Is the playoffs the difference in success between Dean Pees and Romeo Crennel?

[PATRIOT64]

I think both Crennel and Pees have been good Defensive Coordinators in New England but there will always be a debate on which Coordinator was better for this team in this decade.

I think the defense has been pretty good through both DC in this decade in the regular season,but the difference lies in the playoffs where Crennel was at his best and the defense did exactly what they needed to where as Dean Pees did not have the success,especially in the big games...as of yet

Crennel's defense almost always did the right things at the right times resulting in SB Championships.

Overall do you still put a Crennel defense in New England better than a Pees run defensive group? - there may be an argument there considering the team went 18-0 last year before defeat.

I still think the loss of Crennel meant a possible loss of an additional Championship or two for the Patriots, but Pees is still decent IMO.

Forget Mangini - He does not count

 

[Canada's #1 Pats Fan]

The question is - did Mangini help in making Crennel? Because the recent db coach who was let go (his name escapes me) certainly did not help in making Pees.

 

[signbabybrady]

I think both Crennel and Pees have been good Defensive Coordinators in New England but there will always be a debate on which Coordinator was better for this team in this decade.

Not that I think Pees has not done a good job but I don't think there is really any debate. The rings speak for themselves.

 

[richpats]

There isn't even a debate here. Pees has a HUGE black mark with the '06 AFC title game and oh yeah, ZERO rings as DC. The same goes for any McDaniels/Weis debates (his black mark being SB42).

 

[BionicPatriot]

The stupidity in this thread is evident. Rings don't just speak for themselves, look more in depth. What defense were more loaded, Crennel's or Pees? Lets not bury someone so easily. I'd love to see Pees with Bruschi,Harrison,McGienst,Vrabel all in their prime too.

 

[BionicPatriot]

There isn't even a debate here. Pees has a HUGE black mark with the '06 AFC title game and oh yeah, ZERO rings as DC. The same goes for any McDaniels/Weis debates (his black mark being SB42).

McDaniels and Weis is like comparing a subaru and a Ferrari at this point. The fact that numb nuts couldn't do anything in the super bowl with THIS talent is inexcusable. Perfect point here: Look at the talent difference. Weis didn't have the Brady of today, didn't have a 2 headed running attack, didn't have Moss, Welker, etc.

Weis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>McDaniels

Crennel > Pees

IMO.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Crennel had better players, especially at the LB and CB position.

 

[BionicPatriot]

Crennel had better players, especially at the LB and CB position.

Pees:

05 Vrabel, post stroke Bruschi, Beisel, Chad Brown, Colvin

DB Hobbs, Samuels, Starks, Scott, Eugene Wilson, Hawkins

06 Vrabel, post stroke Bruschi, Chad Brown, Colvin, Seau

DB hobbs, Samuels, Sanders, Harrison, Hawkins, Gay

07 Vrabel, Adalius, post stroke Bruschi, Colvin, Seau

DB Hobbs, Samuel, Sanders, Harrison, Merriweather, Gay

Crennel

01 Vrabel, Bruschi, Cox, McGinest, Johnson, Phifer

DB Otis Smith, Ty Law, Milloy, Jones

03 Vrabel, Bruschi, McGinest, Johnson, Phifer (Colvin was on IR from game 2, soo)

Law, Poole, Harrison, Wilson, Samuel

04 Vrabel, Bruschi, McGinest, Colvin, Johnson, Phifer

Gay, Erthwind More Land, Law (IRed after the 7th game I believe) Wilson Harrison, Gay, Brown


Outside of 04, He has Pees out matched in terms of talent. I say 04 because the Patriots had a make shift secondary, featuring Troy Brown in a lot of roles. So, what does this show us? Secondary talent means jack, you want front seven talent above ANYTHING. Again, Crennel had better defenses but he is an excellent coach bar none. I like Pees, I don't think he's that bad. I just don't think he's better then Crennel, but when BB is your coach, a DC isn't the difference in 3 trophies

 

[Deus Irae]

Which linebacker or defensive lineman blowing up a Patriots' offensive lineman in the Super Bowl was the responsibility of Pees?

The Patriots' surrendered fewer points per game in the playoffs than it did in the regular season. Some people here really need to be forced to cheer for a bottom 5 team for a couple of seasons so they can be shown what bad coaching really is.

