Why Our Defense Needs More Help Than Many Think

[shakadave]

We need to stop referencing stats about how good our D was in 2006. We were very good, but not as great as it looks from our rankings in points and TDs allowed.

a) We played a weaker bunch of offenses than usual --- especially in the NFC. We also had a good enough running attack to keep the clock moving a lot (compared, say, to the year before) keeping our defense off the field sometimes.

b) We have reached a point like the Oilers reached against the Steelers when they gave up on Pastorini for a shot with Stabler. That is, we should focus on specific opponents we know we have to get past: the Colts come to mind. Even though our defense was very good in 2006, the Colts had what it took to overcome it on a regular basis. Rather than saying "our D was already great," or "our secondary is pretty good," we should say "We need a couple major changes to maximize the chances of ending our losing streak to the Colts."

c) Our defensive line is great, but a great defensive line still can't be expected to pressure the quarterback on every play, more like a third of the plays. We need great coverage LBs, and great DBs (Ty Law was our best ever anti-Manning) or we'll have a lot more Colts moments where the pass rush doesn't reach Payton, who throws for 30+ points against our Back Eight.

 

[zippo59]

I think most people are hoping they devote the majority of their draft picks on defense.

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

The defense's short comings were clear as day, even against some of the lesser offenses (Detroit). They couldn't get off of the field when necessary. We won't even go into the second half of the Colts game...However, the defense is better today than it was on that fateful day in January. After the draft and some mid level, spring signings, it will be deeper, faster, and better than last year. We don't need it to be the Ravens of 2000 good. If it is better than last year in terms of 3rd down and time of possession, I think we'll be in great shape.

 

[SeanBruschi54]

I think most people are hoping they devote the majority of their draft picks on defense.

How much more could you add to the offense?

QB - 1 player could be added

RB - Maybe 1 player could be added

WR - 1 player at most

TE - 0

OL - Tackle/ Guard could be drafted

Thats a total of four maybe possible draftable players.

 

[mgteich]

If our defense were in better shape, we might very well be considering drafting a RB, OT, WR and a QB in the first four picks.

How much more could you add to the offense?

QB - 1 player could be added

RB - Maybe 1 player could be added

WR - 1 player at most

TE - 0

OL - Tackle/ Guard could be drafted

Thats a total of four maybe possible draftable players.

 

[italia44]

We need to stop referencing stats about how good our D was in 2006. We were very good, but not as great as it looks from our rankings in points and TDs allowed.

a) We played a weaker bunch of offenses than usual --- especially in the NFC. We also had a good enough running attack to keep the clock moving a lot (compared, say, to the year before) keeping our defense off the field sometimes.

p.s.The Colts are good.....really,really good.

b) We have reached a point like the Oilers reached against the Steelers when they gave up on Pastorini for a shot with Stabler. That is, we should focus on specific opponents we know we have to get past: the Colts come to mind. Even though our defense was very good in 2006, the Colts had what it took to overcome it on a regular basis. Rather than saying "our D was already great," or "our secondary is pretty good," we should say "We need a couple major changes to maximize the chances of ending our losing streak to the Colts."

c) Our defensive line is great, but a great defensive line still can't be expected to pressure the quarterback on every play, more like a third of the plays. We need great coverage LBs, and great DBs (Ty Law was our best ever anti-Manning) or we'll have a lot more Colts moments where the pass rush doesn't reach Payton, who throws for 30+ points against our Back Eight.

You're stating the obvious......You do realize that our 3-4 is a stop-the-run first ,defense?

Where are we getting these "great coverage" LBs?
From the Colts?Would you replace Vrabel and Bruschi with Indy's smaller,faster LB's....Who couldn't stop the run?

Not me,brother....this is flat out,stupid.

Great coverage DB's?.......There's maybe 2 in the whole league! Champ Bailey and take your pick.

This defense was excellent last year.....with the addition of AD,its near superior.We just need some minor "tweaking",that's all.

Next time,look at broken bones,The Flu,and playoff road games as reasons for our demise.

To make a blanket statement about the defense is absurd...Do some research,next time.

 

[Willie55]

I think the D was as good as advertised. They may have not been able to get off the field at times but the staple of their D's have been bend but dont break. Who cares how many yards you give just dont give up points. Isn't that what the game is all about - not giving up TD's and points.

The DL is all set. They could use a younger LB, and because of all the injuries they sustain and the uncertainty with the Samuel situation they could use a CB.

 

[danny88]

You're stating the obvious......You do realize that our 3-4 is a stop-the-run first ,defense?

Where are we getting these "great coverage" LBs?
From the Colts?Would you replace Vrabel and Bruschi with Indy's smaller,faster LB's....Who couldn't stop the run?

