage in a more difficult matchup, covering a larger zone, and needing to cover longer because there is no blitz to hurry the QB. In the end, the result is the D 'looks bad' because you put them in a postion where they are a disadvantage defending what the offense that has already accepted defeat and will take as long as needed to drive down the field, will do.
If they were better players, they would do great in that scenario too, but the fact is winning or losing will never come down to how well you play when a game is out of hand.

Points allowed are the best yardstick (other than actual wins and losses) because that is what determines winning and losing. Is it perfect? No, but anyone with a brain would choose to have their defense be better in points allowed than in any other statistic.

 

[DarrylS]

NOLA is something like 27th in defense.. so all three are very close.

 

[Kontradiction]

Their offenses are also #2 and #4 in the NFL.

 

[Raymond]

The NfL is always comprised of a bunch of haves and have not teams.

But many of the haves seemed to have morphed into the 2003 Indy Colts.

 

[strngplyr]

I think all three teams would play defense a bit differently if their offenses weren't so explosive.

The Pats, recently, have not allowed many points at all before building a sizeable lead. The Eagles jumped out quick, and then were shut down until the end of the game, the Chiefs (although led by Tyler Palko) did not do anything. The Colts scored 3 points and had under 200 yards of offense until the final quarter.

While all three teams obviously have their big money and stars play offense, they simply don't need to shut opponents down. Too often I feel like everyone on this board wants our offense to play like they do while at the same time they want the defense to mimick Pit, BAL, or SF. Simply won't happen.

We play with a lead 90% of the time. Usually a big lead. Teams will pass on us, and they will pass a lot. NO, GB, and NE have defenses that try not to allow a big play while giving up short yardage and becoming much more stout in the redzone. I don't know the statistics, but I do believe we are one of the better redzone defenses in the league.

The unfortunate thing is that our tackling simply sucks a lot of the time, we don't allow a ton of deep completions, but instead allow the short plays, that we intentionally force the opponent into making, to turn into big plays.

I won't argue that our defense is good, or great, but generally they do what they are supposed to. How many times have we force opponents to kick FG's inside of the 20? I can also think of at least 3 separate goal line stands from the 1 and only allowing a total of 3 points (MIA, SD, IND).

 

[BradyManny]

Points allowed are the best yardstick (other than actual wins and losses) because that is what determines winning and losing. Is it perfect? No, but anyone with a brain would choose to have their defense be better in points allowed than in any other statistic.

But to blindly look at that stat does not tell the whole story either.

Consider - the Patriots, 13th in the league at 20.6 PPG. Then consider the Packers, 17th in the league at 21.8 PPG.

Then consider that the Patriots are 22nd in the league with an opposing QB rating of 86.6. Whereas the Packers are 10th in the league with an opposing QB rating of 80.0.

Looking at PPG, one might rather have the Patriots defense. But I think, realistically, you'd rather have the Packers defense, which has caused 6 more interceptions, and made more plays, leading to a better opposing QB rating.

Also, consider that despite having very comparable offenses in terms of production, the Packers are 8th in the league in TOP, whereas the Patriots come in at 27th. This can be attributed largely to the Patriots style of defense. They are in the field more. I'd love to see the correlation to offensive possessions, but can't find that stat online.

So, again, PPG is a great measurement. But other factors need to be considered.

Not to derail this thread - I will again reiterate I think Rob's fundamental point is on point. The number of yards this defense yields is the source of far too much debate.

Red zone play, play on 3rd down, and ability to turn the ball over will determine this defense's fate in the postseason.

 

[Metaphors]

There really is no ideal way of measuring the effectiveness of a defense because for many teams (the Pats included) the plans and goals aren't black-n-white.

The Jets and Ravens try to dominate every single snap regardless of context. While that sounds great, it leaves you exposed if the offense has an early answer...since it is unlikely you can make significant adjustments later in the game.

The Packers and Saints are a little different. They depend on turnovers and struggle when the opposition takes care of the ball. The Texans and Steelers depend on negative plays (sacks, TFL) to get into favorable 3rd down situations and struggle against efficient offenses that can keep on schedule.

The Pats don't have such a clear identity for their defense. While that frustrates people, it does have its advantages. By not trying to win the game in the first quarter, they let the game play out and rely on their adjustments being superior to the opponents.

