The defense

[danny88]

Now I know most people on here scoff at anything that questions Pioli and Belis opinion, but a few things concern me.

We could have a very serious issue at the lb position if anyone gets hurt. Losing Colvin was a huge blow to this team. Chad Brown is not the answer.

Why does Beli constantly ignore this position of need?

What about Meriweather? 11 games in and this kid is yet to see any significant time on the field?I was hoping to see his speed on the d by week 12. Should we be concerned? because it seems to me his speed and athletic ability would be a great addition to the backfield. As good as we are, a few bad breaks and things could get dicey at best.

Whats the story with Woods and Alexander? Are they ready to step up? Who here thinks we can contain the colts and or Dallas with this D if there are a few bad breaks at the lb position.

 

[Patriots Nation NY]

To be honest.. I don't know if this "D" can hang with Green Bay.. I was watching the superbowl DVD from the 2004 team yesterday, and watched the superbowl against the eagles... I was thinking Damm.. That "D" was nasty.. I'm talking physical, and head hunters.. Long time ago though..:snob:

 

[Gumby]

Subjective (non-quantitative) view gives me impression our D is weaker than in past years. Even if we are in top 10 for points allowed; they just feel weak.

I "think" that our defense is as much limited by differing nfl "points of emphasis" as it has by aging players (LBs & safeties) or high profile D players being overpaid and self-satisified (not as hungry), or by a lower athletic standard in the DBs.
Individually when you throw out the names - warren, seymour, wilfork, bruschi, harrison, asante - I think we have one of the most talented Ds out there. So why do I have the feeling they are weaker than in past SB years?

You looked at the tape; what did you see that we have gotten much weaker? Is it the players being not as good or is it a change in how the game can be played? What specific positions look like they are much weaker?

 

[danny88]

Subjective (non-quantitative) view gives me impression our D is weaker than in past years. Even if we are in top 10 for points allowed; they just feel weak.

I "think" that our defense is as much limited by differing nfl "points of emphasis" as it has by aging players (LBs & safeties) or high profile D players being overpaid and self-satisified (not as hungry), or by a lower athletic standard in the DBs.
Individually when you throw out the names - warren, seymour, wilfork, bruschi, harrison, asante - I think we have one of the most talented Ds out there. So why do I have the feeling they are weaker than in past SB years?

You looked at the tape; what did you see that we have gotten much weaker? Is it the players being not as good or is it a change in how the game can be played? What specific positions look like they are much weaker?

I just think the lack of speed/depth at lb is going to hurt in the stretch.

 

[danny88]

To be honest.. I don't know if this "D" can hang with Green Bay.. I was watching the superbowl DVD from the 2004 team yesterday, and watched the superbowl against the eagles... I was thinking Damm.. That "D" was nasty.. I'm talking physical, and head hunters.. Long time ago though..:snob:

I agree. The d is good , dont get me wrong. But the lack of speed and bad tackling is a hole. Hopefully woods and Alexander can step up.

 

[makewayhomer]

2004 Points Against: 260
2007 Points Against (pace): 269 (currently 185)

a whole 1/2 point per game difference!

and given the offenses we have to face the rest of the way, I think there is a good chance we finish below 260

so far this year we have faced the #2, #3, #5, #6, #7, and #11 offensives in the league (DVOA Ratings).

 

[danny88]

2004 Points Against: 260
2007 Points Against (pace): 269 (currently 185

Thats true. The stats dont tell the WHOLE story though. You dont see concern with our lb / db depth? In 04 the d looked better the it does now.

 

[patsox23]

I don't know how anyone can really question the depth of a position ONCE INJURIES HAVE HAPPENED. "Depth" needs to be about how we went into this season, and we went into this season a bit OLD at linebacker, but with a good amount of depth.

We've lost an LB in Colvin, which sucks, but what are we supposed to do - our LB corps is VERY good, and we'll try to battle through. It's not like they were irresponsible with the position. You don't actually think that, do you? Maybe I'm just not reading it right.

 

[danny88]

I don't know how anyone can really question the depth of a position ONCE INJURIES HAVE HAPPENED. "Depth" needs to be about how we went into this season, and we went into this season a bit OLD at linebacker, but with a good amount of depth.

We've lost an LB in Colvin, which sucks, but what are we supposed to do - our LB corps is VERY good, and we'll try to battle through. It's not like they were irresponsible with the position. You don't actually think that, do you? Maybe I'm just not reading it right.

No I don't think that. I would think Beli and co would anticipate a injury to a key LB. It just seems like we are old at the position , when the NFL is now geared more towards speed / passing then smash mouth running football.

I want to know if Alexander and Woods can step in?

 

[bradmahn]

Thats true. The stats dont tell the WHOLE story though. You dont see concern with our lb / db depth? In 04 the d looked better the it does now.

The 2004 defensive backfield depth was way worse, sorry to break that to you. This year's defensive line is better than the 2004 defensive line, with Vince Wilfork and Ty Warren having matured greatly as players. Seymour has slowed down some, but the other two make up for that. Jarvis Green is still around and there is more depth after him than there was in '04. The LBs aren't as deep by any means, but the top four for this year's are not crap. It's hard to make a case that an '04 McGinnest and Vrabel is better than an '07 Vrabel and Thomas.

That 2004 defense is looked at with a lot of reverence on this board, but it was NOT as good as some remember it to be.

2003, on the other hand...

