Patriots D in 2008 - IMPROVED

[Deus Irae]

Good LORD a lot of these stats are example of how numbers can lie. Can we please try to have a clue about what we actually SAW? He's not awful, but he didn't have a good season. He's a middle-of-the-road #2 DB. He isn't CLOSE to as good as Asante, no matter what the stats "show." Give me a break.

New England fans are supposed to be smart, canny and candid. Let's act like it.

Here's what we saw:

1.) When the team rolled coverage to one side of the field, it was usually to Samuel's side, not Hobbs, even though Hobbs was facing the opponent's #1 receiver most of the time.

2.) Hobbs' percentage numbers were almost identical to Samuel's, despite having to face the opponent's #1 receiver most of the time.

3.) Hobbs surrendered fewer touchdowns than Samuel, despite having to face the opponent's #1 receiver most of the time.

 

[patsox23]

Once again, an example of the numbers lying. NOBODY but the most aggregious Patriots homer actually thinks that Hobbs is even CLOSE to as good as Asante Samuel, let alone better - as you are implying with that "we rolled the coverage to Samuel's side." Just please give me a break. You hold an asinine position. Help yourself out - stop.

 

[cstjohn17]

This is, of course, just a guess, and a guess from someone who does not downplay the huge loss that IS Asante Samuel. But the combination of several factors, listed below, leads me to believe that the defense will be markedly better this season. Not the kind of historic jump we saw the offense take in 2007, but a jump just the same.

I am not buying, at least not yet. Samuel is better than any CB on their roster, Colvin is much better than the #3 OLB on the roster.

Plus last year the defense was damn good, 4th in PPG (17.1 PPG) and 1st in the playoffs in PPG (tied with Gints with 16.3).


There is some sense that the defense was poor last year and needs a drastic overhaul, I would gladly take similar stats as last season.

 

[Metaphors]

There is some sense that the defense was poor last year and needs a drastic overhaul, I would gladly take similar stats as last season.

I'm not sure who has the "sense" that the defense was poor. That isn't supported by reality. It is reasonable to come to the conclusion that the defense needed a change of "flavor" for a changing league. More quickness and short-area pursuit skills. You have to be able to defend crossing routes, slants and quick outs.

Samuel couldn't play horizontal routes very effectively. Gay was only slightly less suckish playing sideline to sideline. Bruschi tries real hard but is slowing down each year.

Are the Pats better in 2008 with Bryant, Wheatley and Mayo getting reps? Depends. Are they better playing the same style as 2007 (soft zone, limited blitzing, keep the ball in front of you, wait for mistakes)? Unlikely. Are they better playing a more aggressive style where the QB has to make quicker decisions? Almost certainly.

 

[cstjohn17]

I'm not sure who has the "sense" that the defense was poor. That isn't supported by reality. It is reasonable to come to the conclusion that the defense needed a change of "flavor" for a changing league. More quickness and short-area pursuit skills. You have to be able to defend crossing routes, slants and quick outs.

Samuel couldn't play horizontal routes very effectively. Gay was only slightly less suckish playing sideline to sideline. Bruschi tries real hard but is slowing down each year.

Are the Pats better in 2008 with Bryant, Wheatley and Mayo getting reps? Depends. Are they better playing the same style as 2007 (soft zone, limited blitzing, keep the ball in front of you, wait for mistakes)? Unlikely. Are they better playing a more aggressive style where the QB has to make quicker decisions? Almost certainly.

No doubt they good use more speed at ILB, Mayo should be a big help on 3rd downs. Watching Seau and/or Bruschi covering a RB was tough to watch, but despite these glaring weaknesses the defense was very good. They has always favored a bend but don't break approach, I don't expect this to change in 08. I was trying to think of what the longest play against them was last year, honestly I can't remember any really big plays against. A 'more aggressive style' is some shiny new thing that fans can latch onto but my sense based on history is that BB wants consistency and expects his defenses to average between 15-19 PPG.

 

[patsox23]

I am not buying, at least not yet. Samuel is better than any CB on their roster, Colvin is much better than the #3 OLB on the roster.

Plus last year the defense was damn good, 4th in PPG (17.1 PPG) and 1st in the playoffs in PPG (tied with Gints with 16.3).


There is some sense that the defense was poor last year and needs a drastic overhaul, I would gladly take similar stats as last season.

Colvin missed a lot of time last year - not as much as some think, but significant time just the same. And I don't believe anyone thinks last year's D was poor. Not even close to poor. Just overrated.

 

[Metaphors]

Great statements, but they lead me to the opposite conclusion

They has always favored a bend but don't break approach

Correct, but they also always had the underlying belief that they could get off the field when they really needed to. They continued to do that last year with key stops vs. Indy, Philly, Balt and the 1st Giants game...but the margin for error was razor thin. And that razor cut the Pats fairly deep in February.

