Defense, Strength or Weakness

[everlong]

A strength that needs depth.

I think breaking the franchise scoring record is a little deceiving.

Opponents rank points scored

Miami 29th twice
Houston 28th
Minnesota 26th
Buffalo 23rd twice
GB 22nd
Detroit 21st
NYJ 18th twice
Denver 17th
Tenn 16th
Jacksonville 9th
Cincy 8th
Indy 3rd
Chicago 2nd

Chicago's offense really isn't that good. A high percentage of their scoring was special teams and defense. So 4 games vs teams in the top half of scoring in the league.

On the plus side the defense played really well against Jacksonville, Cincy and Chicago plus SD in the playoffs.

This defense really changed with Harrison and Seau out and as pointed out the depth wasn't there. I still think we need to add some more experienced depth at ILB.

I also think not having a true FS hurt a lot.

I still think the defense was top 5 in the league but the 03 team was the best and 04 was no worse than top 3.

 

[mgteich]

We didn't get to the SB. There are at last four explanations. It will forever be a matter of opinion. How could we have beaten Indy?

1) Take the darn flu shots!!!!
2) Improve on the lack of depth (after all we couldn't handle losing our starting safeties, ILB, and two ST safeties, a backup LB and our nickel back) Shame on us for not being able to overcome this against the Colts where the defense was on the field for 80 plays. The team was one of the very best in the league up until then. But shame on us, the problem was depth!!!!
3) Improve the team overall. We just weren't as good as the colts or san diego. More nonesense.
4) Improve the offense, especially at the wide receiver position, and just maybe the defense wouldn't have been on the field as long, and maybe with 3rd and 11, we might just passed twice instead of setting up for a field goal. We were a 1st down or two away. I also might note that our RUNNING BACKS were also dinged late in the game.
================================
My personal view is a strong vote for NUMBER FOUR. Confidence in the wide receivers (or WR ability) was the problem at the end of last year, not the defense.

I agree that we need to improve our defense by bringing in depth. We always do. We replaced Banta-Cain with Thomas, AS A STARTER. We now have four quality starters. I continue my brokern record. I would add 1-3 additional seasoned veterans to the mix at LB, as well as 2-3 draftees in the defensive backfield. But the draftees are for the future. We are better than last year right now, perhaps after we add a jag or two (even with just Seau and Gardner).

And if you really believe that the issue is defensive depth, then fill the bottom of the roster with old season vets instead of developmental hopefuls like Smith, Alexander, Mays, Woods, Spann and Baker. We can count on seasoned vets in crunch time! After all, we jsut need them for a half, or perhaps for a game or two. IMHO, mid-round and late round rookies are NOT usually depth. They are more often developmental players who are inactive every week, and have playing time only in emergencies. The exception is for interior OL's, where Day Two pick often do contribute, and are qualiuty backups (but this is no slam dunk; we CUT Steveson last year).

The offense needed help last year at WR. They made a valiant effort. In the end, Brady didn't even pass in crunch time, even when his running backs were hurt. Welker is a HUGE addition! Gaffney will be much better after some experience with Brady. Caldwell is Caldwell; he performed as expected, which was fine. Kyle Brady and Morris will make up for Graham and Dillon's late year and playoff production, and have potential for much more (as does Gaffney). Adding Stallworth or Moss would be the final piece missing to this offense.

If not, we will add a few more free agent hopefuls to see if one can fill a needed hole in the offense, and perhaps even draft a wide receiver or two to compete also.
========================================================
MY SUGGESTED LINEBACKERS
THE ROTATION: Colvin, Bruschi, Vrabel, Thomas, Hartwell, Seau
(only five get significant reps; I have six in case of injury and to provide some rest during games)

THE BACKUPS AND STers: Gardner, Woods, Alexander, Izzo
Personally, I think that this is a fine group. The STer are top Ster's.

If you all want to use a 1st and more for Willis or a 28 for Siler, that's fine. It wouldn't be my choice. I suspect that neither wouldn't add much to the 2007 production. But they could take Alexander's spot as a young hopeful. I just want my two DAY ONE defensive backs.

