idle thoughts....delayed

[AzPatsFan]

Couldn't agree more. With Light and Mankins suddenly out and other guys filling in on the fly, the pass protections had to be messed up and a good chunk of the game plan possibly thrown out at the same time. I don't know if Brady's accuracy problem was somehow related to all that, but as frustrating as it was to witness, I think the booing was misplaced. The second-half comeback with the same people definitely was astounding and was the story of the game.

Also lost in everything was Gostkowski's touchdown-saving tackle on the kickoff return. That might've saved our skins.

Gostkowski is 6-1 and 215. As such he is not a typical pencil-necked geek, what you mihgt expect of a Kicker. People forget that Adam Vinatierri several times in his career here also made Touchdown saving tackles. I recall Carroll once saying of his kick coverage special team that it was no longer 10 on 11 as so many other NFL teams were.

At Punter, I can remember a punt coverage or two from Mesko our Punter, who is much bigger at 6-5 220, but also an athlete.

 

[Uncle Rico]

Gostkowski is 6-1 and 215. As such he is not a typical pencil-necked geek, what you mihgt expect of a Kicker. People forget that Adam Vinatierri several times in his career here also made Touchdown saving tackles. I recall Carroll once saying of his kick coverage special team that it was no longer 10 on 11 as so many other NFL teams were.

At Punter, I can remember a punt coverage or two from Mesko our Punter, who is much bigger at 6-5 220, but also an athlete.

Some of us remember ...

adam vinatieri runs down herschel walker - YouTube

 

[letekro]

Some of us remember ...

adam vinatieri runs down herschel walker - YouTube

Vinatieri was a tremendous athlete in his prime. I think it was in a Football Life where Belichick referred to him as "the best player" on the 2001 team.

 

[lamafist]

Sorry, Lama, but that is a "lama" excuse (ouch bad pun) You don't have to be under center to create a run threat. The Pats have a very good running game from the shot gun. All they had to do is have the threat of the running back standing beside Brady and run playaction from there, if they don't want him to turn his back.

Plus if you think you have a distinct advantage due to a formation, why to you throw the ball to the WR that is most likely to be heavily covered in the short area. Why was it the first read. Why was it thrown immediately, without a second look. Plenty of blame to go around here for BOB and Brady. Remember you are down by 10, you aren't stopping them on defense and you DESPERATELY need a first down. Not only to get points but to give your defense time to get their collective asses on the same page. Instead they throw a simple pass into coverage, and end up being down 17.

Listen, I think overall we have as good a coaching staff/QB in the league, but everyone f**ks up now and again, and this was one of them.

Everything that didn't work seems like a bad decision in retrospect. Because we know that the result was an incomplete, it's easy to say, oh, well, they should have had a in the backfield, duh. Take away the privileged information afforded by hindsight, and you're left quibbling over a minor strategic wrinkle with a fraction of the information the people making the decision -- viz. Brady, BOB -- had.

Running play-action, even from shotgun, makes for a slower-developing play, which means the o-line has to hold out that much longer against the Dolphins' rush. What's more, the protection schemes are changed up because, at the snap, they have to sell the run play. This was the point in the game where keeping it as simple as possible was the #1 priority.

If you're going to stay in the shotgun/no-huddle, you either have a RB next to Brady to pass protect, or you split him out wide to draw coverage. Since you only need one yard, there's less added value to having your RB in pass protection -- you don't want your QB holding the ball that long, as a longer pass just adds to the degree of dificulty. Instead, you split him out wide, have five receivers on the line of scrimmage requiring coverage, thus getting you single coverage on the outsides with Welker. Brady throwing a snap hitch to Welker? That's a completion for a yard+ the lion's share of the time.

Adding any other wrinkle means more complication for the o-line in addition to Brady holding the ball longer. With a 1/2 yard to go, if you're not going to do a bang-bang pass like that, than you might as well huddle up, get a bigger personnel package in there, and just run it. You could definitely make a good case for that being the optimal call in that situation. Probably was, but even if so, not by so much that it warrants making pronouncements about how ridiculous the call was, given the distinct disadvantage in information availability we're at as fans.

 

[JR4]

.....

9, Disclaimer: I coached HS football for 15 years. I was a DC or HC for most of those years. I know (or more accurately KNEW) a lot of football, but at my best knew about 10% of what the guys coaching at the NFL level know. Also the tools they have to help them coach these days are light years away from the volunteer filmed super 8 and 16MM film taken back in my day.

That being said, I cannot understand why, each week, I keep seeing DOZENS of examples, of NFL caliber DBs and LBs covering receivers with their backs to the ball, never turning their heads. Coaching HS kids who could barely chew gum and walk, I had fewer examples of that BASIC error of pass coverage. I just CAN'T understand why that can't be coached better. Not just with the Pats, but across the entire league. Next to the poor unsafe tackling that I see, its my BIGGEST pet peeve.

........n

Yes my brother and I talk about this often. They may be coached that way. People tend to blame the CB but they may just be following
the coaching. Can you defend a pass without looking back to find the ball?
Then there is the question, when should a CB turn and look? Can a CB
consistently read the receiver to know when to look back?

 

[Boston Boxer]

dude, please ask Ian if you can just do a weekly "idle thoughts" on the main page. This is not a post, it is a college thesis

 

[patfanken]

Yes my brother and I talk about this often. They may be coached that way. People tend to blame the CB but they may just be following
the coaching. Can you defend a pass without looking back to find the ball?
Then there is the question, when should a CB turn and look? Can a CB
consistently read the receiver to know when to look back?