Reminds me of the KC game in 2002. Pats were defending champs and rolling right along, but you could see that the defense had a large hole (*cough* Steve Martin *cough*) that could be exploited. They were winning and the alternatives were likely limited, so Belichick stayed the course and that season was pretty painful at times.

The hole in the 2007 defense is equally obvious. Not many teams can take advantage of it enough to win...but the teams that can are generally still playing in January.

A 'more aggressive style' is some shiny new thing that fans can latch onto but my sense based on history is that BB wants consistency and expects his defenses to average between 15-19 PPG.

Interesting choice of words that I put in bold. Your thinking is solid...Pats score 30 ppg and allow 17 ppg, they should win most of them. I think Belichick looks for consistency in situations, not averaged across games. Red zone, 3rd/4th down, 2 minute. The defense was fairly inconsistent in these situations. Averaged over a year, the stats look very good. But when it is one-n-done, that inconsistency can be a killer. As we are all painfully aware.

 

[Deus Irae]

Once again, an example of the numbers lying. NOBODY but the most aggregious Patriots homer actually thinks that Hobbs is even CLOSE to as good as Asante Samuel, let alone better - as you are implying with that "we rolled the coverage to Samuel's side." Just please give me a break. You hold an asinine position. Help yourself out - stop.

You should take your own advice and just stop.

 

[Patjew]

Reminds me of the KC game in 2002. Pats were defending champs and rolling right along, but you could see that the defense had a large hole (*cough* Steve Martin *cough*) that could be exploited. They were winning and the alternatives were likely limited, so Belichick stayed the course and that season was pretty painful at times.

Ah yes, the game where Priest ran for ~6000 yards and set the blueprint for every other team who played the Pats that year.

 

[Metaphors]

Ah yes, the game where Priest ran for ~6000 yards and set the blueprint for every other team who played the Pats that year.

That was also around the time of the Beli-jeopardy press conference. Remember the O-T-I-S answer? Belichick was loose and playful with the media. Pats then lost 4 straight. Last time we've seen a press conference like that.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

This is, of course, just a guess, and a guess from someone who does not downplay the huge loss that IS Asante Samuel. But the combination of several factors, listed below, leads me to believe that the defense will be markedly better this season. Not the kind of historic jump we saw the offense take in 2007, but a jump just the same.

1) Dom Capers
2) influx of veteran talent (mostly this is just Fernando Bryant and Victor Hobson (I guess), guys like Webster are junk)
3) The improved health of Richard Seymour
4) The "Bill Belichick being pi$$ed-off" factor
5) young, athletic playmakers - Mayo, Crable, Wheatley
6) progression of Adalius Thomas

That is all.

Regarding #3 - having only 2 years left on his contract will inspire Big Dog to improve his play. Big Dog was quite healthy when he was a Big Zero in the Super Bowl. Future $$$ will inspire the Big Dog to elevate his play. It's 2 and done for Dog in Foxborough. BB and Pioli won't make the same big money mistake with 93 next time around.

 

[JoeSixPat]

This is, of course, just a guess, and a guess from someone who does not downplay the huge loss that IS Asante Samuel. But the combination of several factors, listed below, leads me to believe that the defense will be markedly better this season. Not the kind of historic jump we saw the offense take in 2007, but a jump just the same.

1) Dom Capers
2) influx of veteran talent (mostly this is just Fernando Bryant and Victor Hobson (I guess), guys like Webster are junk)
3) The improved health of Richard Seymour
4) The "Bill Belichick being pi$$ed-off" factor
5) young, athletic playmakers - Mayo, Crable, Wheatley
6) progression of Adalius Thomas

That is all.

That's the general idea I guess... it'd be amazing if every one of the new players worked out - but one can always hope.

I just like the approach of BB and Pioli to use the DL as an anchor while he brings in the next generation of DBs and LBs - so noting the potential of locking up Wilfork is also significant.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Here's what we saw:

1.) When the team rolled coverage to one side of the field, it was usually to Samuel's side, not Hobbs, even though Hobbs was facing the opponent's #1 receiver most of the time.

2.) Hobbs' percentage numbers were almost identical to Samuel's, despite having to face the opponent's #1 receiver most of the time.

3.) Hobbs surrendered fewer touchdowns than Samuel, despite having to face the opponent's #1 receiver most of the time.

Count me among those who thinks our DBs are going to be fine even without Samuel.

But I'm not sure I'm understand what you're saying beyond that - or what stats you're using to show that the coverage "rolled out" to Samuel's side.

Assuming opposing WRs are comfortable on either side of the field, I understand the concept that they'd choose to have their #1 WR go against Hobbs as opposed to Samuel.