And BTW, I'd be fine with a DAY TWO NT to compete with Smith for the developmental NT position. However, I suspect that such a player would be a long-shot to make the team; ditto for a Day Two ILB.
========================================================

I think there's two defense (offense too) issues for next year.

One - Improve the starters for when we play teams that were better than us. I'm talking about SD mostly. Although we won that game and lost the Indy game, going into 2007, SD worries me more because that's the game we should have lost and the Indy game is the one we should have won. "Trading" TBC for Thomas is a start to this. Getting Harrison back and Hobbs being more experienced helps it. The last spot is FS - can Wilson play better than Hawkins ? If not we need a FA or draftee to upgrade the starting quality there.

Two - Improve the depth for when we have injuries. Again, we allowed 6 points to Indy in the first half. The second half was where we were killed by fatigue (flu, travel) and lots of inuries (remember Colvin and Hawkins missed most of the second half in addition to the other guys). We should be better here initially with the return of Harrison, Wilson, Gay. But we still need better quality backup LB unless they like Mays and Woods to improve heading into their second year. I also think Belichick wouldn't hesitate to draft a better quality backup NT.

 

[Ring 6]

Not counting that big run, he was 18 for 50 in the running game, and caught 6 passes for 40 yards (a couple of those for first downs).

Not a huge day, but it was a crack, more than we were giving up all season. Jones got several big first downs in the 1st half, though you are correct to say that we shut him down after halftime.

18 rushes for 50 is TREMENDOUS run defense

 

[AzPatsFan]

There is a NT that can be had second day, I think. He is Paul Soliai, a two gapper who played that way in college. He is 6-4 345 5.11 is a suitable backup NT to Wilfork.

A potential 4th or 5th rounder.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't think we can blame the AFC championship loss on a "bad day". We've lost three in a row to the Colts. It is what it is. The Pats are simply not good enough to beat the Colts and will need to improve.

Frankly, I don't think the 2006 Pats were good enough to compete with the Chargers, either. If we played them ten times, I'd think we'd lose seven or eight times.

As much as I love him, I don't think we can count on Rodney Harrison to play a full season. The injuries are part of age. And, we have a serious lack of depth at the ILB position...a lack of depth that force us to rely on a very old Junior Seau to be a full-time starter with no backup.

With the pickup of A. Thomas and shoring up the middle, the Pats could have a dominating defense in 2007. We are close.

What exactly did San Diego do that makes you belittle us beating them?
I am still trying to figure out what all these criteria are that people keep using to judge who is the better team that mean more than who actually won the game.
I am supposing your answer would include one and/or a secodn category:
IF such and such did or didn't happen, as if anything that did happen on hte field isnt part of football.
Or, naming a few 'big name' players as if winning football was about a few guys and not everyone who takes the field, probably including Merriman as some type of God whose mere prescence guarantees victory, discounting the fact that he had a full game of opportunity to impact the outocme of that game, and did nothing. Also implying that this had nothing to do with our players (who I am sure you would say are not good enough) that had the assingment of blocking said God and owned him.

 

[Ring 6]

A strength that needs depth.

I think breaking the franchise scoring record is a little deceiving.

Opponents rank points scored

Miami 29th twice
Houston 28th
Minnesota 26th
Buffalo 23rd twice
GB 22nd
Detroit 21st
NYJ 18th twice
Denver 17th
Tenn 16th
Jacksonville 9th
Cincy 8th
Indy 3rd
Chicago 2nd

Chicago's offense really isn't that good. A high percentage of their scoring was special teams and defense. So 4 games vs teams in the top half of scoring in the league.

On the plus side the defense played really well against Jacksonville, Cincy and Chicago plus SD in the playoffs.

This defense really changed with Harrison and Seau out and as pointed out the depth wasn't there. I still think we need to add some more experienced depth at ILB.

I also think not having a true FS hurt a lot.

I still think the defense was top 5 in the league but the 03 team was the best and 04 was no worse than top 3.

