Discuss the defense

Dutchmaster617 said:

I just think our offense needs to stop punting and start producing to help them out.

Click to expand...

I'll take a punt over offensive series that end in strip sacks! Sometimes punts are an improvement...

pencilneckgeek said:

I'm not talking about the glory days. I'm referring to the current Patriots. Yesterday's showing notwithstanding, they have not consistently brought the pressure to force mistakes. The times when they have gotten turnovers is when they are ahead, typically due to the offense, and shift from a read-and-react run-stopping mode to attacking pass disrupting mode.

Great defenses bring pressure in a number of ways. Some shoot gaps and try to break-up plays, risking giving-up a big play or two in the process. Some dominate the LOS to shut down the run and make for some 3rd and longs, which enables pressure. The Pats take away an offense's best weapon(s) to get them out of their comfort zone a can bring pressure after a missed play or two. These approaches are all valid, but the Pats have often traded drives with the opposition in the past couple years, and it becomes a contest of who blinks first. Having discipline helps win the turnover battle, but it is not a reliable approach, unless you can bring the pressure to force the turnover.

Click to expand...

Ahhh no

Obviously you have not watched anything over the past few years.

VrabelJr said:

Nice observations, thanks for sharing them. I also noticed the shift to strength. Given that you and I feel we played the same exact scheme this week as last, I sent a question to Tedy Bruschi asking if he noticed any differences in scheme. I hope he will answer because to my eyes we did the exact same things, just with better execution.

EDIT: Bruschi didn't answer my question but he did note that he feels the ideal front for this defense will be a 4 man front once Easley progresses a little bit more.

Click to expand...

I'm seeing value in the 34 to be honest, given the players we have on the roster.
We are playing the same personnel as the 43, just aligning them a little differently, but it seems to give more flexibility now that I see how they are using it.
Here are some thoughts on that
1) Against a run happy team which could include a number our opponents including 4 division games, we could use the 3 bigs more often. A front 7 of Easley-Wilfork-Siliga with HT and Jones at OLB and Mayon and Collins inside (you can also put Nink at OLB and move HT inside in place of Collins) would be stouter than we've run in 43. This is more likely to happen situationally though.
2) The scheme of having Nink OR Jones at 34 DE with the other and HT as OLBs allows us to be a little more unpredictable in which 4 will rush, especially since HT is showing to be a very effective pass rusher.
3) I've been VERY impressed with the blitzing from all the LBs. HT, Mayo and Collins are all very effective, so again, we can disguise pressure even better out of the 3-4.

RayClay said:

I thought you were talking about yesterday, when they brought a ton of pressure and played aggressive pass defense.

So, what exactly are you talking about, if not the defense on the field; that is, this year's defense?

Click to expand...

Yesterday, the Pats were aggressive, but that's against a Norv Turner offense in which pass plays are generally more downfield and take longer to develop. The aggressiveness also came primarily after that Pats got a solid lead and the Vikes were forced to pass. The question remains as to whether the turnovers materialize when teams are able to sustain drives with shorter passes or the running game, such that 3rd and short is the norm and thus aggressiveness doesn't pay as well.

While turnovers correlate to winning, the ability to generate turnovers does not lend itself to predicting future turnovers (or wins). That is, turnovers generally are not a reliable stat, whereas teams with successful passing attacks, running games, and run/pass defenses in terms of yards/points/success rates correlate much better to having successful passing/running offenses/defenses in the future. (Those measures of offensive/defensive performance each have differing correlation to wins, but that's a conversation for another day.) The Pats continued success generating turnovers and controlling their own may buck that trend, but it has been my observation that the team seems to stall when they are unable to force turnovers. My concern is that a defense that relies on turnovers to win games is susceptible to teams that protect the ball well.

patsfanincleveland said:

Ahhh no

Obviously you have not watched anything over the past few years.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your constructive dialogue and deep insight.

pencilneckgeek said:

Yesterday, the Pats were aggressive, but that's against a Norv Turner offense in which pass plays are generally more downfield and take longer to develop. The aggressiveness also came primarily after that Pats got a solid lead and the Vikes were forced to pass. The question remains as to whether the turnovers materialize when teams are able to sustain drives with shorter passes or the running game, such that 3rd and short is the norm and thus aggressiveness doesn't pay as well.