That would likely mean that they threw away from Samuel and he saw far fewer balls than Hobbs (I assume the stats bear that out but I didn't check).

But why - and what stats show this - would the Patriots choose to "roll out coverage" to the side of the field where the opposing offense would have been less likely to throw to?

What you've conveyed implies that the Patriots had more faith in Hobbs, and felt a need to shore up Samuel more than Hobbs by "rolling out the coverage" to his side, even knowing that the opposing team would likely look to take advantage of a "mismatch" of Hobbs and their #1 WR.

Can you embellish and actually cite your statistics?

I see Hobbs with 63 total tackles 51 solo

I see Samuel with 44 total tackles 41 solo.

I'm trying to figure out what stats you cite to show that Sameul, and not Hobbs, tended to have the coverage "roll out" to his side to help him, because the fact that nearly all of Samuel's tackles were solo doesn't strike me as something implying that the team was most often "rolling out the coverage" to give him more help.

The fact that his numbers would be lower than Hobbs I understand, given the fact that teams would likely throw away from Samuel - espeicially if they have their #1 WR going up against Hobbs as you said.

It may be that the statistics I mentioned are misleading, as I think they very often can be, though I know you and I disagree about that.

 

[P4E*]

Cant wait for next year..

I think mayo and crabble could have big years..

Wheatley and whittle are very exciting corners...

That SB loss well be a put right when TB lifts the Lombardi in Tampa!

Go pats!!

 

[Deus Irae]

Count me among those who thinks our DBs are going to be fine even without Samuel.

But I'm not sure I'm understand what you're saying beyond that - or what stats you're using to show that the coverage "rolled out" to Samuel's side.

Assuming opposing WRs are comfortable on either side of the field, I understand the concept that they'd choose to have their #1 WR go against Hobbs as opposed to Samuel.

That would likely mean that they threw away from Samuel and he saw far fewer balls than Hobbs (I assume the stats bear that out but I didn't check).

But why - and what stats show this - would the Patriots choose to "roll out coverage" to the side of the field where the opposing offense would have been less likely to throw to?

What you've conveyed implies that the Patriots had more faith in Hobbs, and felt a need to shore up Samuel more than Hobbs by "rolling out the coverage" to his side, even knowing that the opposing team would likely look to take advantage of a "mismatch" of Hobbs and their #1 WR.

Can you embellish and actually cite your statistics?

I see Hobbs with 63 total tackles 51 solo

I see Samuel with 44 total tackles 41 solo.

I'm trying to figure out what stats you cite to show that Sameul, and not Hobbs, tended to have the coverage "roll out" to his side to help him, because the fact that nearly all of Samuel's tackles were solo doesn't strike me as something implying that the team was most often "rolling out the coverage" to give him more help.

The fact that his numbers would be lower than Hobbs I understand, given the fact that teams would likely throw away from Samuel - espeicially if they have their #1 WR going up against Hobbs as you said.

It may be that the statistics I mentioned are misleading, as I think they very often can be, though I know you and disagree about that.

Here is the part of the quote I was referring, and I blended real data into the "saw" part to lend show that what I "saw" matched what was happening on the field:

Can we please try to have a clue about what we actually SAW?

Now, I don't know about you, but what I 'saw' was that when coverage was rolled, it was usually rolled to the defensive left, which was where Samuel was. The DB numbers I had available, I cited to in earlier threads. They weren't complete for the whole season & postseason when Karen G. posted the article they came from, but they can give us some insight:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showpost.php?p=726849&postcount=31

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showpost.php?p=727191&postcount=46

 

[bradmahn]

Count me among those who thinks our DBs are going to be fine even without Samuel.

But I'm not sure I'm understand what you're saying beyond that - or what stats you're using to show that the coverage "rolled out" to Samuel's side.

Assuming opposing WRs are comfortable on either side of the field, I understand the concept that they'd choose to have their #1 WR go against Hobbs as opposed to Samuel.

That would likely mean that they threw away from Samuel and he saw far fewer balls than Hobbs (I assume the stats bear that out but I didn't check).

But why - and what stats show this - would the Patriots choose to "roll out coverage" to the side of the field where the opposing offense would have been less likely to throw to?

What you've conveyed implies that the Patriots had more faith in Hobbs, and felt a need to shore up Samuel more than Hobbs by "rolling out the coverage" to his side, even knowing that the opposing team would likely look to take advantage of a "mismatch" of Hobbs and their #1 WR.

Can you embellish and actually cite your statistics?

I see Hobbs with 63 total tackles 51 solo

I see Samuel with 44 total tackles 41 solo.

I'm trying to figure out what stats you cite to show that Sameul, and not Hobbs, tended to have the coverage "roll out" to his side to help him, because the fact that nearly all of Samuel's tackles were solo doesn't strike me as something implying that the team was most often "rolling out the coverage" to give him more help.