I dont think you can play an entire schedule against NFL teams then belittle the accomplishments by saying the schedule created it. I see 4 games against highly ranked teams, 4 against low ranked teams and 8 against teams in the middle of the pack. Also, those rankings would, on average, be higher if you did not include the game against us. You really cant argue that our great performance in allowing points is tempered because the teams we played scored less points against us.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Going with the consensus of the D as a strength: the question is not whether the Pats need to upgrade, they do. Period. End of Sentence. That is the goal every off-season, with that in mind, here is a position-by-position look with the presumed starter penciled-in.

LDE (Seymour): There is no current upgrade available in FA, trade, or draft.
NT (Wilfork): There is no current upgrade available in FA, trade, or draft.
RDE (Warren): There is no current upgrade available in FA, trade, or draft.
ROLB (A. Thomas): This was the upgrade.
RILB (Vrabel): An upgrade could be made by trading for a proven veteran such as Brian Urlacher, a short term/cost prohibitive solution (to save time this is the "$$vet" option below).
LILB (Bruschi): $$vet
LOLB (Colvin): $$vet
LCB (Hobbs): $$vet
RCB (Samuel): $$vet
SS (Harrison): $$vet
FS (Wilson): It may be possible to upgrade FS by mid-season through the draft. It may be possible to upgrade by scooping up an older CB through trade or FA as teams reshuffle the deck (to save time, this option is abbreviated as "reshuffle" for reserve players below). $$vet

DL Reserves:
Green & Wright - is it an upgrade to acquire a starter from another club and play them behind the front three? I say no. $$vet
Hill, Thomas, & Smith: Yes via draft, reshuffle, or $$vet.

LB Reserves:
Alexander, Woods, Mays: Yes via draft, reshuffle, or $$vet.

Special Teams Specialist:
Izzo & Paxton: Yes via draft, reshuffle, or $$vet.

CB Reserves:
Scott: is it an upgrade to acquire a starter from another club and play them behind the dynamic duo? I don't see another vet of his caliber hitting the streets.
Gay, Spann, & Williams: Yes via draft, reshuffle, or $$vet.

S reserves:
Mitchell: This one is an unknown thanks to the injury. He reportedly had been penciled in as a starter for Haslett's "Ain'ts" one year, before being injured and losing the chance. There is a possibility he was being tested as a potential "Vrabel-find" in FA before getting sidelined last pre-season. Watch & Wait
Sanders: $$vet or reshuffle.
Hawkins, Baker, & Andrews: Yes via draft, reshuffle, or $$vet.

In summary: It may be possible to upgrade starting FS. DL is 2 deep for reserves. CB is one deep. Sanders can be upgraded, but for all intents and purposes he makes S one deep.

Upgrade targets ranked by depth: LB, CB, S, STs

There was a remark made in a couple previous posts talking about 'taking snaps away' from a player, such as Sey or Vrabes - I'm all for taking snaps away from them. There are two reasons why they would "lose" snaps, they have injuries and need more frequent rest, or they have some very good reserves behind them. If you can rest Seymour for one or two series a game by using Jarvis Green, that is a good thing. It develops that reserve to reduce the "drop off" behind the starter, and it rests a key starter who plays on a team consistently playing an extended season. Colvin, Vrabel, and McGinest rotating in an out is a specific example of top players "losing snaps" and the team being better for it. If the coaches can rest Wilfork more often using Wright, then Vince is stronger at the end of a game and in post-season. "Losing snaps" for a healthy player is actually an indication of strong depth and should be a goal when constructing the team. If Brady could sit for just one series a game because Cassel is playing well enough to consistently sub in for a series and lead a successful drive - life would be very good and Cassel would be marketable before he hits FA.

 

[Fencer]

There are three teams that could have won the SB last season with luck -- Indy, SD, and NE. Indy happened to win.

Any other team -- Baltimore maybe excepted, but I think not -- would have needed a lot of luck.

As for the defense itself -- it's a very good unit, but the depth/talent combo in pass coverage wasn't outstanding, and happened to get ravaged.

Among the CBs, Samuel was outstanding, Hobbs played hurt and was mediocre, Gay was on IR, and Scott was OK.