Not me,brother....this is flat out,stupid.

Great coverage DB's?.......There's maybe 2 in the whole league! Champ Bailey and take your pick.

This defense was excellent last year.....with the addition of AD,its near superior.We just need some minor "tweaking",that's all.

Next time,look at broken bones,The Flu,and playoff road games as reasons for our demise.
To make a blanket statement about the defense is absurd...Do some research,next time.

To use this as an excuse, and ignore the OBVIOUS defensive issues last year is absurd.

 

[Fencer]

The defense needs to add speed, instincts, and/or quickness -- primarily in pass coverage, but run defense is always welcome too -- while maintaining the quality it already has in all other regards (brains, discipline, strength, pass rush).

Plus there always are depth/rotation issues.

 

[zippo59]

After the Colts game I think the biggest need for this defense is depth. We we're stretched so thin at linebacker and safety that although the defense played great in the first half they were not able to sustain that level because they had no rotation to keep players fresh. That is especially important again the Colts because their offense is a short passing offense that goes on long drives. The lack of depth was definitely exposed.

 

[Willie55]

After the Colts game I think the biggest need for this defense is depth. We we're stretched so thin at linebacker and safety that although the defense played great in the first half they were not able to sustain that level because they had no rotation to keep players fresh. That is especially important again the Colts because their offense is a short passing offense that goes on long drives. The lack of depth was definitely exposed.

They had depth in the beginning of the season but due to injuries that got decimated.

 

[RayClay]

We need to stop referencing stats about how good our D was in 2006. We were very good, but not as great as it looks from our rankings in points and TDs allowed.

a) We played a weaker bunch of offenses than usual --- especially in the NFC. We also had a good enough running attack to keep the clock moving a lot (compared, say, to the year before) keeping our defense off the field sometimes.

b) We have reached a point like the Oilers reached against the Steelers when they gave up on Pastorini for a shot with Stabler. That is, we should focus on specific opponents we know we have to get past: the Colts come to mind. Even though our defense was very good in 2006, the Colts had what it took to overcome it on a regular basis. Rather than saying "our D was already great," or "our secondary is pretty good," we should say "We need a couple major changes to maximize the chances of ending our losing streak to the Colts."

c) Our defensive line is great, but a great defensive line still can't be expected to pressure the quarterback on every play, more like a third of the plays. We need great coverage LBs, and great DBs (Ty Law was our best ever anti-Manning) or we'll have a lot more Colts moments where the pass rush doesn't reach Payton, who throws for 30+ points against our Back Eight.

I believe most of our sacks came late, a result of the line wearing teams down.

Our D is not designed for the pressure to come from the line, however, and our LBs lack of athleticism really started to show in lack of pressure early IMO.

 

[zippo59]

They had depth in the beginning of the season but due to injuries that got decimated.

I agree I think Seau and Rodney would have made quite a difference.

Regardless, adding players at LB and S through the draft and perhaps a cheap FA pick-up would definitely be a good idea.

 

[zippo59]

I believe most of our sacks came late, a result of the line wearing teams down.

Our D is not designed for the pressure to come from the line, however, and our LBs lack of athleticism really started to show in lack of pressure early IMO.

LB's accounted for 21 sacks in 2006. I'm not sure where that falls compared to past years.

 

[shakadave]

You're stating the obvious......You do realize that our 3-4 is a stop-the-run first ,defense?

Where are we getting these "great coverage" LBs?
From the Colts?Would you replace Vrabel and Bruschi with Indy's smaller,faster LB's....Who couldn't stop the run?

Not me,brother....this is flat out,stupid.

I'm glad you read this, because you are whom this thread is meant to reach. Yes, I would "replace" Vrabel at ILB so that we could rotate him with Colvin and Thomas at OLB. I would at least spell Tedy on some downs if he appears not to be a 4-down LB anymore.


Great coverage DB's?.......There's maybe 2 in the whole league! Champ Bailey and take your pick. Versus Manning, I pick Ty Law. We don't need to have one of the top 2 in the whole league. Let's just not try to make do with #40 (Hobbs), #72 (Sanders), and #88(Hawkins). Let's also not count on Wilson re-discovering his past glory, or Rodney being healthy for 19 games.

This defense was excellent last year.....with the addition of AD,its near superior.We just need some minor "tweaking",that's all. Getting AD is a big shot in the arm. Most other LBs have aged another year and detract from the total defense as compared to themselves in 2006.
Next time,look at broken bones,The Flu,and playoff road games as reasons for our demise. Well why do you think we HAD playoff road games?!!! Wouldn't it have helped to beat the Colts in the regular season? I'm just saying that the last three times we've faced the Colts, we've allowed an AVERAGE of 35 points. I apologize for being so "flat out stupid" that this number troubles me.