All lI know is that in a great MAJORITY of the cases where you see a defender trying to break up a pass running with his back to the QB end in either completions or penalties. The only ones that don't are caused by the ball being overthrown. Its only in relatively rare occassions that the ball hits the defender's back and is broken up.

The fact is that if you don't turn your head, the odds of effectively defending that pass goes down precipitously. I HS we would have defenders rushing the passer yell "BALL" when it was thrown to alert DBs that the ball was in the air, and it was time to find it. It was SOP and I'm sure teams do it today. The receiver as well have "tells" al.lerts the DB that the ball is coming. That's why they watch all that film.

BOTTOM LINE: I know it happens, but it never should happen as often as it seems to.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

All lI know is that in a great MAJORITY of the cases where you see a defender trying to break up a pass running with his back to the QB end in either completions or penalties. The only ones that don't are caused by the ball being overthrown. Its only in relatively rare occassions that the ball hits the defender's back and is broken up.

The fact is that if you don't turn your head, the odds of effectively defending that pass goes down precipitously. I HS we would have defenders rushing the passer yell "BALL" when it was thrown to alert DBs that the ball was in the air, and it was time to find it. It was SOP and I'm sure teams do it today. The receiver as well have "tells" al.lerts the DB that the ball is coming. That's why they watch all that film.

BOTTOM LINE: I know it happens, but it never should happen as often as it seems to.

Ken,

Great write-up. Thanks for typing it again!

questions on our CB technique: if this technique (not looking back) is coached - and insisted? - by the Pats, shouldn't Arrington also exhibit similar tendencies? How is it that the opponents consistently managed to achieve that success only against McCourty?

 

[Dragda]

Interesting, I didn't know that was an intended technique. Wonder what the success ratio is using it or does it draw more or less flags? looks ugly and desperate enough.

Here's a name for it "Whiplash coverage"

That's how you coach man coverage--at least in part. Zone coverage you face the QB. and watch the ball. Man coverage, your back is to the QB.

 

[patfanken]

That's how you coach man coverage--at least in part. Zone coverage you face the QB. and watch the ball. Man coverage, your back is to the QB.

Not exactly, Dragda. The key to man coverage technique is being physical with the receiver on the LOS. This occurs in 2 ways.

1. Lining up right on the LOS and using your hands to either force the receiver to make his first move in the opposite direction he desires (rerouting) and THEN playing him inside out, running with him from the the underneath position.

2. Lining up looking like a zone and then as the receiver starts his route, the defender jumps him within the 5 yards., tries to knock him off his route and then runs with the receiver from the underneath position.

In most cases the defender will have a S who will have no direct man responsibility and usually is asked to stay deeper than the deepest man and help with coverage over the top. Guys like Ed Reed have the uncanny ability to read patterns and correctly jump routes on their own. Our current S's not only can't do that, they aren't fast enough to gain the width to cover over the top either, so the CBs are pretty much left on their own and when a pass is perfectly thrown over the top, the defender has no chance to defend the pass from the underneath positions. If the pass is less than perfect it will be over thrown, or the defender will have a chance for a pick if its even slightly under thrown.

 

[PatriotSeven]

3. Over the past two games the Pats have had runs of 34-7 and 27-0. Fantastic offensive output, but you can't have runs like this if the defense isn't doing their job. Just thought I'd point that out.


Now I'm not saying the Pats are better than the Packer, but I no longer “fear” them. I feel a LOT better about beating them in the super bowl than I did when we played the Rams. I worry more about the Ravens and Steelers in fact. The Packers have had a lot of hype this year, and Rogers IS having a historic year as a QB. But what I don't understand is why is that defense so bad. I UNDERSTAND the Patriots problems. Its tough to defend when you are starting career special teemers at S most of the season, and have lost your 2 best Safeties, 2 CBs, 3 DLmen, and your top rush LB for most of the year, among other injuries. But what's the Packers excuse. They have all pros all over that defense, plus got their best ILB back for that game, and it doesn't seem to help a bit.

...your turn

Ok. I'll take my shot at this part. You answered your own question beforehand. The truth is, neither Green Bay nor the New England Patriots have bad defenses. What they have is a low ranking in opponents yards allowed per game. The issue isn't with the defense of these teams, but with the measurements most people are stuck on when it comes to grading defenses:

1. total yards per game. A most terrible measurement.
2. a ranking number. Not the actual value of the rank. Most people compare ranks not the actual value.

Is the difference between allowing 330 and 355 yards per game that significant? An extra 25 yards? If you said no, then keep in mind that's the difference between a #10 and a #20 defense. If you said yes keep reading.

It really depends on where they happen, right? Do they lead to first downs, a touchdown or are they "good yards" and "a waste" for their opponents offense because those defenses allowed a few yards on first and 2nd down but got the stop on third?

Not only are vacuum stats bad measurements of rating anything in football, but most people are more concerned with one of the least important. There's never been a a time, year or era since the game of football was invented when points were less important than yards. Nobody cares about how many yards-or meters-a soccer player racks up running up and down the field. Nobody cares how many dribbles a basketball player makes or how many up and down runs on the court one makes. How many miles of travel does a hockey player make around a ring? Who's #1 in history? Anybody know? Nobody? People are much to focused on the wrong measurements when it comes to football.

What to keep in mind:

Yards= effort. work.
Points = reward. results.

You know the old saying work smart not hard? It's the same in football. But it is a little bit more complex than that, of course.

