Reminder: We are 4-0 despite an all-time awful offseason and key injuries.

[DeutschlandPats]

Welkommen to the board bruder!

Denke brother!

HAHA! Your screen name. Piss!! HAHA! We call you Amerikans beer Pisswasser!! It is like sex on small boat, ficken close to water!! :rocker:

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Denke brother!

HAHA! Your screen name. Piss!! HAHA! We call you Amerikans beer Pisswasser!! It is like sex on small boat, ficken close to water!! :rocker:

Ich arbeitet bei Nixdorf AG im Paderborn

way back in the 80s

I admit that I greatly prefer German brews & enjoyed my time in country greatly

"Wicked Pissah" is an idiom that only Bostonians use and is not known or used outside of the area. It means cool or really great.

 

[Ring 6]

Not to be negative but we're suppose to beat these teams anyway. Even Atlanta, Brady has no history of losing to the Falcons. I'll even write off the Bengals because Brady just doesn't lose to them, similar to the Falcons. The real test starts with New Orleans. Brees historically has own the pats, and if we lose to him (i think we will) we'll probably lose to Manning (see 2005 and 2009 season,not pretty).Our offense has lost too many steps and we still lack a strong defensive line. Not saying this will be another 10-6 season, but I just think that it's too early to gloat when the real test hasn't even begun.

Interesting approach that a win doesn't count because its against a team we beat 4, 8 and 12 years ago.

 

[sb1]

They were 15th in the NFL, which is above average, hardly quite a bit short of adequate.
In 09 and 10 they were 8th and 5th.

In 2010 they were by far the worst 3rd down defense in football. As I recall for a while they were getting close to historically bad in that area.

And is there that much of a difference between a defense that allows a TD drive and a team that gives up a long drive and a bunch of clock so our offense and all world QB is standing on the sidelines and can't score a TD themselves?

I'm not going to say the D did a good job if they're not letting our best player get on the field.

So a stop is failure?
Your gauge of 'adequate at keeping points off the board' is 2 drives?

It wasn't just 2 drives, it was the 2 biggest drives of the season and the two times the team needed to make a stop the most.

And IMO it's a stretch to call that last Ravens drive a "stop". The Ravens beat themselves on that drive, not the other way around. The Pats D needed to make a stop and they did not get the job done.

They probably would have allowed less if they played a tougher schedule because they wouldn't have had big leads and played prevent.

I'd say they would have been exposed by all those better teams. Which they were in those 4 games.

 

[sb1]

So all those defenses that were out allowing more points were better because they did what?

They were better at making big plays (like sacks) and getting turnovers, getting stops, and I doubt any of them would have been taken to school by Tim Tebow in a playoff game.

 

[sb1]

Not to be negative but we're suppose to beat these teams anyway. Even Atlanta, Brady has no history of losing to the Falcons.

Not sure I see the relevance of games in the past to games in 2013.

I do agree the Saints will be a real measuring stick for how good this defense really is. I am glad we have them at home.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

You may find internet penis enlargement ads helpful for your issues

Right back at you "PISSAH". I apologize for the honesty, i never said the sky was falling. Its so early in the season,we have no idea who's good and who's not anyway.

 

[Ring 6]

They were better at making big plays (like sacks) and getting turnovers, getting stops, and I doubt any of them would have been taken to school by Tim Tebow in a playoff game.

Which defenses are you talking about? You do realize getting sacks and allowing points is not better than not getting sacks and not allowing points, right?

 

[Ring 6]

In 2010 they were by far the worst 3rd down defense in football. As I recall for a while they were getting close to historically bad in that area.

So your argument is that it is better to be 6/15 on 3rd down and allow 27 points than to be 7/15 and allow 20?

And is there that much of a difference between a defense that allows a TD drive and a team that gives up a long drive and a bunch of clock so our offense and all world QB is standing on the sidelines and can't score a TD themselves?

This is a joke right? You would rather allow a quick TD than get a slow stop?

