This defense compared to years past

mayoclinic said:

The defense IS better because of an awesome secondary. It's a pass happy league, and we may have the only secondary in the NFL that can match up with anyone, usually in more than one way, and the best depth and versatility I've ever seen. I believe that come crunch time this D will make the crucial stops in a way that hasn't happened since 2093-2204. I don't care about rankings, or anything else.

Click to expand...

You are certainly free to not care about points scored against us. Personally, I think it matters when opponents score against us. I prefer a defense that allows fewer points, especially with a top 5 offense led by Tom Brady.

You say that you care about nothing else other than the quality of our secondary. Well, first, I agree that our secondary is the best we've had, comparable to the 2003 secondary.

IMHO, a top secondary is just not enough. If a team can't defend against the run, they won't have to worry about pass defense. We showed that against KC. We need (and have) a solid run defense. It doesn't need to be great, but the run defense must be at least somewhat effective.

mgteich said:

You say that you care about nothing else other than the quality of our secondary.

Click to expand...

I never said anything remotely close to that. I said I don't care about anything other than being able to make the stop when it counts. So far we've done that. The 2006 and 2007 teams didn't. I don't much care whether we win 43-21 or 43-0 as long as we make the stops that count.

Good post. Some comments.

mgteich said:

1) It is an illusion to think that we have had poor defenses in the Belichick era. Only 2000 (17th), 2002 (17th), 2005 (17th) and 2011 (15th) have been out of the top 10 in points allowed. Even in these three years, the defense was about average in 32 team league. It can be argued that having an average defense is enough for success with a Tom Brady as the QB.

Click to expand...

Its funny. I remember the 02 D as horrific vs the run and very soft and 2010 as arguably one of the top 5 worst pass defenses in NFL history. But yet, overall they were average- not a full blown disaster.

mgteich said:

2) I suggest that we overestimate the 2001 defense (6th). Obviously it was a good defense.

Click to expand...

That D gave up yards but was #2 in passer rating and dominant in the playoffs. In their final 12 games they allowed 14ppg. History has proven the 01 Pats to be an excellent defensive team.

mgteich said:

3) 2003 (1st), 2004 (2nd), 2006 (2nd) and 2007 (4th) were by far our best defenses. It is true that 2007 is a bit hard to judge. HOWEVER, I would argue that I would expect MORE points allowed by a team that is always ahead. One might consider this year's DEN game, which wasn't a great stat success for the defense.

Click to expand...

I would argue 01 > 07.
=======

robertweathers said:

I misread you post. Thought that you meant that 97 D was past their prime in 01-04. Apologies.

Click to expand...

Ha ha. wow, that was a misunderstanding.

I agree with almost all of your comments.

With regard to 2001, I also do not care about yards. I focus on points allowed. Passer rating is indeed a good measure of a defense.

I think that we rate the 2001 defense better than the one in 2007 primarily because we won in 2001. However, I have no real argument against the proposition that the playoff 2001 defense was better than that in 2007.

robertweathers said:

Good post. Some comments.


Its funny. I remember the 02 D as horrific vs the run and very soft and 2010 as arguably one of the top 5 worst pass defenses in NFL history. But yet, overall they were average- not a full blown disaster.



That D gave up yards but was #2 in passer rating and dominant in the playoffs. In their final 12 games they allowed 14ppg. History has proven the 01 Pats to be an excellent defensive team.



I would argue 01 > 07.
=======

Click to expand...

mgteich said:

I think that we rate the 2001 defense better than the one in 2007 primarily because we won in 2001. However, I have no real argument against the proposition that the playoff 2001 defense was better than that in 2007.

Click to expand...

Yep. The other nebulous aspect of judging how good a defense is when they make plays when the NEED to. I think 01, 03 and 04 (because they won) fall into that category. Fair or unfair, for the 06 and 07 defenses, because they didn't make "the play" during the final drives vs Indy and the Giants changed how we view those two defenses which IMO were defenses good enough to win a championship in their own right.

I agree with mg and others about the '07 team having a great (and underrated) defense.