1. Almost all of these yards measurements are offensive measurements. They are all correctly defined as "opponent's [insert yards measurement] allowed". People miss-use them constantly. We need better ways of measuring defenses.

2. Efficient passing teams can easily have longer games. They score faster, and incompletions stop the clock.(more yards get racked up on both ends).

3. The number of drives in a football game is not always consistent. A defense that allows 400 yards per game might actually allow less yards per drive than a defense that allows 350 ypg if they average more drives. For example:

yards allowed per game:
11th San Diego 335.1
18th Chicago 353.7

yards allowed per drive:
8th Chicago 26.88
21 San Diego 31.69

So which one is it Mr. Yard Stat? Does San Diego's defense rock or suck? Is Chicago top 10 or 18th?

In addition, the difference in yards allowed per drive between the #1 defense and the #32 defense is 14 yards. NE's bottom of the league in both, so at least for NE, Mr. Yard Stat appears to have its mind made up. So basically an extra first down. That's really what NE gives up on average. But...

-If Pat's offense and special teams is always scoring and forcing opponents to take a knee in the end-zone after a kick-off,does that mean the Patriots defense is bad because they will on average allow more yards?
-If a team has a bad special teams unit that always gives up yards(this by default leads to their "total defense" allowing fewer yards), does that mean that team's defense is better?

Could this be the case? Let's find out.

NE's opponent average starting field position(NE's defending starting field position):
#2 24.40 yard line.

So yards per game allowed, and Mike Ditka on ESPN, says the Patriots have a bad defense, because their special teams defense pins opponents back so it forces opponents to travel longer to score a touchdown. But isn't this also what gives a defense a good chance to get a stop, thus keeping points allowed low? Good one.

The difference between one NFL defense and another, especially as far as yards go, is almost a statistical wash when you take into consideration: style of offense, time of possession, number of drives, play calling, playing with or without a lead, turnovers, etc. In combination these factors and others have a much GREATER effect on a defense's ranking in yards allowed, compared to their OWN ability to stop teams from getting yards. In other words, unless you have a defense that truly stops everybody from moving, a team's defense in today's NFL has very little control over where they rank in yards allowed per game. That measurement is affected just as much by all other areas of their own team and flow of the game as it is by their own ability to stop an opponent.

In fact, one of the best measurements in football(I'd say the 2nd most important stat in football), yards per point, which has one of the best correlations to winning(the #1 stat) says that for an offense to be efficient you need the FEWEST yards and MOST points. For a defense, it's the complete opposite. Allowing the MOST yards and FEWEST points. Either that or 0 yards or 0 points, which is pretty much impossible, at least when it comes to yards(that would more readily indicate you are playing against a terrible NFL offense, not that you have an amazing defense). In which case, both NE and GB qualify as one of the most efficient defenses in the game.

yards:
1 Pittsburgh 273.9
4 San Francisco 308.1
31 Green Bay 400.7
32 New England 412.1

points:
1 San Francisco 13.5
2 Pittsburgh 14.5
12 Green Bay 21.2
14 New England 21.4

opponents yards per point allowed:
1 San Francisco 22.9
2 New England 19.3
3 Green Bay 18.9
4 Pittsburgh 18.8


Huh, interesting. So basically NE and GB are every bit as good as Pittsburg and San Fran in making their opponents bust their ass to get a FG or TD against them, just accomplishing it in different ways.

And winning and losing records?
1 Green Bay
2 New England
3 San Francisco
4(tied) New Orleans
5(tied)Pittsburg

Now keep in mind even yards per point, is also mainly an offensive measurement not a defensive measurement heavily impacted by the other side of your team by way of turnovers and field position. The above yards per point measurement is combined opponent's yards per point allowed. So a better way to say it would be not that NE's defense is one of the most efficient defenses in the league, but rather: whatever it is they are doing, they have forced their opponents offenses to play most inefficiently against them when it comes to scoring. NE makes opponents work really hard to score a point. It also means their opponents have inefficient offenses.

So looking at offensive yards per point:
1 Green Bay 11.5
4 San Francisco 13.4
6 New England 13.7
26 Pittsburgh 17.9

What does this mean? What it means is Pittsburg is busting ass for their offense and helping to make up for Ben's interceptions, stalls and 3 and outs. NE's defense has been helping it's offense out lately, but they are both playing very efficiently and therefore GB, NE and San Francisco have some of the best defenses and offenses in the league. Go figure!

For NE it makes sense considering what happened in Miami. Offense was very ineffective in the first half, raking up yards and no points. The defense, as you pointed out really stepped up and held Miami down for the offense to begin catching up. This stat is typically not a game average and also measures your "true" total defense and offense. It measures a team's total offense ability to score and and a team's total defense ability to stop opponents. Yards per point, doesn't ignore those finer details, like yards do(like special teams).

So to recap the reason NE's is ranked lowed in yards allowed is because:
1. They have a very efficient offense who score a lot and forces kick-offs.
2. NE is #2 in defending starting field position thanks to their awesome special teams pinning opponents back.
3. NE's defense doesn't give up points, and opponents die trying.
4. NE's true total defense efficiency(scoring defense yards per point allowed): #2

Conclussion:
The Patriots has the #2 defense in the league because they happen to play with the New England Patriots offense and special teams. GB is #3. People are silly creatures and are easily influenced by TV and Mr. Yard Stat. Mr. Yard Stat is full of it. In fact it's so bad at measuring things it can't even figure out if Chicago is a top 10 defense or if it's San Diego that's better by its own measurement. Mr Yard Stat doesn't know what it's doing.

