Stopping the run - scheme or talent

A recent post by Reiss' quick-hit thoughts segment on ESPN raises some questions about overall defensive scheme:

Did You Know, Part I: The Patriots allowed 2.7 yards before contact per rush inside the tackle last season, which ranked 25th in the NFL, according to ESPN's Stats & Information. That could be a tip-off that they'll be looking closely at some of the powerful run-stuffing defensive tackles in the draft, a group that includes Florida State's Eddie Goldman, who has become a mock draft favorite in recent weeks.

Click to expand...

I think I have a different take on this that Reiss. So despite having a healthy Vince in the middle taking up a lot of space, the Pats were terrible up the middle in 2014 defending the run. I don't think there is any way to sugar coat this, that's a bad run defense up the middle. Was this a product of an aging Vince being healthy but ineffective at this stage of his career? Was it simply the lack of talent next to him or was it the scheme? From that statistic it sure looks to me that the Patriots are playing a read and react defensive front, at least up the middle, with a heavy emphasis on maintaining gap integrity over aggressive up field play.

Another stat:

Did You Know, Part II: The Patriots stopped 77 rushes for no gain or negative yards, the third fewest of any team in the league last year, according to ESPN's Stats & Information. Only San Francisco (75) and Pittsburgh (72) ranked lower.

Click to expand...

This statistic seems to point to the scheme as the reason. Again the defensive scheme up front seems to be based on exercising a lot of patience over being aggressive up front. I tend to think the Patriots had the ability to run this scheme last year because they were so good at the back end. So is it scheme or talent? Are these stats an inevitable product of the scheme the patriots play?

An interesting subject to discuss. I hope others will pitch in with their perspectives on this.

IMO, it was a combination of everything. From the two-gap scheme which requires two stout personnel (which we didn't really have), to overpursuit (yes we did have recurring problems with overpursuing, perhaps as a result of trying to overcompensate on interior weakness) to poor interior tech. Also didn't help that we lost Spikes whose mere presence often made RB's second-guess going up the middle, and made them more likely to shy outside.

IMO, Walker was far more of an issue than Wilfork was- he kept getting walked out of position (a result of a consistent inability to shed blocks).

That counts all the time we were in sub packages, especially when we were ahead?

These isolated, out of context statistics are close to worthless in the NFL

There is the cliche that the nfl is a passing league. Rarely will you see a team go down the field on a scoring drive 100% on rushes, and if they do, there are usually multiple 3rd/4th downs and situations to out think themselves or make mistakes.

It's a simple concept, and I've said it before, but winning isn't just about making more good plays, but also about making fewer bad plays. If a team needs 20 rushing plays to score (~6 or 7 consecutive first downs), it provides many more chances for mistakes than a team that can make it down the field in 10 throws. It adds up over the course of a season. That's why pats players are so vigilant at ripping the ball away.

I think it's also a way that BB frustrates the opposition.... the mentality of, "Sure, you can beat us, but you can't make a mistake, can't stray from your gameplan for a single play, the final score will be 17-14, you will need at least 75% time of possession, and the game will be boring as hell."

The run defense troubles were a product of the 4-2-5 defense we played a good bit last year. Simple math says 6 in the box you run.

I think bb will draft defensive players this year that will help him perfect the 4-2-5 defense and it may mean giving up more on the ground, but the pass defense should be just as solid, if we have db's that can do the job.

I've always been a believer that coaches don't win games, players do. Coaches can only lose them.

Even for a great HC like Belichick, if the players don't 'do their jobs' then the scheme won't matter.

So, the Patriots had the 5th best red zone defense in football and top ten rushing defense.

So please tell me, what does 2.7 yards, not in the red zone, probably against teams that needed to pass, even mean?

RayClay said:

So, the Patriots had the 5th best red zone defense in football and top ten rushing defense.

So please tell me, what does 2.7 yards, not in the red zone, probably against teams that needed to pass, even mean?

Click to expand...

I thought they were around 10th in red zone defense, but I'll take a top ten in 2015 and pretty much call it a day. But I think the 2.7 yards before contact and lack of tackles for a loss means they played soft up front and relied on the back seven not just for coverage but a lot in the run defense as well. With the departure of Browner and Revis, I've seen a lot of posters suggest the remedy is to do a better job of getting after the quarterback. If the scheme stays the same as in 2014, I don't see how that happens. Maybe with a healthy Easley they'll run more of an attacking scheme up front.

Ochmed Jones said:

The run defense troubles were a product of the 4-2-5 defense we played a good bit last year. Simple math says 6 in the box you run.

I think bb will draft defensive players this year that will help him perfect the 4-2-5 defense and it may mean giving up more on the ground, but the pass defense should be just as solid, if we have db's that can do the job.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure it has to do with running the 4-2-5 dense. Even in this alignment if the front four are playing a penetrating style then there be more tackles for a loss due the fact that they'll be getting into the backfield faster. I know the risk is you'll shot the wrong gap and give up a big play but the upside is that in passing situations the pressure is on the QB faster.

skinnydog said:

I thought they were around 10th in red zone defense, but I'll take a top ten in 2015 and pretty much call it a day. But I think the 2.7 yards before contact and lack of tackles for a loss means they played soft up front and relied on the back seven not just for coverage but a lot in the run defense as well. With the departure of Browner and Revis, I've seen a lot of posters suggest the remedy is to do a better job of getting after the quarterback. If the scheme stays the same as in 2014, I don't see how that happens. Maybe with a healthy Easley they'll run more of an attacking scheme up front.