While turnovers correlate to winning, the ability to generate turnovers does not lend itself to predicting future turnovers (or wins). That is, turnovers generally are not a reliable stat, whereas teams with successful passing attacks, running games, and run/pass defenses in terms of yards/points/success rates correlate much better to having successful passing/running offenses/defenses in the future. (Those measures of offensive/defensive performance each have differing correlation to wins, but that's a conversation for another day.) The Pats continued success generating turnovers and controlling their own may buck that trend, but it has been my observation that the team seems to stall when they are unable to force turnovers. My concern is that a defense that relies on turnovers to win games is susceptible to teams that protect the ball well.

Click to expand...

I completely disagree.
The ability to generate turnovers is a skill equal to the ability to run well or throw well.
You are looking for an ability to present itself 100% of the time, and thats just not going to happen.
You confusion is in the fact that turnovers are not an extremely common occurance so the number confuse the matter.
The average team turns the ball over 1.6 times a game. The average team gains about 340 yards of offense a game.
Zero turnovers is not the equaivalent of zero yards.
Last year Seattle led the league in both total defense and takeaways.
They took the ball away more than average 14 of 17 games.
They allowed less than the average of total yards 14 of 17 games.

AndyJohnson said:

I'm seeing value in the 34 to be honest, given the players we have on the roster.
We are playing the same personnel as the 43, just aligning them a little differently, but it seems to give more flexibility now that I see how they are using it.
Here are some thoughts on that
1) Against a run happy team which could include a number our opponents including 4 division games, we could use the 3 bigs more often. A front 7 of Easley-Wilfork-Siliga with HT and Jones at OLB and Mayon and Collins inside (you can also put Nink at OLB and move HT inside in place of Collins) would be stouter than we've run in 43. This is more likely to happen situationally though.
2) The scheme of having Nink OR Jones at 34 DE with the other and HT as OLBs allows us to be a little more unpredictable in which 4 will rush, especially since HT is showing to be a very effective pass rusher.
3) I've been VERY impressed with the blitzing from all the LBs. HT, Mayo and Collins are all very effective, so again, we can disguise pressure even better out of the 3-4.

Click to expand...

As long as everyone stays healthy and we go into each game day with our best 6-7 DL and 3 LBs, our defense can get insanely "multiple."

AndyJohnson said:

I completely disagree.
The ability to generate turnovers is a skill equal to the ability to run well or throw well.
You are looking for an ability to present itself 100% of the time, and thats just not going to happen.
You confusion is in the fact that turnovers are not an extremely common occurance so the number confuse the matter. The average team turns the ball over 1.6 times a game. The average team gains about 340 yards of offense a game.

Click to expand...

I'm not looking for perfect correlation. The fact that turnover advantage correlates to win percentage at an almost 0.8 coefficient is remarkable, and thus taking care of the ball and pressuring the other team into making mistakes that leads to turnovers is of course, highly desirable. The stat that is the next best predictor of wins is passing efficiency, which only correlates at about 0.6. These are for correlations over multiple games, so the low sample size for the number of turnovers does not skew results that badly. The trouble is that turnovers forced in one set of games does not correlate to turnovers in the next set of games. For example, see:
http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2008/01/explanation-vs-prediction.html

I agree that there is a skill to getting interceptions and to pressuring quarterbacks into committing them, but because they are reliant to a greater degree on the complicity of the opposition than other defensive statistics, I do not feel that they are as sound a basis for evaluating whether a defense will succeed when the competition gets tougher. I'm not doom and gloom, here. There is a long season during which this defense can develop and improve. I just file this one away in the not-as-good-as-you-looked winning and not-as-bad-as-you-looked-losing column with particular emphasis on the turnovers and big ST plays (or at least the block - Julian is probably good for a regular dose of effective punt returns).

AndyJohnson said:

If that were the case, takeaways would be random.
Of course its not the case, to wit:

Since 2001 arrived, Patriots are #2 in takeaways, 74 better than the Jets (who happend to rank 16th). 74 is in excess of 20% more.
And they rank #1 in fewest turnovers, 83 fewer than the Jets,who happen to rank 16th. That is a difference of close to 30%.

Click to expand...

The post you quoted was a follow up to the original response to OP which was on page one. I quoted the turnover ratio in the 3 championship years which was incredible; a plus 17 in 2003, for instance.

PromoTheRobot said:

Bills fan here. Just wanted to say thanks for Brandon Spikes. No idea why you let him go but the guy has been a rock against the run for the Bills in two games.

Click to expand...

I've never been to Buffalo. It doesn't snow much there, does it?

AndyJohnson said:

2) The scheme of having Nink OR Jones at 34 DE with the other and HT as OLBs allows us to be a little more unpredictable in which 4 will rush, especially since HT is showing to be a very effective pass rusher.