 

[DarrylS]

I agree with the previous post, it is ingrained into our NFL psyche that defense wins championships and not sure that is still true in this day and age.

IMO the defense is not what it used to be, due to the minimization of chucking receivers and diminishing agressive line play.. is it the "wussification" of the NFL, probably not as too many guys have gotten hurt.

The emphasis on offense meets the needs of the NFL, the infatuation with Brees, Newton, Rodgers, Tebow and Brady all indicate an inherent love for offense, without recognition of the demise of defense.

Time and time again on this forum and other forums devoted to our beloved sport, the lack of D is whined about.. while in reality a great defense is beneficial, but is not as significant without a great offense.

The reality is that the NFL is changing, and for all the criticism of BB, perhaps what he is doing is somethig avant garde in anticipation of this change..

 

[PatriotSeven]

I agree with the previous post, it is ingrained into our NFL psyche that defense wins championships and not sure that is still true in this day and age.

IMO the defense is not what it used to be, due to the minimization of chucking receivers and diminishing agressive line play.. is it the "wussification" of the NFL, probably not as too many guys have gotten hurt.

The emphasis on offense meets the needs of the NFL, the infatuation with Brees, Newton, Rodgers, Tebow and Brady all indicate an inherent love for offense, without recognition of the demise of defense.

Time and time again on this forum and other forums devoted to our beloved sport, the lack of D is whined about.. while in reality a great defense is beneficial, but is not as significant without a great offense.

The reality is that the NFL is changing, and for all the criticism of BB, perhaps what he is doing is somethig avant garde in anticipation of this change..

I looked into it and so have many others and not only is it not true, it never was. It turns out that while it is true that most teams who have won Super Bowls, have had some of the best defenses in yards allowed, there's even MORE teams that have won Super Bowls with the more efficient offenses. Most of the time the more efficient offense, not defense, wins. Obviously you need to put up more points to win, so it makes sense. It also turns out that, not including all the other factors, the best way to have a great defense is to have an efficient offense. And when it comes to championships, more teams with both efficient offenses, as well as worse defenses, have won those. So defenses have been pretty worthless here(at least according to Mr. Yard Stat but what does it know?).

Even in the 1960's. Was it more defensive? Sure. Offenses still beat defenses though. Even Lombardi's. He had great defenses, but he also had the more efficient offense.

Are some of those offenses made efficient by takeaways and field positions? Yes, but then again, by definition, a turnover, and thus a takeaway is usually your opponent's offenses fault, not your defense's success. It takes the offense making a mistake before a defense can register a takeaway. About the only ones defenses can do anything about is a forced fumble recovery. And every once in awhile, a QB will throw a perfect pass, but the receiver bounces it up, or slips and doesn't get there. But then that would be the receiver's fault too, not so much your defensive players ability to get an interception. Which is why there's no correlation between defenses and takeaways. If you got Tebow, or Brady or Rodgers....you can't really pick them off can you? It's a random occurrence for defenses and the quarterbacks usually do something dumb when it happens. It's not a random occurrence for quarterbacks though. You can try pressuring them, but they still have to do something dumb first, like throw a pass when they shouldn't have. Better to take that sack or throw it away unless you have no choice are down by 30 in the 4th quarter and it's 4th down. Then you take that chance and throw it up even though you know it will probably get picked off.

Offense beats defense and always has. Makes sense if you think about it. Football, despite what people believe, is very much an offensive sport. It's created, much like any other sport, for the offense to beat the defense. Soccer's about the only sport that comes close to being a defensive sport. The forces are almost equal on the field, as well as when it comes to scoring(they let one guy use his hands). It's also why a lot of people think it's boring. In football, not counting turnovers:

-offense gets 4 tries to advance 10 yards and succeeding on any of the 4 means they get to start over. So you really only have to succeed 25% of the time.
-defense must stop an offense on all 4 to get a stop and what would be considered a mini-win.(usually 3 but you get the idea).

Defense is at a huge disadvantage and always has been. The only way to make this sport more defensive, is to make offenses turn over the ball when they get an incompletion. It will also make rushing king again. Unless if they also added that you have to get a minimum of 3 yards rushing or a first down or else you turn over the ball. Then you would have some nail biters. 0-0 might make a come back. So will a tie. And say good bye to screen plays. But who wants that?

I think you can count the number of times the defense have truly won a game in the history of the sport on one hand. In 1938 a defense truly won a game when Chicago beat the Packers 2-0. In 1932 GB beat the Chicago Bears 2-0. Maybe it was just revenge. In 1920, I believe, it was the last time a game ended 0-0.

But were those defenses that amazing, or did those offenses really freaking suck that day? They didn't even have numbers or names on shirts back then. Imagine the number of interceptions especially when two teams with similar jerseys met. lol. It's like having a color blind quarterback playing today.

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

There are two 5's and no 12. Please delete everything and re-type it all to fix your numbering.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Ok. I'll take my shot at this part. You answered your own question beforehand. The truth is, neither Green Bay nor the New England Patriots have bad defenses. What they have is a low ranking in opponents yards allowed per game. The issue isn't with the defense of these teams, but with the measurements most people are stuck on when it comes to grading defenses:

1. total yards per game. A most terrible measurement.
2. a ranking number. Not the actual value of the rank. Most people compare ranks not the actual value.

Is the difference between allowing 330 and 355 yards per game that significant? An extra 25 yards? If you said no, then keep in mind that's the difference between a #10 and a #20 defense. If you said yes keep reading.