Fourth in the league in scoring average (and a scant .75 points per game behind #1 Indy) -- despite the blistering pace of the offense and the sheer quantity of "garbage time" available to opposing offenses over the course of that season.

I also disagree about it "falling off" at the end. Couple tight games around Thanksgiving and game 16 in NY. But then they gave up 20, 12, and 17 points -- which actually amounts to about a point less than their point-per-game average on the season -- against playoff-caliber competition.

I think we remember that unit much differently had a constellation of freaky things (not the least of which is a ball slipping through Asante's hands) gone differently there at the end...

robertweathers said:

Yep. The other nebulous aspect of judging how good a defense is when they make plays when the NEED to. I think 01, 03 and 04 (because they won) fall into that category. Fair or unfair, for the 06 and 07 defenses, because they didn't make "the play" during the final drives vs Indy and the Giants changed how we view those two defenses which IMO were defenses good enough to win a championship in their own right.

Click to expand...

Agreed. 01 and 03 didn't make the plays either, they just left a few more seconds on the clock for the offense to work with.

Mg's point about garbage time generally allowing more yards is correct, but 2007 was a unique situation. Teams felt like this had to play as if they were trailing by 21 at the start of the game, but since there was still A full game to go, NE didn't play just to kill the clock. That fear ended up putting NE at a serious strategic advantage. A combination of good teams playing more straight up and Colvin's injury (he doesn't go down and NE wins the SB in comfortable fashion) exposed the D a little down the stretch.

RayClay said:

We're better than all those teams, even missing Chandler and Mayo, due to the secondary. In my opinion.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I love the enthusiasm and optimism---but a statement like that is a hell of a stretch (again, my opinion).

How in the world would you honestly feel that we're currently better than the 2003, 2004, and 2001 defenses? I think you need to go back and re-examine some of those stats. Those were insanely dominant defenses that were giving up 14, 15 points per game.

KontradictioN said:

It was elite until Rodney went out and the Pats didn't have an answer for Dallas Clark. Word is Eric Alexander is still having nightmares about that game. Before that, they were firing on all cylinders.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. The 2006 defense was pretty dominant until that 2nd half of the AFCCG at Indy. I think you're exactly right.

supafly said:

Yeah, I love the enthusiasm and optimism---but a statement like that is a hell of a stretch (again, my opinion).

How in the world would you honestly feel that we're currently better than the 2003, 2004, and 2001 defenses? I think you need to go back and re-examine some of those stats. Those were insanely dominant defenses that were giving up 14, 15 points per game.

Click to expand...

It's very hard for any team to give up 14-15 PPG with the current rules. Detroit is currently averaging 15.6, but I doubt that will last. The next best scoring average is 17.6.

I don't know if we're better than 2001, 2003 and 2004, and won't know until the season is over. But I think we could be. It's a deeper and more versatile defense that has withstood significant defensive losses and stayed strong (as did the 2004 defense, but not so much 2001 and 2003). For all it's vaunted glory, the 2003 D gave up 29 points to Carolina and Jake Delhomme. 2004's secondary (after Ty Law got hurt) would have been shredded in today's NFL.

doesntmatter1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

To each his own, as it's all a matter of personal preference, which is why I'd put the 2006 defense as the 4th best in the Pats modern/Belichick era.

1) Keep in mind that the 2006 defense gave up 14.8 points per game, which was #2nd in the NFL

2) They also had a secondary that finished with TWENTY-TWO interceptions

3) THREE players who had 7.5 or more sacks in Colvin, Green, and Ty Warren

4) A completely dominant big play guy in Mike Vrabel who finished with 3 INTs, 3 forced fumbles, and 4.5 sacks

5) They held the opposition to 17 points or less in 12/19 total games. Definitely not too shabby

mayoclinic said:

It's very hard for any team to give up 14-15 PPG with the current rules. Detroit is currently averaging 15.6, but I doubt that will last. The next best scoring average is 17.6.