 

[danny88]

The 2004 defensive backfield depth was way worse, sorry to break that to you. This year's defensive line is better than the 2004 defensive line, with Vince Wilfork and Ty Warren having matured greatly as players. Seymour has slowed down some, but the other two make up for that. Jarvis Green is still around and there is more depth after him than there was in '04. The LBs aren't as deep by any means, but the top four for this year's are not crap. It's hard to make a case that an '04 McGinnest and Vrabel is better than an '07 Vrabel and Thomas.

That 2004 defense is looked at with a lot of reverence on this board, but it was NOT as good as some remember it to be.

2003, on the other hand...

Everything you say is true. I just wonder why it LOOKS worse. maybe its just me

 

[makewayhomer]

Thats true. The stats dont tell the WHOLE story though. You dont see concern with our lb / db depth? In 04 the d looked better the it does now.

the defensive backfield is better now

veteran Asante vs rookie Asante
veteran Hobbs vs youngster Gay (iirc)
Eugene Wilson vs Eugene Wilson
old Rodney vs not quite so old Rodney

but the backups are better. back then Troy Brown and Earthwind Moreland got playing time...nuf said

re: the LB's, we probably are worse now. Bruschi/Vrabel are older, Seau is old. but Rosie was a non factor back then (gone now) and we have AD now instead of Willie.

the Dline is much better now imo

I think you just have warm and fuzzy feelings about 2004

in 2004 we do go through awful DB injuries, which forces our hand a bit. but as of Week 12 2007 vs Week 12 2004, I'll take the 2007 Defense

 

[Coast2CoastPatsFan]

Some valids points are being made in comparing this year's defense with that of the championship teams. But one thing that must be kept in mind is that this year's offense is MUCH better than what we had in any of the three championship seasons. This could offset any possible drop in the quality of the defense, but let's hope it doesn't have to come to that.

 

[danny88]

Some valids points are being made in comparing this year's defense with that of the championship teams. But one thing that must be kept in mind is that this year's offense is MUCH better than what we had in any of the three championship seasons. This could offset any possible drop in the quality of the defense, but let's hope it doesn't have to come to that.

Thats true. Teams are on the field a lot less then they where in 04.

 

[makewayhomer]

Thats true. Teams are on the field a lot less then they where in 04.

not really.

in 2004 we had 172 "defensive" drives

so far this year we have had 118, on pace for exactly...172.

points per drive allowed then: 1.36

point per drive now: 1.45

(but again, I think that # will get lower, as our defense has already faced the hard part of "their" schedule. none of the remaining offenses we face are better than average)

 

[danny88]

not really.

in 2004 we had 172 "defensive" drives

so far this year we have had 118, on pace for exactly...172.

points per drive allowed then: 1.36

point per drive now: 1.45

(but again, I think that # will get lower, as our defense has already faced the hard part of "their" schedule. none of the remaining offenses we face are better than average)

Well the stats certainly state what I was saying is pretty much wrong. For some reason the d just looks iffy a lot of the time?

 

[sieglo]

You are remembering the playoff defense from 2004, which obviously was dominating.

It isn't playoff time yet. Five games to go. And it seems like every year the Pats D gels in the run up to the playoffs.

There is more talent personel-wise in the '07 defense than the '04 defense. Other posters have addressed this. The question is: will the coaching be as good this year to turn the D into the well-oiled machine it has the potential to be?

 

[makewayhomer]

Well the stats certainly state what I was saying is pretty much wrong. For some reason the d just looks iffy a lot of the time?

well, keep in mind we have faced a harder than average offensive schedule - in 11 games we have played great offenses like Indy, Dallas, Cinci, Cleveland, etc...like week in and week out (besides Miami, NYJ, Buffalo, Wash) we've been playing good offenses

I don't know if that were true at this point in 2004.

my guess is that the results are much better against Balt, NYG, and Pittburgh and we stay strong against NYJ and Miami and the story will be "how the defense is back"

 

[danny88]

You are remembering the playoff defense from 2004, which obviously was dominating.

It isn't playoff time yet. Five games to go. And it seems like every year the Pats D gels in the run up to the playoffs.

There is more talent personel-wise in the '07 defense than the '04 defense. Other posters have addressed this. The question is: will the coaching be as good this year to turn the D into the well-oiled machine it has the potential to be?

I sure hope so. The tacking seems to be pretty poor this year.

 

[spacecrime]

Now I know most people on here scoff at anything that questions Pioli and Belis opinion, but a few things concern me.

The patriots are 11-0. Just because they are having a perfect season doesn't mean they are perfect in every way.

No team is perfect. If you want to nitpick I'm sure you can find things are could be better.

But my God, man, how could any Pats fan not be absolutely thrilled with the way this season is unfolding.

The Patriots are head and shoulders above every other team in the league.

What's not to like?

We all have our opinions on what the team needs, but think for a minute. How many division championships in a row? How many Lonbardis recently? Not a single loss this year.

If you are a Pats fan, don't miss enjoying every single minute of theis magical season.

If you aren't a pats fan, or are a terminally negative person, just remember that BB has a staff of over a hundred people working full time digging up information and advising him. They have a humongous film library with coaching tapes (not stupid TV feeds that focus on one player half the time and on the sidelines the other half). They have tapes on every team, every player, in the NFL. They interview players, they observe practices, they know what position players are supposed to be in on every play and can judge whether or not the player did the right thing.

I know you watch NFL Live and Sports Center and Around the Horn every day, but does that really give you more accurate information that BB has at his fingertips? Do you really know better what the team needs?