I'm not going to say the D did a good job if they're not letting our best player get on the field.

You would rather they allow points?

It wasn't just 2 drives, it was the 2 biggest drives of the season and the two times the team needed to make a stop the most.

But the discussion is the full body of work of the defense. They made one stop and didn't make the other, against the SB Champ. Are you saying you suck if you dont win the SB?

And IMO it's a stretch to call that last Ravens drive a "stop". The Ravens beat themselves on that drive, not the other way around. The Pats D needed to make a stop and they did not get the job done.

They did not score.

I'd say they would have been exposed by all those better teams. Which they were in those 4 games.

A defense that is 'exposed' 4 times in a season is not one that sucks.
You seem to be arguing why they weren't the 85 Bears, not whether they were average or crappy.

 

[JMC00]

The defense had held Matt Ryan to 239 yards 1 TD 1 INT and an 82 passing rating until they went up 30-13 and then played soft on that ensuing drive, didn't recover the onside and the ref gave Blount a bad spot.

Ya I know people will say but if the defense is good it shouldn't matter. But on the 2 drives that did matter after the Falcons scored to make it 30-20. They held the Falcons to a 3 and out from inside their 16 yard line with 2 of the plays being run on the 7 yard line with 1 yard to go to gain a 1st down. And that was with the Falcon starting on basically the 50 yard line.

Then on the last drive which started on their 37 yard line, Julio Jones got that big play (and let's be honest the Pats holding him to one big play was a huge win) which put the the Falcons on the 13 yard line and with 4 shots all Ryan could get was a 3 yard dump off pass to Rodgers.

Does anyone think Belichick would have made that call to put two linebackers on a TE and trust the secondary to stop a WR corp of Jones, White and Douglas 4 times from the 13 yard line?

 

[sb1]

So your argument is that it is better to be 6/15 on 3rd down and allow 27 points than to be 7/15 and allow 20?

Apples to Oranges and a strawman comparison. I'm talking about a season long trend. A defense that gives up a lot of 3rd downs in a game is one thing, a defense that finishes dead last in the NFL in 3rd down defense by a mile is another.

Over a 16 game season it's safe to say that the fact they couldn't get stops (whether they allowed points or not) on 3rd down prevented Tom brady and the offense from seeing the field and scoring points themselves.

Please tell me you don't actually believe that a defense that is historically bad at giving up 3rd downs is a good D.

This is a joke right? You would rather allow a quick TD than get a slow stop?

No but you can't deny a slow stop is keeping our all world and first ballot HOF QB from getting on the field and scoring points himself. For some teams it doesn't matter, for this one it does.

A defense that can't stop the other guy on third down ain't a good defense. Sorry.

But the discussion is the full body of work of the defense. They made one stop and didn't make the other, against the SB Champ. Are you saying you suck if you dont win the SB?

The defense's shortcomings did them in. When the team needed them the most, they failed both times. After the Welker drop and the Pats punted, and Eli stepped on the field I had no doubt what was coming and I wasn't the only one. Is that a good defense?

They did not score.

Do you think the defense did a great job on that drive? Should we give them kudos for letting the Ravens march down the field only for their kicker to shank the FG?

A defense that is 'exposed' 4 times in a season is not one that sucks.
You seem to be arguing why they weren't the 85 Bears, not whether they were average or crappy.

Not sure where you think I'm comparing them to the 85 bears. I made an observation where that defense was exposed by every good team they played. Which they were.

I'm amazed that a D that let JAG QB's have their way with them and couldn't stop any good teams, were historically bad on third down, and failed the two times where they were needed most... is actually called a good defense. Wow.

 

[sb1]

Which defenses are you talking about? You do realize getting sacks and allowing points is not better than not getting sacks and not allowing points, right?

I'm sure you'll agree that if you get sacks, can stop the other guy on 3rd down chances are that you will allow fewer points.