Click to expand...

This is a very creative and sophisticated use of personnel. I'm not sure I can think of any other examples like this in the NFL. Given how we've been complaining of playing a "vanilla" defense for so long, things are obviously changing. Combined with the secondary and aggressive blitzing, it's a very different look.

AndyJohnson said:

2) The scheme of having Nink OR Jones at 34 DE with the other and HT as OLBs allows us to be a little more unpredictable in which 4 will rush, especially since HT is showing to be a very effective pass rusher.
3) I've been VERY impressed with the blitzing from all the LBs. HT, Mayo and Collins are all very effective, so again, we can disguise pressure even better out of the 3-4.

Click to expand...

I thought you said there was no such thing as disguising in the 3-4 because NFL offenses all know how to block it.

With Hightower's surgence as a pass rusher, I feel as though we suddenly have a very deep group of guys who can get after the QB-

Chandler Jones
Hightower
Ninkovich
Collins
Easley
Chris Jones

That's not even including other guys like Mayo and Wilfork who can get after the QB from time to time.

I made the thread last week that bashed the scheme and especially on the misuse of Jones in the first game. A lot of people, me included, felt like we didn't have the personnel to run the 3-4 front. Well after they made these adjustments this week I feel like this 3-4 scheme if anything will make this defense and especially the pass rush all the much better. Jones and Hightower were pretty good players in the 4-3 scheme we ran last year, but I think in this new scheme they will be great. And in Jones case, maybe even elite.

Marqui said:

I thought you said there was no such thing as disguising in the 3-4 because NFL offenses all know how to block it.

Click to expand...

No I never said that.

mayoclinic said:

This is a very creative and sophisticated use of personnel. I'm not sure I can think of any other examples like this in the NFL. Given how we've been complaining of playing a "vanilla" defense for so long, things are obviously changing. Combined with the secondary and aggressive blitzing, it's a very different look.

Click to expand...

It's our base now.

???

DT's
Vellano had on;y 2 reps. It didn't matter much whether he was active or not. Yes, 4-5 active DT's. Without Vellano, we'd have 4.

DE/LB
Chandler Jones and Ninkovich played 100% of the reps, only a bit more than last year's numbers. I agree that having Buchanan healthy would help. Having Collins healthy will also help.

VrabelJr said:

I'll be even happier when Buchanan is healthy so we can scratch Vellano and have 3 DEs on game day instead of just Chandler and Ninkovich.

Click to expand...

pencilneckgeek said:

I'm not looking for perfect correlation. The fact that turnover advantage correlates to win percentage at an almost 0.8 coefficient is remarkable, and thus taking care of the ball and pressuring the other team into making mistakes that leads to turnovers is of course, highly desirable. The stat that is the next best predictor of wins is passing efficiency, which only correlates at about 0.6. These are for correlations over multiple games, so the low sample size for the number of turnovers does not skew results that badly. The trouble is that turnovers forced in one set of games does not correlate to turnovers in the next set of games. For example, see:
http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2008/01/explanation-vs-prediction.html

I agree that there is a skill to getting interceptions and to pressuring quarterbacks into committing them, but because they are reliant to a greater degree on the complicity of the opposition than other defensive statistics, I do not feel that they are as sound a basis for evaluating whether a defense will succeed when the competition gets tougher. I'm not doom and gloom, here. There is a long season during which this defense can develop and improve. I just file this one away in the not-as-good-as-you-looked winning and not-as-bad-as-you-looked-losing column with particular emphasis on the turnovers and big ST plays (or at least the block - Julian is probably good for a regular dose of effective punt returns).

Click to expand...

Again I disagree that turnovers are more opponent dependent than any other aspect of the game.

AndyJohnson said:

Another 'change' was health, so that Easley, Silinga and ChrisJ got reps instead of Vellano.

Click to expand...

Duh!

Thank you for pointing out that the defense did not change. Vellano was needed as a backup last week. This week he wasn't.

Unfortunately, Skinner was necessary this week.

mayoclinic said:

I'm still hoping to see Kelcy Quarles bump Vellano off the roster. Quarles was absent part of last week, but as far as I can tell he's still on the PS. Not that I expect much from him, but he has to be an upgrade over Vellano.

Click to expand...

No, Quarles doesn't have to be an upgrade over Vellano, who is able to start or be inactive as needed.

AndyJohnson said:

I think Nink is Hightower and Jones backup in nickel and dime if Collins is healthy.

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't Ebner continue in the dime? If Dennard is healthy, he might be the dime (or Ryan).