Do the Patiots have ANY weaknesses?

[FloridaPatsFan]

Well, each of the Patriots' opponents managed at least one good drive when they seemed to get into a rhythm and the Patriots couldn't stop them. The Jets had Chad Pennington throwing varied short passes using Cotchery and Coles, the Chargers completed a lot of passes to Gates, while the Bills relied heavily on the energy and elusiveness of Marshawn Lynch. It's true that the Patriots soon adjusted, but a team with an excellent short passing game and a dynamic and hard-to-tackle running back (Indianapolis?) could prove difficult.

I've noticed the Patriots will play a lot of man to man with the WR's but tend to play zone with the TE's. Basically shadowing the TE's with LB's for 7-10 yards then letting the Safety's pick them up. I think this is the reason that quick TE's like Gates and Dallas Clark have success against us. (Our LB's the past few years were much better at the run than in pass coverage). But with Colvin (outside) and Thomas (over the middle) I think we are going to be picking up the coverage a lot better this year.

Other than that, our secondary has not been asked to do much yet. We will find out how good they are as a unit Monday....but I would say that at this point the Patriots really have no weaknesses.

As for the red zone defense????? 5 trips in 3 games? Thats an average of 1.67 trips in the red zone a game......I hope we can keep up that kind of defense going.

 

[PatsFan37]

I've noticed the Patriots will play a lot of man to man with the WR's but tend to play zone with the TE's. Basically shadowing the TE's with LB's for 7-10 yards then letting the Safety's pick them up. I think this is the reason that quick TE's like Gates and Dallas Clark have success against us. (Our LB's the past few years were much better at the run than in pass coverage). But with Colvin (outside) and Thomas (over the middle) I think we are going to be picking up the coverage a lot better this year.

Other than that, our secondary has not been asked to do much yet. We will find out how good they are as a unit Monday....but I would say that at this point the Patriots really have no weaknesses.

As for the red zone defense????? 5 trips in 3 games? Thats an average of 1.67 trips in the red zone a game......I hope we can keep up that kind of defense going.

Very nice analysis on the TE coverage. Thanks, FPF. I think you're right about the outside corners not being as pressured since they've faced QBs who either don't have the deep WRs or don't specialize in accurate deep passing. OTOH, the safeties have been challenged by good TEs (Gates, Jets) and by tough, elusive WRs (Jets) who are good at YAC.

On Mike the Brit's point, that each opponent has managed to generate a good long drive, there's a reasonable counterpoint. Assuming opponents will score 14 pts on average on a league-leading defense, those points have to come from somewhere. What we've seen is a tendency for the D to let up the pressure at some point during each game. It's come from poor coverage on short passes, execrable tackling (the Bills/Lynch TD drive), and temporary lack of QB pressure.

Alternative ways for the opponent to score: poor ST's coverage, offensive turnovers leading to quick points, long plays leading to quick points, consistent struggling to get off the field on 3rd down, consistent inability to stop the run, consistent lack of pressure on the QB.

Given all the alternatives, and with a D that shows the ability to step up the pressure and force turnovers, sacks and 3-and-outs when necessary, I'll happily take a temporary let-up in pressure. I'm not seeing a deep-seated underlying problem. But it's early yet for any team to show its flaws and they may still be there.

I just have that feeling about this team that if the offense wasn't scoring 38 pts, the D would tighten the clamps.

 

[FloridaPatsFan]

Very nice analysis on the TE coverage. Thanks, FPF. I think you're right about the outside corners not being as pressured since they've faced QBs who either don't have the deep WRs or don't specialize in accurate deep passing. OTOH, the safeties have been challenged by good TEs (Gates, Jets) and by tough, elusive WRs (Jets) who are good at YAC.

On Mike the Brit's point, that each opponent has managed to generate a good long drive, there's a reasonable counterpoint. Assuming opponents will score 14 pts on average on a league-leading defense, those points have to come from somewhere. What we've seen is a tendency for the D to let up the pressure at some point during each game. It's come from poor coverage on short passes, execrable tackling (the Bills/Lynch TD drive), and temporary lack of QB pressure.

Alternative ways for the opponent to score: poor ST's coverage, offensive turnovers leading to quick points, long plays leading to quick points, consistent struggling to get off the field on 3rd down, consistent inability to stop the run, consistent lack of pressure on the QB.

Given all the alternatives, and with a D that shows the ability to step up the pressure and force turnovers, sacks and 3-and-outs when necessary, I'll happily take a temporary let-up in pressure. I'm not seeing a deep-seated underlying problem. But it's early yet for any team to show its flaws and they may still be there.

I just have that feeling about this team that if the offense wasn't scoring 38 pts, the D would tighten the clamps.

Thanks PF37. I agree with your assesment as well....

But if I were an OC going against this defense I might want to try going with a lot of short passes to keep the Pats from blitzing as well. This would probably shorten up the secondary and then you could try to go for a long one.

With Chad Johnson and Housh, Palmer has the kind of recievers to work this kind of gameplan.

However, I'm sure BB has already thought of this.

Either way, I keep getting this feeling that the Patriots (in a nationally televised game), are going to blow out the Bengals. A lot of people are going to watch the game tomorrow night to see for themselves just how good these Patriots are. And they won't be disappointed.

 

[Satchboogie3]

Bigdgp, the poker analogy wasn't that the odds of each singular event would change. Each event is independent, thus the odds are always the same. But I was discussing the odds of winning multiple events. That is collective. The more events you face, the less likely it is that you will survive them. Just think of it this way. With AA vs KK, you are 81.26% to win. That means you will win just over 4 out of every 5 times you get that hand. That means the more times you have that event, the less likely it is that you will have survived them ALL. (Its the whole idea that you still need a ton of luck to win a big tournament) It has nothing to do with singular events; it's the sum.