The fact that his numbers would be lower than Hobbs I understand, given the fact that teams would likely throw away from Samuel - espeicially if they have their #1 WR going up against Hobbs as you said.

It may be that the statistics I mentioned are misleading, as I think they very often can be, though I know you and I disagree about that.

Samuel's tendency to jump routes makes it almost impossible to not play with coverage rolled to his side. It's sort of necessary no matter who he is lined up against.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Samuel's tendency to jump routes makes it almost impossible to not play with coverage rolled to his side. It's sort of necessary no matter who he is lined up against.

I suppose one could make the case that Samuel could be viewed as a liability in that respect - at least in our system. And ironically the early returns on Sameul in Philly is that he's not cracked up to take chances in man 2 man situations.

Here is the part of the quote I was referring, and I blended real data into the "saw" part to lend show that what I "saw" matched what was happening on the field:

Now, I don't know about you, but what I 'saw' was that when coverage was rolled, it was usually rolled to the defensive left, which was where Samuel was. The DB numbers I had available, I cited to in earlier threads. They weren't complete for the whole season & postseason when Karen G. posted the article they came from, but they can give us some insight:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showpost.php?p=726849&postcount=31

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showpost.php?p=727191&postcount=46

So you're going by what you "saw" rather than relying solely on statistics? I'm very proud of you! That's tremendous progress!

I don't disagree that Hobbs more than held his own logically, one assumes, facing more pressure than Samuel (though I don't find the fact that Hobbs saw 12 more balls thrown his way over the course of the season that statistically compelling)

But it does seem like the stats that show Samuel having nearly all solo tackles don't suggest he was getting a lot of help on his side - even if he was.

I'd just encourage everyone to recognize that stats don't always tell the full story - and that one needs recognize that when it comes to good football analysis, the eyeballs are worth just as much, if not more, than statistics - which can often be misleading.

 

[PatsOwl]

I feel reasonably optimistic that our D will be at least to the level of last year. I think that there may be a few teething problems initially with the secondary where Samuel lovers will be able to crow "i told you so", but im sure by week 3/4 the secondary will be efficient.
Just on the point of #1WR lining up on #2CB's and avoiding top corners, i just wondered if someone with better knowledge could explain if the CB's can easily swap sides of the field. For instance in man-to-man why dont coaches get their #1CB's to go whichever side the #1WR lines up on? Is it so hard for a CB to play 1st and 10 on the Right side, then 2nd & 10 on Left side?

 

[bradmahn]

I suppose one could make the case that Samuel could be viewed as a liability in that respect - at least in our system. And ironically the early returns on Sameul in Philly is that he's not cracked up to take chances in man 2 man situations.

I think the loss of Samuel will be more addition by subtraction than crippling. The secondary we have now will be more versatile and capable of disguising what they are doing, which should lead to more confusion and with confusion come big-play opportunities.

But it does seem like the stats that show Samuel having nearly all solo tackles don't suggest he was getting a lot of help on his side - even if he was.

I'd just encourage everyone to recognize that stats don't always tell the full story - and that one needs recognize that when it comes to good football analysis, the eyeballs are worth just as much, if not more, than statistics - which can often be misleading.

Statistics and eyes lie.

Unless you know responsibilities and/or have access to game tape, our eyes are more often likely to deceive than to tell the real story. If you have it, then by all means, the eyeball examination is the best bet, but considering most of us do not, you cannot discount the stats because they disagree with what untrained eyes say.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Unless you know responsibilities and/or have access to game tape, our eyes are more often likely to deceive than to tell the real story. If you have it, then by all means, the eyeball examination is the best bet, but considering most of us do not, you cannot discount the stats because they disagree with what untrained eyes say.

Depends on the situation as to which are "lying" - technically statistics don't lie, they're just misinterpreted. That's where the eyeballs come in (and its not the eyeballs that lie either - its the perception they leave one with and misinterpretation once again).

I can only speak for myself but I've seen many more situations where statistics "lie" or are misinterpreted.

To this day we have folks who spout statistics proving that the Patriots 2006 offense was among the best in the NFL... and that we had a very capable WR in Reche Caldwell with more than 60 catches. At the time quite a few folks here argued that our passing offense, based on these statistics, needed no upgrade, ignoring the fact that our lack of a deep game was having a significant adverse impact in our ability to control games.

Belichick among others looked past the 2006 ranking, as his eyeballs could tell him that regardless of how high the offense was ranked, there was a significant need for upgrades.

Just 7 months after the end of the 2006 season Caldwell was all but out of the NFL after being the leading receiver on the #6 offensive team. That's a "stat" that's hard to ignore.