It really depends on where they happen, right? Do they lead to first downs, a touchdown or are they "good yards" and "a waste" for their opponents offense because those defenses allowed a few yards on first and 2nd down but got the stop on third?

Not only are vacuum stats bad measurements of rating anything in football, but most people are more concerned with one of the least important. There's never been a a time, year or era since the game of football was invented when points were less important than yards. Nobody cares about how many yards-or meters-a soccer player racks up running up and down the field. Nobody cares how many dribbles a basketball player makes or how many up and down runs on the court one makes. How many miles of travel does a hockey player make around a ring? Who's #1 in history? Anybody know? Nobody? People are much to focused on the wrong measurements when it comes to football.

What to keep in mind:

Yards= effort. work.
Points = reward. results.

You know the old saying work smart not hard? It's the same in football. But it is a little bit more complex than that, of course.

1. Almost all of these yards measurements are offensive measurements. They are all correctly defined as "opponent's [insert yards measurement] allowed". People miss-use them constantly. We need better ways of measuring defenses.

2. Efficient passing teams can easily have longer games. They score faster, and incompletions stop the clock.(more yards get racked up on both ends).

3. The number of drives in a football game is not always consistent. A defense that allows 400 yards per game might actually allow less yards per drive than a defense that allows 350 ypg if they average more drives. For example:

yards allowed per game:
11th San Diego 335.1
18th Chicago 353.7

yards allowed per drive:
8th Chicago 26.88
21 San Diego 31.69

So which one is it Mr. Yard Stat? Does San Diego's defense rock or suck? Is Chicago top 10 or 18th?

In addition, the difference in yards allowed per drive between the #1 defense and the #32 defense is 14 yards. NE's bottom of the league in both, so at least for NE, Mr. Yard Stat appears to have its mind made up. So basically an extra first down. That's really what NE gives up on average. But...

-If Pat's offense and special teams is always scoring and forcing opponents to take a knee in the end-zone after a kick-off,does that mean the Patriots defense is bad because they will on average allow more yards?
-If a team has a bad special teams unit that always gives up yards(this by default leads to their "total defense" allowing fewer yards), does that mean that team's defense is better?

Could this be the case? Let's find out.

NE's opponent average starting field position(NE's defending starting field position):
#2 24.40 yard line.

So yards per game allowed, and Mike Ditka on ESPN, says the Patriots have a bad defense, because their special teams defense pins opponents back so it forces opponents to travel longer to score a touchdown. But isn't this also what gives a defense a good chance to get a stop, thus keeping points allowed low? Good one.

The difference between one NFL defense and another, especially as far as yards go, is almost a statistical wash when you take into consideration: style of offense, time of possession, number of drives, play calling, playing with or without a lead, turnovers, etc. In combination these factors and others have a much GREATER effect on a defense's ranking in yards allowed, compared to their OWN ability to stop teams from getting yards. In other words, unless you have a defense that truly stops everybody from moving, a team's defense in today's NFL has very little control over where they rank in yards allowed per game. That measurement is affected just as much by all other areas of their own team and flow of the game as it is by their own ability to stop an opponent.

In fact, one of the best measurements in football(I'd say the 2nd most important stat in football), yards per point, which has one of the best correlations to winning(the #1 stat) says that for an offense to be efficient you need the FEWEST yards and MOST points. For a defense, it's the complete opposite. Allowing the MOST yards and FEWEST points. Either that or 0 yards or 0 points, which is pretty much impossible, at least when it comes to yards(that would more readily indicate you are playing against a terrible NFL offense, not that you have an amazing defense). In which case, both NE and GB qualify as one of the most efficient defenses in the game.

yards:
1 Pittsburgh 273.9
4 San Francisco 308.1
31 Green Bay 400.7
32 New England 412.1

points:
1 San Francisco 13.5
2 Pittsburgh 14.5
12 Green Bay 21.2
14 New England 21.4

opponents yards per point allowed:
1 San Francisco 22.9
2 New England 19.3
3 Green Bay 18.9
4 Pittsburgh 18.8


Huh, interesting. So basically NE and GB are every bit as good as Pittsburg and San Fran in making their opponents bust their ass to get a FG or TD against them, just accomplishing it in different ways.

And winning and losing records?
1 Green Bay
2 New England
3 San Francisco
4(tied) New Orleans
5(tied)Pittsburg

Now keep in mind even yards per point, is also mainly an offensive measurement not a defensive measurement heavily impacted by the other side of your team by way of turnovers and field position. The above yards per point measurement is combined opponent's yards per point allowed. So a better way to say it would be not that NE's defense is one of the most efficient defenses in the league, but rather: whatever it is they are doing, they have forced their opponents offenses to play most inefficiently against them when it comes to scoring. NE makes opponents work really hard to score a point. It also means their opponents have inefficient offenses.

So looking at offensive yards per point:
1 Green Bay 11.5
4 San Francisco 13.4
6 New England 13.7
26 Pittsburgh 17.9

What does this mean? What it means is Pittsburg is busting ass for their offense and helping to make up for Ben's interceptions, stalls and 3 and outs. NE's defense has been helping it's offense out lately, but they are both playing very efficiently and therefore GB, NE and San Francisco have some of the best defenses and offenses in the league. Go figure!

For NE it makes sense considering what happened in Miami. Offense was very ineffective in the first half, raking up yards and no points. The defense, as you pointed out really stepped up and held Miami down for the offense to begin catching up. This stat is typically not a game average and also measures your "true" total defense and offense. It measures a team's total offense ability to score and and a team's total defense ability to stop opponents. Yards per point, doesn't ignore those finer details, like yards do(like special teams).

