This defense compared to years past

Weren't both the Broncos and the Colts ranked #1 in scoring offense at the time we played them (but then not afterwards)? The D might have an opportunity to do it a third time next week.

That said, still don't think this defense has peaked...

BobDigital said:

The 03' 04' Ds would still be elite. The game may has changed a bit but talent still plays and that team had it. They could stop the run, rush the passer and cover. Also they had a vet savvy we are only now starting to see with this team. They would be a bit bigger than you might want these days but McGinest/Law/Harrison/Seymour were just lights out talents and would still be in today's game.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Loads of talent and loads of flexibility, they could easily switch to whatever formation they wanted.

The only potential issue is that '04 was probably too light on DBs for today's game, but that was just a reaction to the game. I think we can all agree that they probably would have had a couple more guys if they could be magically transported to 2015.

BobDigital said:

At hind sight looking at 07' I am not impressed. They had some good vets but were getting old and the play was dropping off a bit at the end.

Click to expand...

You should be impressed.

The 2007 defense gave up 17 points per game. It was clearly our best defense in quite some time.

supafly said:

You should be impressed.

The 2007 defense gave up 17 points per game. It was clearly our best defense in quite some time.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It's another case whee statistics out of context don't tell the story IMO. Our offense immediately forced other teams into being one dimensional and allowed our defense to play loose (how cautious do you need to be when your O is dropping a 40 spot on a regular basis)?

All that was required of that defense was to not screw up and they had lots of veterans, the same veterans who had looked out of gas in previous, more competitive seasons.

When every opponent is under pressure to score in the 30s and 40s, it distorts their offense and makes playing defense easier.

supafly said:

You should be impressed.

The 2007 defense gave up 17 points per game. It was clearly our best defense in quite some time.

Click to expand...

Yeah Sup. I tend to agree with RayC. The offense in 07 was so potent it made the defense's job a bit more downhill.
Now does that mean 07 was not the best D? No, however, due to the offensive dynamics of 07 it at least makes it unclear if 07 is better than 14. Further, 07 is a full picture, 14 is not yet the full picture. My gut impression at this point is this year's defense is trending consistently upward. By January this D may be very hard to run against, very hard to pass against, and may ultimately be one of the hardest D's to score on we have seen in a long time (of the BB era). Oh man, if we can get just a modest pass rush going rushing 4 and modestly effective blitz moments (with the right sub packages) this D will have a very very high ceiling.

TheBostonStraggler said:

Yeah Sup. I tend to agree with RayC. The offense in 07 was so potent it made the defense's job a bit more downhill.
Now does that mean 07 was not the best D? No, however, due to the offensive dynamics of 07 it at least makes it unclear if 07 is better than 14. Further, 07 is a full picture, 14 is not yet the full picture. My gut impression at this point is this year's defense is trending consistently upward. By January this D may be very hard to run against, very hard to pass against, and may ultimately be one of the hardest D's to score on we have seen in a long time (of the BB era). Oh man, if we can get just a modest pass rush going rushing 4 and modestly effective blitz moments (with the right sub packages) this D will have a very very high ceiling.

Click to expand...

Look at a roster for 2007. All three Super Bowl teams had better defenses. That was a patched defense with smart veterans, but the core of a great defense was gone or over the hill, excepting the line, and Seymour missed half the season. I think this years defense is better just due to the secondary. I won't argue that, though. I will argue the 3 SB year defenses were all better and all had to win some games with defense.

TheBostonStraggler said:

Yeah Sup. I tend to agree with RayC. The offense in 07 was so potent it made the defense's job a bit more downhill.
Now does that mean 07 was not the best D? No, however, due to the offensive dynamics of 07 it at least makes it unclear if 07 is better than 14. Further, 07 is a full picture, 14 is not yet the full picture. My gut impression at this point is this year's defense is trending consistently upward. By January this D may be very hard to run against, very hard to pass against, and may ultimately be one of the hardest D's to score on we have seen in a long time (of the BB era). Oh man, if we can get just a modest pass rush going rushing 4 and modestly effective blitz moments (with the right sub packages) this D will have a very very high ceiling.