You can't look at stats and points in a vacuum in this sport. I refuse to admit that a team that couldn't get sacks, couldn't get turnovers, played only 1 good team all year, played 8 games against bottom 10 teams is a good defense, just because they happened to not allow a lot of points.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm sure you'll agree that if you get sacks, can stop the other guy on 3rd down chances are that you will allow fewer points.

No. Your argument is that not allowing points isn't good if you don't get sacks.
I am saying the defense that allows that fewest points is the better defense. You are arguing the defense that allows more points is better if it got more sacks while doing it.

You can't look at stats and points in a vacuum in this sport. I refuse to admit that a team that couldn't get sacks, couldn't get turnovers, played only 1 good team all year, played 8 games against bottom 10 teams is a good defense, just because they happened to not allow a lot of points.

Sorry, fail. Football games are won or lost on the field, not in the statsheet, or with your excuses.

 

[Ring 6]

Apples to Oranges and a strawman comparison. I'm talking about a season long trend.

No, its totally relevant.
The 2011 Patriots allowed 43% 3rd downs (not dead last by the way) at 87/202. That is rounded off 5.5/12.7. The average team was 38% which would be 77/202. So, the team allowed 10 conversions all season more than an average performance.
The Patriots allowed just over 1 extra conversion every 2 games worse than average. They allowed 5.5 fewer points per game than bad (5th worse).
Your argument is that 10 3rd down conversions allowed is worse than 88 points allowed.

A defense that gives up a lot of 3rd downs in a game is one thing, a defense that finishes dead last in the NFL in 3rd down defense by a mile is another.

They werent dead last at all, and allowed just under 5.5 per game.

Over a 16 game season it's safe to say that the fact they couldn't get stops (whether they allowed points or not) on 3rd down prevented Tom brady and the offense from seeing the field and scoring points themselves.

10 3rd down conversions in 16 games simply doesnt add up to 88 points.

Please tell me you don't actually believe that a defense that is historically bad at giving up 3rd downs is a good D.

Historically bad? The 2011 defense was average, not good, Ive never said that, and certainly not terrible.

No but you can't deny a slow stop is keeping our all world and first ballot HOF QB from getting on the field and scoring points himself. For some teams it doesn't matter, for this one it does.

Ridiculous. See above. You act as if they allowed 30 3rd down conversions a game. It was less than 5.5, which is about 0.6 higher than normal.

A defense that can't stop the other guy on third down ain't a good defense. Sorry.

Hopefully the facts above clear this up for you.

The defense's shortcomings did them in. When the team needed them the most, they failed both times. After the Welker drop and the Pats punted, and Eli stepped on the field I had no doubt what was coming and I wasn't the only one. Is that a good defense?

They won 15 games and went to the SB. Did 31 defenses suck?

Do you think the defense did a great job on that drive? Should we give them kudos for letting the Ravens march down the field only for their kicker to shank the FG?

You are counting it as a score. It's irrelevant how the play on that drive is judged, the point is you are using a drive that resulted in zero points and a trip to the SB as a reason the team failed.

Not sure where you think I'm comparing them to the 85 bears. I made an observation where that defense was exposed by every good team they played. Which they were.

Your standard for not sucking is that you suck if you allow a TD.

I'm amazed that a D that let JAG QB's have their way with them and couldn't stop any good teams, were historically bad on third down, and failed the two times where they were needed most... is actually called a good defense. Wow.

You have turned your entire end of the discussion into a strawman.
I could care less how many yards a JAG QB passes for after we have an insurmountable lead and play prevent defense. A win is a win. Playing prevent defense to make it easier for a team to build stats but impossible for them to beat you is smart football. I'm sorry you root for stats, and we will probably never be able to have a reasonable discussion.

 

[DeutschlandPats]

The defense had held Matt Ryan to 239 yards 1 TD 1 INT and an 82 passing rating until they went up 30-13 and then played soft on that ensuing drive, didn't recover the onside and the ref gave Blount a bad spot.