I'm not sure it has to do with running the 4-2-5 dense. Even in this alignment if the front four are playing a penetrating style then there be more tackles for a loss due the fact that they'll be getting into the backfield faster. I know the risk is you'll shot the wrong gap and give up a big play but the upside is that in passing situations the pressure is on the QB faster.

Click to expand...

There are different measures of red zone defense, but my point is, they were trying to stop the pass in a passing league. they have a top offense so teams mostly needed to score quickly, not run, so when they ran, they were running out of passing sets against passing defenses.

I agree they need to shore up the run defense, not because it was bad, but because we lost far and away our best stout tackle.

I also agree it will be difficult to get after the quarterback with less bulk up front, but I'm hoping Sheard Easley and Jones will overwhelm defenders while any big linemen will hold the line. Of course, if they go all out, they have Collins and Hightower and mayo, when healthy.

I can't see why, with an emphasis on great pass defense last year, we would want people worrying about making tackles in the backfield? why take risks when you have the other team stymied? I'd only want them to prevent big plays, not worry about causing losses on runs. Outside of the jets game, I was perfectly satisfied with our run defense and hope we are close to as good this year.

RayClay said:

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/red-zone-scoring-pct/

Click to expand...

I think that is saying our offense was 5th in scoring TDs in the red zone. That's a ranking of offenses, not defenses.

RayClay said:

I can't see why, with an emphasis on great pass defense last year, we would want people worrying about making tackles in the backfield? why take risks when you have the other team stymied? I'd only want them to prevent big plays, not worry about causing losses on runs. Outside of the jets game, I was perfectly satisfied with our run defense and hope we are close to as good this year.

Click to expand...

I'm not worries about the run defense itself. I just think these two stats say a lot about the overall defensive scheme. To me it strongly signifies a read and react style. The defensive front was in essence waiting for the play to come to them instead of attacking the opposing offense at the snap of the ball and this style results in a delayed pass rush in all but the obvious situations. I think that especially by the end of the year they were so good in coverage that delayed rush really didn't matter. This year I think it will.

skinnydog said:

I think that is saying our offense was 5th in scoring TDs in the red zone. That's a ranking of offenses, not defenses.

Click to expand...

You are correct sir, we were 8th.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-red-zone-scores-per-game

skinnydog said:

I'm not worries about the run defense itself. I just think these two stats say a lot about the overall defensive scheme. To me it strongly signifies a read and react style. The defensive front was in essence waiting for the play to come to them instead of attacking the opposing offense at the snap of the ball and this style results in a delayed pass rush in all but the obvious situations. I think that especially by the end of the year they were so good in coverage that delayed rush really didn't matter. This year I think it will.

Click to expand...

I agree there. They had arguably the best secondary in the league for a year, so they played to not screw up.

They likely will play completely differently this year due to personnel, but you can't "scheme" to stop the run without weakening another area.

They don't all attack, or not attack, they play a hybrid usually. Not an X O guy, though.

Does the clock have anything to do with it?

If the Pats are up two scores towards the end, it is probably strategically sound to let the opponent have a few time consuming little victories in the run game. I'm guessing it doesn't matter who has the ball if the goal is to burn time with a run game.

skinnydog said:

I think I have a different take on this that Reiss. So despite having a healthy Vince in the middle taking up a lot of space, the Pats were terrible up the middle in 2014 defending the run. I don't think there is any way to sugar coat this, that's a bad run defense up the middle. Was this a product of an aging Vince being healthy but ineffective at this stage of his career? Was it simply the lack of talent next to him or was it the scheme? From that statistic it sure looks to me that the Patriots are playing a read and react defensive front, at least up the middle, with a heavy emphasis on maintaining gap integrity over aggressive up field play.

Click to expand...

This is just wrong. This topic came up a month or so ago also.
The Patriot run D, after struggling early on, was phenomenal in the second half or 3rd 3/4s of the season.

Second half of season run ranked 2nd in yards ypc and TDs. If I remember correctly it was about 80 yards 2.8 ypc and 2 TDs allowed.
Run D was nowhere near a weakness.

Here are the actual numbers:

n the second half of the season, we had the #2 run D in the NFL, at 79 yards per game and a 3.29 ypc (also 2nd) and were tied for the fewest rushing TDs allowed at 2.

Also ranked 2nd in 1st downs by rush with 30 in 8 games.

skinnydog said:

I'm not sure it has to do with running the 4-2-5 dense. Even in this alignment if the front four are playing a penetrating style then there be more tackles for a loss due the fact that they'll be getting into the backfield faster. I know the risk is you'll shot the wrong gap and give up a big play but the upside is that in passing situations the pressure is on the QB faster.

Click to expand...

We play 2 gap.

Ochmed Jones said:

We play 2 gap.

Click to expand...

But not as much as we used to.

The discussion has changed a bit since right after the Super Bowl, when it was clear to most of us that we needed to re-sign Wilfork or add a run-stuffing DT.

Now, Wilfork's NET contributions were approximately ZERO. We can just plug in the players that we have and do fine with the defense that we had for the last half of the year. In essence, we plan to replace Wilfork's reps with more for others, including lots more Easley.

THERE IS A SERIOUS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION
Some see DL as one of our very top draft needs. Others see DL as a 4th round need.