Among the safeties, Rodney was on IR, Wilson was on IR, and the backups were OK. And by the way, due to Rodney's injuries and unknown reasons in Wilson's case, neither Rodney nor Wilson has excelled notably in pass coverage for two years.

The LBs were just OK in pass coverage, period.

Note: An "OK" pass defender will make a few great plays over the course of a seasons.

 

[hwc]

What exactly did San Diego do that makes you belittle us beating them?

Ran the ball (148 yards rushing, 4.5 YPC) and shut down our running game (51 yards, 2.4 YPC).

Tom Brady had to throw the ball 51 times to beat the Chargers. God bless 'em, the Pats went on the road and won the game. Amazing.

But, in a ten game series, I don't like the Pats (or anyone else's chances) of winning games in which they throw the ball 51 times and run 21 times. I don't think the Pats matchup well against the Chargers...or the Colts. I believe that the A. Thomas signing was specifically targeted at adding LB speed and athleticism to improve the matchups against these two high-power offenses. IMO, Belichick is well aware of what he needs to do to make his team competitive against the best teams in the AFC. Whether he can make enough improvements is something we won't know until they play the games.

 

[RayClay]

There were some people that thought the Patriots were really gambling with linebacker depth.

We almost manged to last the year.

We need lots of new talent at DB and LB, no matter how smart you are, the body will give out.

 

[PatsSteve1]

I don't think one can talk about the D collapsing in the 2nd half of the AFCC game and not mention the O's part in that. 2 - 3 and outs and 2 - 4 and outs. The Colts ran 48 plays to the Patriots 32 in the 2nd half. I would suspect it lead to a fairly wide TOP difference as well. Had the Patriots gotten a TD in any of those 4 drives the outcome may well have been different.

 

[PatsSteve1]

I don't think one can talk about the D collapsing in the 2nd half of the AFCC game and not mention the O's part in that. 2 - 3 and outs and 2 - 4 and outs. The Colts ran 48 plays to the Patriots 32 in the 2nd half. I would suspect it lead to a fairly wide TOP difference as well. Had the Patriots gotten a TD in any of those 4 drives the outcome may well have been different.

To add to that, had those 2 - 3 and outs been say 7 play drives, even had they not scored, they may have won because Indy didn't score thier winning TD until there was 1:02 left in the game and maybe no one would doubt the D with thier 1st time starting LB and the other popular excuses

 

[patsfan55]

Our defense was TREMENDOUS in the regular season last year. Arguably the best we have ever had, evidenced by the Franchise Record for fewest points allowed. We led the league in defensive TDs allowed, were near the top vs the run, and good against the pass overall (statistically, but much better than good overall, since 12-4 teams usually lead in games and allow more passing yards because of it).
However, our season ended because our defense was putrid in the AFCC.

Does this mean we have a great D that had a bad day?
Or does this mean you overhaul the D? To use an analogy if we had a Championship team with a QB who choked in big games, we would replace the QB. Has our D evolved into 'good stats' but they choke in big spots, and in big games?

Or is the answer somewhere in between?

the defense was def more dominant in 2003
i think the biggest thing is we have to get younger on defense, but with early picks, not mid round ones
we need talent and speed at safety and linebacker
let them learn the ropes
ad was a great pickup, cuz hes a HUGE bandaid
but hes not the be all end all
we still need more youth and speed at linebacker
and we def do at safety

i thought we were very solid this past yr on defense, but unspectacular
it just didnt feel like we could dominate a team on the defensive side of the ball

 

[BostonRob]

i dont consider ad as a bandaid

the defense was def more dominant in 2003
i think the biggest thing is we have to get younger on defense, but with early picks, not mid round ones
we need talent and speed at safety and linebacker
let them learn the ropes
ad was a great pickup, cuz hes a HUGE bandaid
but hes not the be all end all
we still need more youth and speed at linebacker
and we def do at safety

i thought we were very solid this past yr on defense, but unspectacular
it just didnt feel like we could dominate a team on the defensive side of the ball

 