To make a blanket statement about the defense is absurd...Do some research,next time. (See above apology for my absurdity/stupidity.)

. .. ... ....

 

[cstjohn17]

We need to stop referencing stats about how good our D was in 2006. We were very good, but not as great as it looks from our rankings in points and TDs allowed.

c) Our defensive line is great, but a great defensive line still can't be expected to pressure the quarterback on every play, more like a third of the plays. We need great coverage LBs, and great DBs (Ty Law was our best ever anti-Manning) or we'll have a lot more Colts moments where the pass rush doesn't reach Payton, who throws for 30+ points against our Back Eight.

I will start by referencing stats:
- 14.6 PPG - lowest total in team history
- 10 passing TDs allowed (most of which was with our 3rd and 4th Safeties)
- 94.2 YPG

Before the injuries to Seau and Harrison the numbers were even better. You could make a valid point that there should have been more depth at ILB but give some credit to how the defense played in 06.

The Indy game was a once in a lifetime event, an overhaul isn't needed. We crushed Indy with LBs like Ted Johnson and Roman Phifer. Our CBs allowed 9 catched for 129 yards to one of the best WR tandems in history. Our 5th string CB and 6th string LB were exposed by a HOF QB, not really a surprise.

Can and should the defense (and offense) be expected to improve and get younger? Yes of course, I expect one day 1 and one day 2 LB to be added in the draft as well as a Safety and CB.

I would end by saying that if we have an above average offense, an above average defense and above average special teams plus a superior coach and QB; this is instantly enough to put the Pats in the top 2-3 teams in the league. Once the playoffs start it is not about beuing the best team it is about playing the best. I am not usually a Kool-aid drinker but as of April 1 I am very upbeat about the team.

 

[italia44]

. .. ... ....

I would never imply someone was stupid,if I did,I apologize.My intent was the philosophy of changing an excellent 3-4 defense,to one that has "faster coverage LB's......this I find to be stupid.

This is the Colts' Tampa 2 defense.....don't need it,
don't want it.

Bruschi is playing out of position because Seau had a broken arm,Tedy also broke his wrist,harrison had a broken collarbone.These are NOT age-related injuries,they could happen to anyone(Hobbs,also).

In the Patriots style of defense,there will always be a trade-off between coverage LB's and run-stopping LB's.The Colts pick coverage,we pick,run,this is a fact,not gonna change.

Ty Law?.......please.....maybe 2 years ago,not now.
Would he have been better than Asante?
Don't think so.....and Hobbs played very well for a guy with a broken wrist.

We have very good players,who need to develop.
Broken bones ruin your depth,however they are not the reason to turnover half your roster,just for the sake of making a "change".

p.s.The Colts are good.....really,really,good.

 

[danny88]

We need depth/help at lb and we need to upgrade the secondary TRUE STORY. The real queston is, what the hell will Bellipioli do if Olson is on the board at number 24

 

[SeanBruschi54]

We need depth/help at lb and we need to upgrade the secondary TRUE STORY. The real queston is, what the hell will Bellipioli do if Olson is on the board at number 24

Trade with the Saints so the Jets dont get him.

 

[shakadave]

I would never imply someone was stupid,if I did,I apologize.My intent was the philosophy of changing an excellent 3-4 defense,to one that has "faster coverage LB's......this I find to be stupid.

I said greater, not faster, coverage LBs, although I could see why faster would go along with this. I think part of what I really want is Roman Phifer again!

This is the Colts' Tampa 2 defense.....don't need it,
don't want it.

Bruschi is playing out of position because Seau had a broken arm,Tedy also broke his wrist,harrison had a broken collarbone.These are NOT age-related injuries,they could happen to anyone(Hobbs,also). Injuries can happen to anyone, but certainly they happen to older players more than younger ones.
In the Patriots style of defense,there will always be a trade-off between coverage LB's and run-stopping LB's.The Colts pick coverage,we pick,run,this is a fact,not gonna change.

Ty Law?.......please.....maybe 2 years ago,not now. Did you not see what Law did against Payton in THIS YEAR'S playoffs?

Would he have been better than Asante?
Don't think so.....and Hobbs played very well for a guy with a broken wrist.

We have very good players,who need to develop.
Broken bones ruin your depth,however they are not the reason to turnover half your roster,just for the sake of making a "change". Not half the roster, but I'm saying we're not there yet.
p.s.The Colts are good.....really,really,good.

. .. ... ....