I don't know if we're better than 2001, 2003 and 2004, and won't know until the season is over. But I think we could be. It's a deeper and more versatile defense that has withstood significant defensive losses and stayed strong (as did the 2004 defense, but not so much 2001 and 2003). For all it's vaunted glory, the 2003 D gave up 29 points to Carolina and Jake Delhomme. 2004's secondary (after Ty Law got hurt) would have been shredded in today's NFL.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think some here are confusing my comments about the past defensive rankings with anything to do about our current situation.

For the record, I'd have our current defense on par with the 2007 defense as of today's date = 11/22/14. As you said, that could change, and the hope is that we'd move up in the defensive rankings of best Pats defenses of all-time.

I'd find it extremely difficult to say that we're there yet, though.

supafly said:

Yeah, I think some here are confusing my comments about the past defensive rankings with anything to do about our current situation.

For the record, I'd have our current defense on par with the 2007 defense as of today's date = 11/22/14. As you said, that could change, and the hope is that we'd move up in the defensive rankings of best Pats defenses of all-time.

I'd find it extremely difficult to say that we're there yet, though.

Click to expand...

It's a matter of preference. I'd take our defense - more versatility, better depth, and above all, younger. I think playing consistently from a lead made the 2007 D look better than it was, as other teams became relatively one-dimensional. But time will tell.

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'm afraid you need to take off your rose-colored glasses. That 2007 secondary was not anything particularly special.

Playing from far ahead makes for a one dimensional opponent. You end up with phony Defenses, with inflated stats like the Broncos and Colts, ready to be brought back to reality.

mayoclinic said:

It's a matter of preference. I'd take our defense - more versatility, better depth, and above all, younger. I think playing consistently from a lead made the 2007 D look better than it was, as other teams became relatively one-dimensional. But time will tell.

Click to expand...

If you are looking forward, it is a no brainer. Nearly every important player in 2007 was on his last legs.

Just counting the current year, I'd still take this group and it wouldn't be a hard decision.

KontradictioN said:

It was elite until Rodney went out and the Pats didn't have an answer for Dallas Clark. Word is Eric Alexander is still having nightmares about that game. Before that, they were firing on all cylinders.

Click to expand...

Good depth is a part of good Defense. Today a good CB like Alfonzo, is not even active.

mgteich said:

You are certainly free to not care about points scored against us. Personally, I think it matters when opponents score against us. I prefer a defense that allows fewer points, especially with a top 5 offense led by Tom Brady.

You say that you care about nothing else other than the quality of our secondary. Well, first, I agree that our secondary is the best we've had, comparable to the 2003 secondary.

IMHO, a top secondary is just not enough. If a team can't defend against the run, they won't have to worry about pass defense. We showed that against KC. We need (and have) a solid run defense. It doesn't need to be great, but the run defense must be at least somewhat effective.

Click to expand...

That KC game was a a low point, playing without Siliga and Chris Jones, and trying to adapt to a Mayo-less Defense, while the Offensive line was really indefensible.

Now the Offensive line is back together and functioning. There are Alan Branch and Chris Jones back, Hightower is comfortable at ILB, and Siliga is ready to rejoin.

We await the return of Chandler, but the addition of Ayers and the addition of Casillas definitely help. With the talent available BB can engineer and scheme pass rushes and Matty P is doing so.

The Colts running for 18 yards, and the Broncs for 44, indicate to me that this Defense no longer has problems against the Run.

supafly said:

Yeah, I love the enthusiasm and optimism---but a statement like that is a hell of a stretch (again, my opinion).

How in the world would you honestly feel that we're currently better than the 2003, 2004, and 2001 defenses? I think you need to go back and re-examine some of those stats. Those were insanely dominant defenses that were giving up 14, 15 points per game.

Click to expand...

Remember, that was before 2 separate rulings by the competition committee that have transformed the NFL into a fantasy flag football show

This defense is pretty damn good at LB and DB. Our defensive line isn't as good as some of those championship years though. Its hard to compare to a line of Warren, Wilfork/Washington and Seymour. Those guys got it done.

There should be a shared mindset that stats before and after the rule changes don't compare. What I have seen from this team as its developing is the ability to hold very potent offenses to a couple touchdowns less a game then they are used to averaging. Giving up roughly 20 points per game to the Broncos and Colts is pretty darn good.