Click to expand...

RayClay said:

I disagree. It's another case whee statistics out of context don't tell the story IMO. Our offense immediately forced other teams into being one dimensional and allowed our defense to play loose (how cautious do you need to be when your O is dropping a 40 spot on a regular basis)?

All that was required of that defense was to not screw up and they had lots of veterans, the same veterans who had looked out of gas in previous, more competitive seasons.

When every opponent is under pressure to score in the 30s and 40s, it distorts their offense and makes playing defense easier.

Click to expand...

Let's say that we play along and understand that they forced the opposition into passing situations due to our offense being good and scoring a lot, you still have to take into account the following:

--the passing defense was LIGHTS OUT (and still not nearly as good as 2003), giving up 237 yards or less in 15/19 games. Remember that there was a ton of garbage time, and tons of passing due to your theory

--the defense created 2+ or more turnovers in 13/19 games

--they had the 4th ranked scoring defense at 17.1 points per game

--they gave up first downs in the teens in 13/19 games

--they were 12th in the entire NFL in passing attempts (which does not really support your theory of being one-dimensional, even though you are right and it's true), 5th in total passing defense, and 6th in passing yards allowed

--they got decent pressure/production from the interior, with Wilfork and Warren having 6.0 sacks

--even though the excuse is that "Seymour was hurt," his replacement in Jarvis Green averaged close to a sack per game with 6.5 himself

--we had THREE players who had at least 6.5 sacks or more with Green (6.5), A.Thomas (6.5), and Vrabel (12.5)

--the defense scored 3 touchdowns, with A.Thomas, Samuel, and Wilson all returning turnovers for scores

--we had the following SEVEN players produce at least THREE turnovers or more: 1) A.Thomas, 2) Seau, 3) Sanders, 4) Vrabel, 5) Samuel, 6) Gay, 7) Colvin----talk about a combined team effort on a consistent basis in terms of big play ability

----------------------------------------

How in the world does one dispute the notion that the 2007 defense was the best that we've had in quite some time? Only the 2006 and SB winning years were better in my opinion.

For the record, I agree with what you're saying, but let's not cut the 2007 defense short, either.

RayClay said:

Look at a roster for 2007. All three Super Bowl teams had better defenses.

Click to expand...

I thought the fact that all 3 SB teams had better defenses was more than obvious. I said that "the 2007 defense was the best that we've had in quite some time," which is definitely true.

If you want to take it one step further, the 2006 defense was likely better that the 2007 one, so I'd have the 2007 defense ranked #5. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that it's the best defense that we've had in quite some time.

supafly said:

Let's say that we play along and understand that they forced the opposition into passing situations due to our offense being good and scoring a lot, you still have to take into account the following:

--the passing defense was LIGHTS OUT (and still not nearly as good as 2003), giving up 237 yards or less in 15/19 games. Remember that there was a ton of garbage time, and tons of passing due to your theory

--the defense created 2+ or more turnovers in 13/19 games

--they had the 4th ranked scoring defense at 17.1 points per game

--they gave up first downs in the teens in 13/19 games

--they were 12th in the entire NFL in passing attempts (which does not really support your theory of being one-dimensional, even though you are right and it's true), 5th in total passing defense, and 6th in passing yards allowed

--they got decent pressure/production from the interior, with Wilfork and Warren having 6.0 sacks

--even though the excuse is that "Seymour was hurt," his replacement in Jarvis Green averaged close to a sack per game with 6.5 himself

--we had THREE players who had at least 6.5 sacks or more with Green (6.5), A.Thomas (6.5), and Vrabel (12.5)

--the defense scored 3 touchdowns, with A.Thomas, Samuel, and Wilson all returning turnovers for scores

--we had the following SEVEN players produce at least THREE turnovers or more: 1) A.Thomas, 2) Seau, 3) Sanders, 4) Vrabel, 5) Samuel, 6) Gay, 7) Colvin----talk about a combined team effort on a consistent basis in terms of big play ability

----------------------------------------

How in the world does one dispute the notion that the 2007 defense was the best that we've had in quite some time? Only the 2006 and SB winning years were better in my opinion.