 

[richpats]

Which linebacker or defensive lineman blowing up a Patriots' offensive lineman in the Super Bowl was the responsibility of Pees?

Well, when an offense throws the ball 75% of the time (as the Pats did in SB42), the opposing D can just forget about defending the run and just go straight for the passer, making a great pass rush completely dominant.

Off-topic, I know and I'll make my point short and sweet - McDaniels just doesn't know how to work the running game into the offense when it is tested. The pass is his security blanket and typically it just turns into the Tom Brady show, which as we've seen, will take you far but not all the way.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well, when an offense throws the ball 75% of the time (as the Pats did in SB42), the opposing D can just forget about defending the run and just go straight for the passer, making a great pass rush completely dominant.

Off-topic, I know and I'll make my point short and sweet - McDaniels just doesn't know how to work the running game into the offense when it is tested. The pass is his security blanket and typically it just turns into the Tom Brady show, which as we've seen, will take you far but not all the way.

Maroney rushed for 122 yards in both games against the AFC in the playoffs.

The Patriots had 29 rushing plays vs. 28 passing plays against Jacksonville.

The Patriots had 31 rushing plays vs. 33 passing plays against San Diego.

In the Super Bowl, Maroney had runs of 9,5,0 and 1 (for the TD) during the first drive, before Neal got hurt. Maroney ended up with 36 yards on 14 carries, which means that he went 10 carries for 21 yards the rest of the game.

It's foolish to run the ball when you can't gain yardage doing it and you've got the passing offense the Patriots had.

 

[richpats]

It's foolish to run the ball when you can't gain yardage doing it and you've got the passing offense the Patriots had.

Note when I said "when the offense is TESTED". SD and Jax didn't really test the offense - they minimized the damage but at no point was I really worried that the offense couldn't get something going. NE kept shooting itself in the foot in the SD game with picks and that's why it was close.

And your statement is a big reason why the Giants won that game. They turned the Pats' offense one-dimensional. And if a team simply knows they only need to play the pass with no major consequences, then it is going to be a long day for ANY offense, as we saw.

 

[The Great Fork]

The stupidity in this thread is evident. Rings don't just speak for themselves, look more in depth. What defense were more loaded, Crennel's or Pees? Lets not bury someone so easily. I'd love to see Pees with Bruschi,Harrison,McGienst,Vrabel all in their prime too.

This says it all, I think. The defense was much younger under Crennel, and therefore he could do more. I don't think there's much of a question in that respect.

You can't blame 42 on the OC and DC. EVERYONE failed this year.

 

[Deus Irae]

Note when I said "when the offense is TESTED". SD and Jax didn't really test the offense - they minimized the damage but at no point was I really worried that the offense couldn't get something going. NE kept shooting itself in the foot in the SD game with picks and that's why it was close.

And your statement is a big reason why the Giants won that game. They turned the Pats' offense one-dimensional. And if a team simply knows they only need to play the pass with no major consequences, then it is going to be a long day for ANY offense, as we saw.

It's always fun when you get to decide the definition of your words, isn't it? When you get to make the false claim that the offense wasn't tested against Jacksonville and San Diego, it makes it much easier to just ignore the truth.

 

[Rob0729]

Sorry, like I defend McDaniels, I have to defend Pees here. I am not the biggest fan of Pees, but I don't think he is the reason why we lost in the playoffs. I don't think he is nearly as good as Crennel and that the reason Capers was brought in was because I don't think Belichick is in love with Pees either. But I think our playoff losses were because of play on the field.

That last defensive stand was a huge reason we lost the Super Bowl, but there were three occassions on that last drive where the Pats players were in position to make the potential game ender and didn't execute properly. That isn't the DC's fault.

I don't think the past two years' defenses have been nearly as good as the 2003 or 2004 defense, but I think it is because of the talent on the field. Harrison and Bruschi aren't the players they once were. McGinest, Law, Phifer, and others are gone. Seymour had a down year last year and missed the first six games which made Warren draw more double teams than ever. We need to upgrade the talent on defense. That is the biggest cause for our defensive woes.

