Did the defense in 2014 underachieve?

This is not saying it was bad cause clearly it was good enough to win a SB. However was it as good as it could and should have been?

They had stretches of greatness when we saw it work just like you would draw it up (the highlight IMO is the San Diego game). Other times it looked like less than the sum of its parts.

It was able to mostly shut the door in the 4th but why could it not be better in the first 3 quarters?

Looking at the talent this should have been a top 5 to 3 D.

Revis. Browner, Arrington (in the slot), McCourty & Chung with depth options made up no less than the 2nd best secondary for 3/4ths of the year.

Mayo went down and Jones was out half the year. Sure they had injuries. However they seemed to play their best without Jones and Mayo (not a knock on them just it turned out Ayers played well and other things clicked at that time but came back to earth after a stretch). Hightower/Collins were both playing at pro bowl level.

The front 4 while not great had Nink and a decent mix of Siliga/Wilfork/Branch with Ayers/Jones on the other end.

It just seems it was so inconsistent at times. At some it played like the best D in the league and at others just looked disjointed and clumsy.

So looking back do you think it lived up or should it have done better?

The back end definitely lived up to expectations. Overall, their lack of pass rush definitely kept them from being the best or top 3. Kind of a moot point since it was good enough to win the Lombardi.

As long as our offense continues to be as good as it is, we will never have a week-to-week top 5 defense on paper.

I thought the defense was a little disappointing. If I could put my finger on one thing they need to improve, it's not giving up brain dead cheapo scores before half time. There were too many games, including the SuperBowl, where the Pats were in position to control the game and gave up an int/score or a 30 second 89 yard TD drive.

Bad coaching, really. I suspect it will be a point of emphasis for 2015.

As many, such as @AndyJohnson have noted, the run defense improved greatly, particularly in the subpackages which take up 2/3 or even 3/4 of the on field reps and have now arguably become the new "base." That was a plus, although the stats may not show it at times due to the scheme being played. Off the top of my head, which obviously could be quite incorrect, I want to say that they were somewhere in the top 10-12.

I felt that while it was great seeing Revis shut down his assignments on a weekly basis, the secondary wasn't quite as good as I expected. I suppose that's a combination of today's passing NFL and sometimes seeing meaningless stats put up in garbage time. As we saw however, there were still situations where the opposing QB carved them up nicely, ala Aaron Rodgers--whose only real flaw was failing to take advantage of the red zone opportunities, or it would have been a 2 TD loss. Some of that blame also becomes a point in the defense's favor for properly doing its job, of course.

I definitely rooted like hell for SEA to win the NFCCG, because I did not like the way our defense played vs. GB, and I thought that overall, GB was still a much better offense. Some pointed to the possibility of winning in a shootout, but my thoughts were that the offense would have to produce either way, and I liked our chances against SEA's more predictably conservative offense more than facing Rodgers again. I still believe that we should've won by 10+, had it not been for that piss poor defense played to end the first half. In the end it all worked out, but to answer the question---yes, I believe that they underachieved.

Who cares they won the SB.


"Stats are for losers"
-Bill Belichick

BobDigital said:

It was able to mostly shut the door in the 4th but why could it not be better in the first 3 quarters?

Click to expand...

Wrong. Go back and check the whole 2nd half for the majority of the season.

Outside of Miami, KC and that jests game on 3 days rest it was pretty elite in the 3rd and 4th quarter.

I think when it mattered most(4th qtr Suerbowl, 2nd half against the Ravens) our defense got the stops that they needed. I was surprised that our pass rush wasn't a little better, but I thought our secondary played really well for the most part. It was nice when we were able to get in a 3rd and 10 or 3rd and 13, that we were able to get off the field, unlike in prior years.

The Pat's defense last year were the best at halftime adjustments in the league by far.

Including the playoffs, in the final 10 games the defense allowed a TOTAL of 42 second half points.

For comparison..
2013 Seahawks:70
1985 Bears: 41
1986 Giants: 62
1990 Giants: 51
2000 Ravens: 35
2003 Pats: 98
1978 Steelers: 59
1972 Fins: 55

They may not have glamour of the above-mentioned teams but they came though when it mattered. Red zone, 2nd half and when defenses NEED to make plays to win Super Bowls.

Stats are for losers. The produced when they needed to.

From the week after their bye week in week 11 against the Colts all the way to the Super Bowl the Pats' defense allowed an average of 4.2 points allowed in the second half of games.

Edit: ^You bastard!

Why is it people are turning this into "I think the D was bad". Opposed to what my opinion actually is "I think it could have been better"?

It gave up 20.4 PPG in the regular season.

It gave up 20.67 PPG in the playoffs.

At times during both runs they looked down right impossible to move on. At others it looked vulnerable.

I think it is clear it had the talent to shut opponents down but didn't play up to it as much as it perhaps should have. It seemed to me to have lapses. If you disagree that is fine. That is just my opinion on it as is that it played in best generally in the 4th quarter.

A few very quick thoughts.


Overall I would disagree with the opinion that the 2014 Patriots had the talent to be what I would consider to be a 'shut-down defense'. To me they neither over-achieved nor under-achieved, though I would lean to the former based on the final result.

The defensive backs looked up to their hype. The linebackers overproduced, given that Mayo was gone. The DL met expectations, given that our first round draft choice was basically a redshirt.

So, I think that the defense did all that was expected.

I think they underachieved.

Obviously they weren't bad. And were incredible in the 2nd half of games since week 10 or 11.

I'm just fine with it.


#4

VrabelJr said:

As long as our offense continues to be as good as it is, we will never have a week-to-week top 5 defense on paper.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I see why.

• Playing from ahead should help a defense at many times (making the opposing offense more desperate is probably a net positive for the defense) ...
• ... although it also can lead to prevent-defense nonsense at game end.
• Lack of offensive turnovers would tend to be good for scoring defense, albeit not so good for yardage defense.
• A propensity for long offensive drives would tend to help the defense.

JMC00 said:

Who cares they won the SB.

"Stats are for losers"
-Bill Belichick

Click to expand...

They haven't won the 2016 Super Bowl yet.

Fencer said:

They haven't won the 2016 Super Bowl yet.

Click to expand...

It's impossible for the 2014 defense to win the 2016 Super Bowl.

The defense definitely grew as the season progressed.
They had a rough time with A) the Packers B) the Ravens & C) the Seahawks.
Tough match ups that tested our depth. We won 2 of 3 and that is what counts.