For the record, I agree with what you're saying, but let's not cut the 2007 defense short, either.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, whether the O made the 07 D statistically better than it was, they do deserve their due. I'd also say this: at the end of January 2015 we'll see if this year's D is as good (including better than 07) as I think they will be. Stay tuned.....

TheBostonStraggler said:

Fair enough, whether the O made the 07 D statistically better than it was, they do deserve their due. I'd also say this: at the end of January 2015 we'll see if this year's D is as good (including better than 07) as I think they will be. Stay tuned.....

Click to expand...

Oh boy, do I ever hope that you're right!

I think the potential is there for sure, particularly with the stingy passing defense.

In the meantime, I hear what you're saying about the stats being skewed a bit in '07 and agree on some level, but when you look at the (fairly) dominant pass defense, it makes you appreciate it even more. Add in that crazy "team" effort from seven different players credited with 3+ turnovers, the sacks (which were helped by the offense) and you get a nice balance for sure.

I'd probably have them ranked:

1. 2003
2. 2004
3. 2001
4. 2006
5. 2007

Personally, I wonder if we're not close to something between 2009 and 2007 at the moment--although I'd probably have them pegged more towards 2009 myself?

supafly said:

Oh boy, do I ever hope that you're right!

I think the potential is there for sure, particularly with the stingy passing defense.

In the meantime, I hear what you're saying about the stats being skewed a bit in '07 and agree on some level, but when you look at the (fairly) dominant pass defense, it makes you appreciate it even more. Add in that crazy "team" effort from seven different players credited with 3+ turnovers, the sacks (which were helped by the offense) and you get a nice balance for sure.

I'd probably have them ranked:

1. 2003
2. 2004
3. 2001
4. 2006
5. 2007

Personally, I wonder if we're not close to something between 2009 and 2007 at the moment--although I'd probably have them pegged more towards 2009 myself?

Click to expand...

Your order is kind of off imho. 2001 is slowly fading from my memory but I remember the others clear as day. 2003 in any era was dominant and clearly #1. After ALL of the corners going down in 04 made them susceptible to the pass, they wouldn't fare as well in todays NFL. 07 way too low. 06 ahead of anything is the reason I felt compelled to post. The 06 defense that featured Artrell Hawkins and Tully Banta Cain. Seau broke his arm that year, Harrison had knee issues and Eric Alexander was abused in the AFCCG. The entire 06 team was very scrappy but lacked quality depth everywhere.

Imho we are closer to the 2010 D but better.

A lot of ways to look at this, however I prefer, point differential to most statistics. The Pats and Green Bay are both at +105....

That is a 10+ point differential per game... which is significant.

IMO Defense should be viewed as complimentary to the O... to view it stand alone only tells part of the story..

Compare for a 16 game season:

01-99 point differential
03-110 point differential
07-177 point differential
06-148 point differential

supafly said:

Oh boy, do I ever hope that you're right!

I think the potential is there for sure, particularly with the stingy passing defense.

In the meantime, I hear what you're saying about the stats being skewed a bit in '07 and agree on some level, but when you look at the (fairly) dominant pass defense, it makes you appreciate it even more. Add in that crazy "team" effort from seven different players credited with 3+ turnovers, the sacks (which were helped by the offense) and you get a nice balance for sure.

I'd probably have them ranked:

1. 2003
2. 2004
3. 2001
4. 2006
5. 2007

Personally, I wonder if we're not close to something between 2009 and 2007 at the moment--although I'd probably have them pegged more towards 2009 myself?

Click to expand...