It clearly doesn't work all the time. In the "game that shan't be named", the opening soul-crushing 10 minute FG drive they gave up redefined the game from shootout to trench warfare. But if the offense is reasonable efficient and avoids turnovers, this defensive philosophy give the Pats best chance to win the widest variety of games that they may encounter.

As for this particular Pats defense, I don't think you can draw any conclusions until the entire squad is available and healthy. That may not happen until the playoffs. Until then, any evaluation involves speculation and projection.

In every win, the Pats defense played solid in the context of the game. In the loss to the Bills, the defense was betrayed by turnovers. In the Giants game, the defense was outstanding until the late PI penalties. The Steelers game was a different animal since that game was won/loss before kickoff. The Steelers altered their offensive philosophy completely for the game and it caught the Pats flatfooted.

The path to the Super Bowl in the AFC goes through cold weather sites. I just don't think any teams in the AFC are better equipped to deal with the wind, wet and cold than the Pats.

 

[PatsFan24]

Bend but don't break.

It's cool.

 

[Ring 6]

But to blindly look at that stat does not tell the whole story either.

Then don't blindly look at it.

Consider - the Patriots, 13th in the league at 20.6 PPG. Then consider the Packers, 17th in the league at 21.8 PPG.

Then consider that the Patriots are 22nd in the league with an opposing QB rating of 86.6. Whereas the Packers are 10th in the league with an opposing QB rating of 80.0.

Looking at PPG, one might rather have the Patriots defense. But I think, realistically, you'd rather have the Packers defense, which has caused 6 more interceptions, and made more plays, leading to a better opposing QB rating.

This is where you don't make sense. You would rather have a defense that allows more points because some made up formula is better?
That makes no sense. Every team has a QB rating against, and it uses, overcomes or deals with that to end up with points allowed.
You can't say allowing more points is better because of the way you allowed them. Its as if you are saying you know what leads to points, so your formula means more than the actual result.

Also, consider that despite having very comparable offenses in terms of production, the Packers are 8th in the league in TOP, whereas the Patriots come in at 27th. This can be attributed largely to the Patriots style of defense. They are in the field more. I'd love to see the correlation to offensive possessions, but can't find that stat online.

Why would you take a 2 sided statistic and attribute it to only one side? Because you are trying to force a conclusion.

So, again, PPG is a great measurement. But other factors need to be considered.

How is that different than what I said? Where you are different is you seem to want to credit style points more than results.

Not to derail this thread - I will again reiterate I think Rob's fundamental point is on point. The number of yards this defense yields is the source of far too much debate.

Red zone play, play on 3rd down, and ability to turn the ball over will determine this defense's fate in the postseason.

The result matters. The means are only valuable in predicting a result, and therefore become valueless when you have a result.

 

[Mike in 333]

I've leaned to live with the yardage we give up. Our red zone D is very good and we win, 'nuf said. What gets me nervous is when we allow an opponent to have have long, time consuming drives that keep our offense off the field. This team relies on us getting a bunch of points and notably in the Pittsburgh and Giants games we just couldn't get Tommy and the gang enough chances to score. Going into the playoffs this problem is going to magnified.

 

[slash83]

Including yesterdays 4th quarter let up, the Pats defense the last 4 games is only allowing 15.7 points per game.

 

[Mack Herron]

I've leaned to live with the yardage we give up. Our red zone D is very good and we win, 'nuf said.

Against likely playoff teams, not so much. Just like last year, we are feasting on the mediocrity.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

Great thread, seriously I'm really liking our D and I'll like it even more when the injured come back. They may not be perfect but I think they can be good enough

PITTS will be tough though, like someone said we can't allow those long drives that keep Brady off the field. The D can make plays though, I think they've improved a lot and these stats seem to agree

 

[Ron Sellers]

I think if one wanted to come up with a 'Defense Rating' similar to how the NFL has a Quarterback rating, it could be done by incorporating three aspects: Points Allowed, Turnovers, and Red Zone Defense. Not perfect, but it would be far superior to the current ranking of defenses based on Yards Allowed. If I had to pick one stat that is currently available, I would go with Points Allowed. Again, it's not perfect but it is better than any other current stat in my opinion.