So to recap the reason NE's is ranked lowed in yards allowed is because:
1. They have a very efficient offense who score a lot and forces kick-offs.
2. NE is #2 in defending starting field position thanks to their awesome special teams pinning opponents back.
3. NE's defense doesn't give up points, and opponents die trying.
4. NE's true total defense efficiency(scoring defense yards per point allowed): #2

Conclussion:
The Patriots has the #2 defense in the league because they happen to play with the New England Patriots offense and special teams. GB is #3. People are silly creatures and are easily influenced by TV and Mr. Yard Stat. Mr. Yard Stat is full of it. In fact it's so bad at measuring things it can't even figure out if Chicago is a top 10 defense or if it's San Diego that's better by its own measurement. Mr Yard Stat doesn't know what it's doing.

Let us look at other traditional stats for this edition of the Patriots Defense. Historically 40 sacks /season is a high and successful number for the Patriots defense given they play Read & React and prefer not to blitz big often. Last year the Pats registered only 31 sacks. The number of turnovers is high but not as high as last season, probably due to all the injuries to talented secondary players.

Some teams gamble and get 50 sacks/season by blitzing and surrender a dozen or more Big play TDs when they don't get there. BB says Sacks are overated. Of more concern to BB is the combined number of impactual plays. {Sacks + INTs + fumble recoveries} 38 +19 + 12 = 69. That is a high number of [potential] drive killing plays.

Why do we have such a high number of turnovers? Because Speed Kills! and the defensive players are young, and big, and most of all fast. Bill likes defensive experience and will trade some speed for it but he will note the declining number of turnovers as a measure of defensive team speed.

 

[AzPatsFan]

This Defense is becoming better than people think. But I maintain it is also on the verge of producing an astonishingly good Defense outright for the future.

The Pats now have outside pass rushers in Andre Carter, and Mark Anderson and Rob Ninkovich and possibly Cunningham and Wright, with interior ILB pass rush from Fletcher and Mayo.

The interior Defensive line is well covered and getting deeper with Woolfork, Love, Deaderick, Brace and perhaps penetrating Mo Pryor and Mike Wright for a change of pace linemen.

The DE/OLB situation is well covered too with Deaderick and Brace big, and Carter, Anderson, Ninkovich and Cunningham for the rushers.

The inside LBs are now deep and talented with Mayo, Spikes, Fletcher and Guyton.

The problem is the secondary, but Arrington and McCourty will look a lot better with merely competent Safety play. McCourty is playing trail Defense technique, and depending on Safety help deep, which is never there.

Consequently he is playing it safer, and not gambling to look back and intercept on passes thrown too short. I think he wants to be able to make the tackle in case the Safety is NOT there, as he should be.

We will get Ras_I back as a third CB, next season. I expect to draft another corner.

Chung is a good developing Safety. I don't see anything else, except possibly Julian Edelmen. The draft will be used to add another S; and knowing BB's M.O. he will bring in an ex-starter vet or two, as well. I predict next year's secondary play will be very good.

Next year's Defense will leap forward in conventional measures of competence. It will surprise me not.

 

[supafly]

This Defense is becoming better than people think. But I maintain it is also on the verge of producing an astonishingly good Defense outright for the future.

The Pats now have outside pass rushers in Andre Carter, and Mark Anderson and Rob Ninkovich and possibly Cunningham and Wright, with interior ILB pass rush from Fletcher and Mayo.

The interior Defensive line is well covered and getting deeper with Woolfork, Love, Deaderick, Brace and perhaps penetrating Mo Pryor and Mike Wright for a change of pace linemen.

The DE/OLB situation is well covered too with Deaderick and Brace big, and Carter, Anderson, Ninkovich and Cunningham for the rushers.

The inside LBs are now deep and talented with Mayo, Spikes, Fletcher and Guyton.

The problem is the secondary, but Arrington and McCourty will look a lot better with merely competent Safety play. McCourty is playing trail Defense technique, and depending on Safety help deep, which is never there.

Consequently he is playing it safer, and not gambling to look back and intercept on passes thrown too short. I think he wants to be able to make the tackle in case the Safety is NOT there, as he should be.

We will get Ras_I back as a third CB, next season. I expect to draft another corner.

Chung is a good developing Safety. I don't see anything else, except possibly Julian Edelmen. The draft will be used to add another S; and knowing BB's M.O. he will bring in an ex-starter vet or two, as well. I predict next year's secondary play will be very good.

Next year's Defense will leap forward in conventional measures of competence. It will surprise me not.

I agree that next yr's defense has the potential to make some serious leaps and bounds, even considering that we don't currently know all of the starters.

I think that it's as simple as a good draft pick or two, added with a couple of mid level free agents/cuts. When you combine the return of injured players with these 2 and add in yet another yr of experience, there's no reason to believe that next yr's defense couldn't be significantly improved.

I have gotten down on the defense this yr at times, but I do trust Belichick incredibly when the chips are down. I actually honestly believe that we will finally see an "impact" front 7 player taken in the first round next yr, even though many would disagree based on history and past trends alone.

 

[supafly]

Ok. I'll take my shot at this part. You answered your own question beforehand. The truth is, neither Green Bay nor the New England Patriots have bad defenses. What they have is a low ranking in opponents yards allowed per game. The issue isn't with the defense of these teams, but with the measurements most people are stuck on when it comes to grading defenses:

1. total yards per game. A most terrible measurement.
2. a ranking number. Not the actual value of the rank. Most people compare ranks not the actual value.