I think you have the order spot-on, but that's only because this team hasn't made it through the season yet. The 2007 team struggled in the playoffs, as did the 2006 team. The 2001 team, on the other hand, stepped-up big time in the playoffs. Still, the 2003 and 2004 teams were far-and-away the best defenses the Pats have had. Time will tell whether this D goes the way of the 2001 team or the 2007 team. I like what I see so far, however, and expect this team to outperform the 2006 and 2007 defenses down the stretch, but it's a long, physical season and health is such a big factor that I agree that ranking this team now is premature.

supafly said:

Let's say that we play along and understand that they forced the opposition into passing situations due to our offense being good and scoring a lot, you still have to take into account the following:

--the passing defense was LIGHTS OUT (and still not nearly as good as 2003), giving up 237 yards or less in 15/19 games. Remember that there was a ton of garbage time, and tons of passing due to your theory

--the defense created 2+ or more turnovers in 13/19 games

--they had the 4th ranked scoring defense at 17.1 points per game

--they gave up first downs in the teens in 13/19 games

--they were 12th in the entire NFL in passing attempts (which does not really support your theory of being one-dimensional, even though you are right and it's true), 5th in total passing defense, and 6th in passing yards allowed

--they got decent pressure/production from the interior, with Wilfork and Warren having 6.0 sacks

--even though the excuse is that "Seymour was hurt," his replacement in Jarvis Green averaged close to a sack per game with 6.5 himself

--we had THREE players who had at least 6.5 sacks or more with Green (6.5), A.Thomas (6.5), and Vrabel (12.5)

--the defense scored 3 touchdowns, with A.Thomas, Samuel, and Wilson all returning turnovers for scores

--we had the following SEVEN players produce at least THREE turnovers or more: 1) A.Thomas, 2) Seau, 3) Sanders, 4) Vrabel, 5) Samuel, 6) Gay, 7) Colvin----talk about a combined team effort on a consistent basis in terms of big play ability

----------------------------------------

How in the world does one dispute the notion that the 2007 defense was the best that we've had in quite some time? Only the 2006 and SB winning years were better in my opinion.

For the record, I agree with what you're saying, but let's not cut the 2007 defense short, either.

Click to expand...

All true, and they certainly were a solid group and better than any since (excepting this year, hopefully). But it is also true that you can't take those stats at face value. Sacks, turnovers and TDs would all be expected to be inflated with the offense they had. I'll grant you that the limited yardage allowed considering how quickly games got out of hand is very impressive, but that was a very unique situation that doesn't quite follow the model that NE treats garbage yardage now.

I was actually more impressed with how well they did in the playoffs than how they did in the regular season, because the D had to produce on their own.

I don't go back as far as alot of people on here, but I really like our secondary and the way we're playing. The one thing I think that this defense is missing from our super bowl winning teams is that we don't get a consistent pass rush. I also think we struggle with covering tight ends and running backs.
I do like our run defense however and the fact that we create a lot of turnovers!!!

supafly said:

Let's say that we play along and understand that they forced the opposition into passing situations due to our offense being good and scoring a lot, you still have to take into account the following:

--the passing defense was LIGHTS OUT (and still not nearly as good as 2003), giving up 237 yards or less in 15/19 games. Remember that there was a ton of garbage time, and tons of passing due to your theory

--the defense created 2+ or more turnovers in 13/19 games

--they had the 4th ranked scoring defense at 17.1 points per game

--they gave up first downs in the teens in 13/19 games

--they were 12th in the entire NFL in passing attempts (which does not really support your theory of being one-dimensional, even though you are right and it's true), 5th in total passing defense, and 6th in passing yards allowed

--they got decent pressure/production from the interior, with Wilfork and Warren having 6.0 sacks

--even though the excuse is that "Seymour was hurt," his replacement in Jarvis Green averaged close to a sack per game with 6.5 himself

--we had THREE players who had at least 6.5 sacks or more with Green (6.5), A.Thomas (6.5), and Vrabel (12.5)

--the defense scored 3 touchdowns, with A.Thomas, Samuel, and Wilson all returning turnovers for scores

--we had the following SEVEN players produce at least THREE turnovers or more: 1) A.Thomas, 2) Seau, 3) Sanders, 4) Vrabel, 5) Samuel, 6) Gay, 7) Colvin----talk about a combined team effort on a consistent basis in terms of big play ability

----------------------------------------

How in the world does one dispute the notion that the 2007 defense was the best that we've had in quite some time? Only the 2006 and SB winning years were better in my opinion.