Ya I know people will say but if the defense is good it shouldn't matter. But on the 2 drives that did matter after the Falcons scored to make it 30-20. They held the Falcons to a 3 and out from inside their 16 yard line with 2 of the plays being run on the 7 yard line with 1 yard to go to gain a 1st down. And that was with the Falcon starting on basically the 50 yard line.

Then on the last drive which started on their 37 yard line, Julio Jones got that big play (and let's be honest the Pats holding him to one big play was a huge win) which put the the Falcons on the 13 yard line and with 4 shots all Ryan could get was a 3 yard dump off pass to Rodgers.

Does anyone think Belichick would have made that call to put two linebackers on a TE and trust the secondary to stop a WR corp of Jones, White and Douglas 4 times from the 13 yard line?

That is worst photoshop bro. HAHA!

 

[sb1]

No. Your argument is that not allowing points isn't good if you don't get sacks.
I am saying the defense that allows that fewest points is the better defense. You are arguing the defense that allows more points is better if it got more sacks while doing it.



Sorry, fail. Football games are won or lost on the field, not in the statsheet, or with your excuses.

No I am not arguing that at all. I'm saying you can't look at "points" in a vacuum. This is a team sport and you can't look at any kind of stat that way.

Do you think that the 2011 Steelers had a great defense because they were "#1 in yards and points"? If so then there's no point arguing any further and I'll just say I completely disagree with you and leave it at that.

 

[sb1]

No, its totally relevant.
The 2011 Patriots allowed 43% 3rd downs (not dead last by the way) at 87/202. That is rounded off 5.5/12.7. The average team was 38% which would be 77/202. So, the team allowed 10 conversions all season more than an average performance.

Ok I was thinking of 2010 not 11. The pats were were dead last in the league in third down defense in 2010, 47% which was dead last by a comfortable margin. They were 43% in 2011 which is less lousy but still lousy.

Either way, they weren't a very good defense.

And like I said they played 4 winning teams all year and should have went 0-4. Their defensive shortcomings was a big reason why.

10 3rd down conversions in 16 games simply doesnt add up to 88 points.

Yeah and how did that philosophy work out against the Giants in the Super Bowls? Hey they didn't "give up points" right? I guess it doesn't matter that they weren't good enough to get the Giants off the field and let our all world QB try and likely succeed to score points. I know I trust our QB to get points a lot more than that defense to prevent them. But that's just me.

Historically bad? The 2011 defense was average, not good, Ive never said that, and certainly not terrible.

Letting the likes of Dan Orlovsky put up a 113 passer rating = terrible. Embarrassing actually. And don't gimme that garbage time stuff, that might have applied to 1 of the JAG QB's that they played that year plus the 0-10 or whatever they were colts were one onside kick recovery away from completing a comeback.

They won 15 games and went to the SB. Did 31 defenses suck?

Yeah and #12 had a lot to do with that.

Put a Dan Orlovsky on that team and they don't win 4 games.

You are counting it as a score. It's irrelevant how the play on that drive is judged, the point is you are using a drive that resulted in zero points and a trip to the SB as a reason the team failed.

Ok so you DO think the defense did a wonderful job "stopping" the Ravens on that last drive. Yeah. Then I will just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[JMC00]

That is worst photoshop bro. HAHA!

I didn't photoshop it and I'm not your "bro"

 

[DeutschlandPats]

I didn't photoshop it and I'm not your "bro"

Take a joke mr. american man!!!

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Starting 4-0 AND a win this Sunday very well could put them up by 2 games/on solid ground in the division. With the roster concerns/how poorly the pass game started, what a nice position to be contemplating after only 5 games.

Yea it's too early to talk division (they first have to beat Cincy of course). But the Bills at 2-3, Jets quite likely to be 2-3 (@ ATL), Phins a fair chance to be 3-2 (Ravens), and with back to back games against the Jets/Phins coming right after the Cincy and Saints games, it's nice to see a tangible path to having full command of the division early.