I do think Crennel is a defensive genius and clearly the biggest coaching staff loss we have suffered, but I don't know if even he could have found an answer for Dallas Clark in the AFC Championships last year or made either Samuel or Meriweather hold onto their potential INTs in the last drive.

 

[richpats]

It's always fun when you get to decide the definition of your words, isn't it? When you get to make the false claim that the offense wasn't tested against Jacksonville and San Diego, it makes it much easier to just ignore the truth.

Ok, IN MY FRIGGIN OPINION the offense wasn't tested - is that better for you? Brady went 26-28 against Jax - is that "testing" an offense? He had all day to throw and we could run the ball pretty well. SD? We blow them out if Brady protects the ball a little better. And the running game was effective that game too.

Don't just look at the 31 and 21 (compared to the 48-point games in October) and think that the offense was stifled.

 

[Deus Irae]

Ok, IN MY FRIGGIN OPINION the offense wasn't tested - is that better for you? Brady went 26-28 against Jax - is that "testing" an offense?

Yes, it is. Jacksonville instituted a defense that was designed to test Brady's accuracy and the willingness of the receivers to take a beating. The offense passed the test.

SD? We blow them out if Brady protects the ball a little better. And the running game was effective that game too.

No kidding the running game was effective. That alone kills your argument. I love that you try to turn that fact to your advantage when you're crying about the O.C. and his inability to use the running game. Brady was injured and having a poor game (3 picks and only 209 yards passing), and Maroney's running was a major reason why the team won the game. Yet, amazingly, you claim that's not the offense being tested. As I said, it's nice when you can invent your own definitions.

 

[richpats]

No kidding the running game was effective. That alone kills your argument. I love that you try to turn that fact to your advantage when you're crying about the O.C. and his inability to use the running game. Brady was injured and having a poor game (3 picks and only 209 yards passing), and Maroney's running was a major reason why the team won the game. Yet, amazingly, you claim that's not the offense being tested. As I said, it's nice when you can invent your own definitions.

So if the running game wasn't struggling, the offense was moving the ball pretty well, save for INT's....then the offense WAS tested?!?

In your case, it's nice to make weak arguments and make it sound like you're right.

 

[DisgruntledTunaFan]

I think both Crennel and Pees have been good Defensive Coordinators in New England but there will always be a debate on which Coordinator was better for this team in this decade.

I think the defense has been pretty good through both DC in this decade in the regular season,but the difference lies in the playoffs where Crennel was at his best and the defense did exactly what they needed to where as Dean Pees did not have the success,especially in the big games...as of yet

Crennel's defense almost always did the right things at the right times resulting in SB Championships.

Overall do you still put a Crennel defense in New England better than a Pees run defensive group? - there may be an argument there considering the team went 18-0 last year before defeat.

I still think the loss of Crennel meant a possible loss of an additional Championship or two for the Patriots, but Pees is still decent IMO.

Forget Mangini - He does not count

FWIW-your secondary probably played their best ball with Mangini coaching them. Just MHO.

Anyhow-Crenell seemed to provide alot of intangibles to the Pats D as well.(i.e. He made them gel over the long-haul)

I must have posted this 100 X's in other threads, but do NOT underestimate the value of assistant coaches. Sure-BB has a knack for choosing quality assistants, but at the same time, it's hard to replace a brilliant playcaller in Charlie Weis. Or for that matter, Eric Mangini was responsible for developing 2nd day picks like Asante Samuels, Randall Gay, etc-these guys just don't grow on trees.

Just imagine how the Colts' O would turn out if Tom Moore left. The Colts may have a world of talent on the O side of the ball, but Moore is nonetheless a gifted playcaller that doesn't exactly grow on trees.

 

[Deus Irae]

So if the running game wasn't struggling, the offense was moving the ball pretty well, save for INT's....then the offense WAS tested?!?

In your case, it's nice to make weak arguments and make it sound like you're right.

When did 209 yards passing for this offense become "moving the ball pretty well"? Are you even pretending to think about your post? Here was your premise:

McDaniels just doesn't know how to work the running game into the offense when it is tested.

I show you an obvious game where the offense is being tested (Brady off, 209 passing yards and 3 picks), and show the running game being 'worked' to the tune of 122 yards, and your argument is that because the running game got 122 yards the offense couldn't have been being tested. Are you high?