For the record, I agree with what you're saying, but let's not cut the 2007 defense short, either.

Click to expand...

Almost every statistic you posted related to a defense knowing, or not caring that, the other team couldn't run. I know you are not a stats only guy and their offense was extreme as hell scoring points.

Seymour played half the games, McGinest was retired, Bruschi, Rodney and Seau were 34, 35 and 38, Bruschi was post stroke. The secondary was decent, but certainly not a Ty Law one. Wilfork was reaching his prime, but he got better later. Vrabel had twelve sacks feasting on poor quarterbacks trying to figure out how to come back from thirty down in the first half. Was that better than a prime defense with McGinest and the rest with lesser numbers winning close games? I don't think so.

If you're going to argue about a team game where offense and defensive strategy and performance are intertwined in one freak seson based on statistics, i can't argue that.

supafly said:

I thought the fact that all 3 SB teams had better defenses was more than obvious. I said that "the 2007 defense was the best that we've had in quite some time," which is definitely true.

If you want to take it one step further, the 2006 defense was likely better that the 2007 one, so I'd have the 2007 defense ranked #5. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that it's the best defense that we've had in quite some time.

Click to expand...

pencilneckgeek said:

I think you have the order spot-on, but that's only because this team hasn't made it through the season yet. The 2007 team struggled in the playoffs, as did the 2006 team. The 2001 team, on the other hand, stepped-up big time in the playoffs. Still, the 2003 and 2004 teams were far-and-away the best defenses the Pats have had. Time will tell whether this D goes the way of the 2001 team or the 2007 team. I like what I see so far, however, and expect this team to outperform the 2006 and 2007 defenses down the stretch, but it's a long, physical season and health is such a big factor that I agree that ranking this team now is premature.

Click to expand...

Eric Alexander covers better, Chad Scott grabs Wayne's bobble catch and 2006 D goes from #4 to #2 or #3.

ashley1992 said:

I don't go back as far as alot of people on here, but I really like our secondary and the way we're playing. The one thing I think that this defense is missing from our super bowl winning teams is that we don't get a consistent pass rush. I also think we struggle with covering tight ends and running backs.
I do like our run defense however and the fact that we create a lot of turnovers!!!

Click to expand...

Revis is equivalent to Law IMO. Browner is a freak who is much better than the "big" cornerbacks we used to have as backups, our other CBs are so good at roles we can't fit Dennard, a recent starter, on the game day roster. This is the best secondary i've seen. since we play sub packages most of the time, it makes up for a lac at LB and Hightower and Collins and Browner and safeties are probably coverig TEs as well as we ever did IMO.

We've patched well elsewhere, but the secondary is awesome this year.

Oswlek said:

Agreed. Loads of talent and loads of flexibility, they could easily switch to whatever formation they wanted.

The only potential issue is that '04 was probably too light on DBs for today's game, but that was just a reaction to the game. I think we can all agree that they probably would have had a couple more guys if they could be magically transported to 2015.

Click to expand...

The '04 defense would still be successful in today's league. Troy Brown was actually a pretty good DB and that front seven was just disgustingly good. But I do agree that this is the best defense we've fielded since 2007. When Chandler comes back, we should be rolling for the playoffs.

supafly said:

I thought the fact that all 3 SB teams had better defenses was more than obvious. I said that "the 2007 defense was the best that we've had in quite some time," which is definitely true.

If you want to take it one step further, the 2006 defense was likely better that the 2007 one, so I'd have the 2007 defense ranked #5. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that it's the best defense that we've had in quite some time.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I misunderstood. The offense and an old patched up defense was better than the even worse defenses that followed as they failed to build another great offense (Jackson, Maroney).

Sorry, I think the great defense collapsed in 2006 and BB patched with other old players because he went offense big time because of Polian rules, the availability of Moss and other FA receivers. Don't think the 2007 defense can be judged in isolation on stats.