[patsfan55]

i dont consider ad as a bandaid

pops,
a guy that is only gonna be around for about five yrs is still a bandaid
i love the guy
more than prob anyone here
but he will be 30 yrs old (on my bday) before the start of the reg season
its like when we brought in guys like phifer, rodney etc
sure they were huge parts to our success
and they play at great levels
but theyre not here to play their entire careers

and i know some in here feel that even rookies and young guys are only brought in til theyre price tag will go up

but as we have shown, if you perform well enough we will pay you (brady, seymour, koppen, etc)

 

[salty]

I don't think one can talk about the D collapsing in the 2nd half of the AFCC game and not mention the O's part in that. 2 - 3 and outs and 2 - 4 and outs. The Colts ran 48 plays to the Patriots 32 in the 2nd half. I would suspect it lead to a fairly wide TOP difference as well. Had the Patriots gotten a TD in any of those 4 drives the outcome may well have been different.

I agree with your analysis. While lack of depth and speed on defense was certainly an issue, we still would've won that game if the offense could have gotten ONE MORE MEASLY FIRST DOWN in the second half!

So you add speed and depth at LB and DB. A.D. goes a long way at LB, but we still need some depth there, and we need an impact player at safety. By no means do you overhaul the defense.

Then you add some weapons on offense. Wes Welker was a great addition. I honestly think that if we had him against Indy, he probably would have picked up one of those first downs that would've sealed the game. But I don't think thats enough. We still need another receiving threat. I'm holding out hope on Stallworth (at the right price, of course), and I suppose its possible that Chad Jackson could recover from the ACL tear and contribute more next year, but its probably time to look elsewhere.

 

[patsfan55]

I Wes Welker was a great addition. I honestly think that if we had him against Indy, he probably would have picked up one of those first downs that would've sealed the game. .

you take that exact team and make two changes
add ad and welker
we win that game

 

[Miguel]

Is it me?? Or does this thread not echo a thread in December??


http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=46534

Sure, one could argue that the 2006 defense was better than the 2003 defense but one could also argue that the 2003 defense put up very similar stats while playing a tougher schedule AND won a Super Bowl.

Miguel (unhappy that the 2006 Patriots did not prove me wrong that they were not as good as the 2003/2004 Patriots)

 

[BostonRob]

pops,
a guy that is only gonna be around for about five yrs is still a bandaid
i love the guy
more than prob anyone here
but he will be 30 yrs old (on my bday) before the start of the reg season
its like when we brought in guys like phifer, rodney etc
sure they were huge parts to our success
and they play at great levels
but theyre not here to play their entire careers

and i know some in here feel that even rookies and young guys are only brought in til theyre price tag will go up

but as we have shown, if you perform well enough we will pay you (brady, seymour, koppen, etc)

My Dear Son,
There is no question your football (especially reur beloved PATRIOTS) acumen is unsurpassed by ANYONE-HOWEVER please remember how you attained such a LOVE/PASSION for the NFL/PATS!!!!!! I may be in my mid 50's -but I still have some knowledge RE:OUR LIFE-THE PATS and the NFL!!!! IN todays NFL WORLD-5 years is to be considered substantial and not a bandaid!!!! I do agree we need to draft young talent at LB & SAFETY-I just don't agree with bandaid statement!!!! I'm sure Belichek & Pioli and all Pats fans would love to consider AD to have same impact in PATS success (ie.CHAMPIONSHIPS-KNOCK WOOD) as Rodney/Vrabel/Phifer/etc.-If AD DOES perform at that professional level on and off the field as well as in locker rooom-I'll need to put my PATS leather (SUPER BOWL WINS) JACKET in the closet and purchase a new one that represents ALL CHAMPIONSHIPS(KNOCK WOOD)!!!!!!!!!!! LOVE DEAR OLD DAD

 

[patsfan55]

Is it me?? Or does this thread not echo a thread in December??


http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=46534

Sure, one could argue that the 2006 defense was better than the 2003 defense but one could also argue that the 2003 defense put up very similar stats while playing a tougher schedule AND won a Super Bowl.

Miguel (unhappy that the 2006 Patriots did not prove me wrong that they were not as good as the 2003/2004 Patriots)

hey migs
the 03 d just never worried me
whenever we knew they had to come up with a stop they would

i never felt that confidence with this past yrs d