Is the difference between allowing 330 and 355 yards per game that significant? An extra 25 yards? If you said no, then keep in mind that's the difference between a #10 and a #20 defense. If you said yes keep reading.

It really depends on where they happen, right? Do they lead to first downs, a touchdown or are they "good yards" and "a waste" for their opponents offense because those defenses allowed a few yards on first and 2nd down but got the stop on third?

Not only are vacuum stats bad measurements of rating anything in football, but most people are more concerned with one of the least important. There's never been a a time, year or era since the game of football was invented when points were less important than yards. Nobody cares about how many yards-or meters-a soccer player racks up running up and down the field. Nobody cares how many dribbles a basketball player makes or how many up and down runs on the court one makes. How many miles of travel does a hockey player make around a ring? Who's #1 in history? Anybody know? Nobody? People are much to focused on the wrong measurements when it comes to football.

What to keep in mind:

Yards= effort. work.
Points = reward. results.

You know the old saying work smart not hard? It's the same in football. But it is a little bit more complex than that, of course.

1. Almost all of these yards measurements are offensive measurements. They are all correctly defined as "opponent's [insert yards measurement] allowed". People miss-use them constantly. We need better ways of measuring defenses.

2. Efficient passing teams can easily have longer games. They score faster, and incompletions stop the clock.(more yards get racked up on both ends).

3. The number of drives in a football game is not always consistent. A defense that allows 400 yards per game might actually allow less yards per drive than a defense that allows 350 ypg if they average more drives. For example:

yards allowed per game:
11th San Diego 335.1
18th Chicago 353.7

yards allowed per drive:
8th Chicago 26.88
21 San Diego 31.69

So which one is it Mr. Yard Stat? Does San Diego's defense rock or suck? Is Chicago top 10 or 18th?

In addition, the difference in yards allowed per drive between the #1 defense and the #32 defense is 14 yards. NE's bottom of the league in both, so at least for NE, Mr. Yard Stat appears to have its mind made up. So basically an extra first down. That's really what NE gives up on average. But...

-If Pat's offense and special teams is always scoring and forcing opponents to take a knee in the end-zone after a kick-off,does that mean the Patriots defense is bad because they will on average allow more yards?
-If a team has a bad special teams unit that always gives up yards(this by default leads to their "total defense" allowing fewer yards), does that mean that team's defense is better?

Could this be the case? Let's find out.

NE's opponent average starting field position(NE's defending starting field position):
#2 24.40 yard line.

So yards per game allowed, and Mike Ditka on ESPN, says the Patriots have a bad defense, because their special teams defense pins opponents back so it forces opponents to travel longer to score a touchdown. But isn't this also what gives a defense a good chance to get a stop, thus keeping points allowed low? Good one.

The difference between one NFL defense and another, especially as far as yards go, is almost a statistical wash when you take into consideration: style of offense, time of possession, number of drives, play calling, playing with or without a lead, turnovers, etc. In combination these factors and others have a much GREATER effect on a defense's ranking in yards allowed, compared to their OWN ability to stop teams from getting yards. In other words, unless you have a defense that truly stops everybody from moving, a team's defense in today's NFL has very little control over where they rank in yards allowed per game. That measurement is affected just as much by all other areas of their own team and flow of the game as it is by their own ability to stop an opponent.

In fact, one of the best measurements in football(I'd say the 2nd most important stat in football), yards per point, which has one of the best correlations to winning(the #1 stat) says that for an offense to be efficient you need the FEWEST yards and MOST points. For a defense, it's the complete opposite. Allowing the MOST yards and FEWEST points. Either that or 0 yards or 0 points, which is pretty much impossible, at least when it comes to yards(that would more readily indicate you are playing against a terrible NFL offense, not that you have an amazing defense). In which case, both NE and GB qualify as one of the most efficient defenses in the game.

yards:
1 Pittsburgh 273.9
4 San Francisco 308.1
31 Green Bay 400.7
32 New England 412.1

points:
1 San Francisco 13.5
2 Pittsburgh 14.5
12 Green Bay 21.2
14 New England 21.4

opponents yards per point allowed:
1 San Francisco 22.9
2 New England 19.3
3 Green Bay 18.9
4 Pittsburgh 18.8


Huh, interesting. So basically NE and GB are every bit as good as Pittsburg and San Fran in making their opponents bust their ass to get a FG or TD against them, just accomplishing it in different ways.

And winning and losing records?
1 Green Bay
2 New England
3 San Francisco
4(tied) New Orleans
5(tied)Pittsburg

Now keep in mind even yards per point, is also mainly an offensive measurement not a defensive measurement heavily impacted by the other side of your team by way of turnovers and field position. The above yards per point measurement is combined opponent's yards per point allowed. So a better way to say it would be not that NE's defense is one of the most efficient defenses in the league, but rather: whatever it is they are doing, they have forced their opponents offenses to play most inefficiently against them when it comes to scoring. NE makes opponents work really hard to score a point. It also means their opponents have inefficient offenses.

So looking at offensive yards per point:
1 Green Bay 11.5
4 San Francisco 13.4
6 New England 13.7
26 Pittsburgh 17.9

What does this mean? What it means is Pittsburg is busting ass for their offense and helping to make up for Ben's interceptions, stalls and 3 and outs. NE's defense has been helping it's offense out lately, but they are both playing very efficiently and therefore GB, NE and San Francisco have some of the best defenses and offenses in the league. Go figure!

For NE it makes sense considering what happened in Miami. Offense was very ineffective in the first half, raking up yards and no points. The defense, as you pointed out really stepped up and held Miami down for the offense to begin catching up. This stat is typically not a game average and also measures your "true" total defense and offense. It measures a team's total offense ability to score and and a team's total defense ability to stop opponents. Yards per point, doesn't ignore those finer details, like yards do(like special teams).

So to recap the reason NE's is ranked lowed in yards allowed is because:
1. They have a very efficient offense who score a lot and forces kick-offs.
2. NE is #2 in defending starting field position thanks to their awesome special teams pinning opponents back.
3. NE's defense doesn't give up points, and opponents die trying.
4. NE's true total defense efficiency(scoring defense yards per point allowed): #2

Conclussion:
The Patriots has the #2 defense in the league because they happen to play with the New England Patriots offense and special teams. GB is #3. People are silly creatures and are easily influenced by TV and Mr. Yard Stat. Mr. Yard Stat is full of it. In fact it's so bad at measuring things it can't even figure out if Chicago is a top 10 defense or if it's San Diego that's better by its own measurement. Mr Yard Stat doesn't know what it's doing.

Very nice analysis, and certainly some food for thought.

I will look forward to seeing more of your breakdowns and thoughts in the future.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Let us look at other traditional stats for this edition of the Patriots Defense. Historically 40 sacks /season is a high and successful number for the Patriots defense given they play Read & React and prefer not to blitz big often. Last year the Pats registered only 31 sacks. The number of turnovers is high but not as high as last season, probably due to all the injuries to talented secondary players.

Some teams gamble and get 50 sacks/season by blitzing and surrender a dozen or more Big play TDs when they don't get there. BB says Sacks are overated. Of more concern to BB is the combined number of impactual plays. {Sacks + INTs + fumble recoveries} 38 +19 + 12 = 69. That is a high number of [potential] drive killing plays.

Why do we have such a high number of turnovers? Because Speed Kills! and the defensive players are young, and big, and most of all fast. Bill likes defensive experience and will trade some speed for it but he will note the declining number of turnovers as a measure of defensive team speed.

That's a great observation and I think it just goes to show you how Bill's always ahead of the game. He doesn't react to what happens in the league and his opponents, he anticipates. He likely takes any rule changes into consideration. He takes the overall shifts in defenses and offenses in the league into consideration. He takes the age of his players into consideration. And more importantly he takes his opponents and his opposing QB's into consideration. You can't really force a good quarterback into an interception. You can pressure a quarterback into having to make a tough decision between a pass and throwing the ball away, or throwing the ball away and taking a sack.

A sack probably is overrated. It's yet another reason why I think the NFL never added it to the QB passer rating. Taking a sack can be considered a win for the quarterback and the only correct move given the situation. You're much more effective if you can get that quarterback to throw that bad pass, or try to throw the ball away due to pressure instead of taking the sack. When turnovers are key, you want as many opportunities for your defense to pluck one as possible. A sack-fumble is great, but the risk-reward can sometimes outweigh the benefits. I think blitzing is a better tool just for messing with the timing of the quarterback and the rhythm of the offense rather than for trying to register a sack.

You got a greater chance at an interception if you can just get that quarterback off his rhythm. Sometimes just playing good consistent defense, going for incompletions and stops and just making it tough for your opponents offense to move against you while using your offense to score and put pressure on the opposing defense is the best way to go about it.

It's hard to break a defense. It's not nearly as hard to break an opposing quarterback, especially if the offense goes through him.
It's good to put pressure on an opponent using your defense. It's even better to put pressure on them by scoring with your offense and let them try to play even better than a close to perfect offense. Good luck.

It's almost, not fair. Almost

 

[patfanken]

That was a very interesting last page of this thread. Thanks for Patriot7 for his analysis. Very interesting. However like most things in life, its really isn't as bad as it seems, but its also nchot as good as you hope.

No matter how you want to coat it, this defense just isn't as good as it should be. Some of its because of injuries, some because of disappointing performances by certain players and because of just plain bad situational football.

2 examples of the latter can be seen in the last game where Matt P dialed up a blitz on a 3rd and 18 which not only failed to get there, but because of it left openingings in the secondary. The other was on McCourty (who I USUALLY defend). Also on a 3rd and very long, Devin fell for a double move and was beaten for a first down. Now its ONE thing to get beat by a good move. It happens ,but you should NEVER get beaten by a move that happened 10 yds in front of the first down marker. Unforgivable, or youthful mistake, take your pick but BOTH those first downs led to scores. Neither had to happen.

I also agree with sup, that the defensive problems can be very quickly fixed. Just getting Chung and Spikes back will fix a lot of the coverage and run D woes right off the bat. But in the course of this off season we can easily make as quick a turn around as the Texans did.

Get the top end Safety to match with Chung. Get back Dowling (whose chief skill is man coverage). Get back an improved McCourty. Get another top 5 CB and S from the draft. Draft a top 5 pass rusher (DE or OLB) Get back all the IR guys back from defense Have a full off season back to the 3-4, but now better prepared to go 4-3 when we have to. Continue watching Deadrick and Lover improve right before our eyes. See Fletcher have a health start of the season.....and dare I say.....have a Cunninngham revival, and this defense will definitely be ready to move into the top half of the league in ALL the meaningless catagories that now exist, and get back to the top 10 in scoring D.

We CAN win the superbowl THIS year. We WILL win it next year. (just channelling my inner Rex )