Patriots Interior Defensive Line Play Will Be a Key to Success in 2015

mgteich said:

Yes, it is good to come back after a week away and find a couple of threads dealing with football.

You seem to be saying that we are #4 in the AFCE in the quality of our DL, our secondary isn't very good, and that we are well coached that the defense will make up for these deficiencies.

Click to expand...

That's a gloomy interpretation of my post, MG. Let me try to briefly expand on the concept I was trying for.

People tend to look at individuals to rate how good or bad a team might be. And while having good "individuals" is important, its not everything. The Pats have garnered their great success over the last 15 years by exemplifying the principal that the SUM can often be greater than the individual parts.

Another important principal to keep in mind is that in reality, around 90% of NFL players have pretty much the same athletic ability, so when you are talking about how good or bad a team is, EVERY team is pretty much equal, with most having those 4 or 5 "special guys" sprinkled through the roster. What really differentiates a team's success in such an equal environment where the margin between winning and losing are so incredibly small, are the following.

1. Coaching - more than in any other team sport, in football, coaching can have a bigger effect on a team's success or failure.

2. How well your team plays together as a unit. This involves communication, semantics, leadership, and how much fun the group is having.....as a group. The mediots call this "chemistry", but in the end its more about can you trust the guy next to you to have our back. The belief that your teammate is doing all he can to be the best he can be for this week. And again, in football, good "chemistry" is a bigger factor than in the other team sports.

3. If one of your "special" players happens to be a QB. In a game dominated by TEAM play, the anomaly is that the QB position has evolved into the one position that can make or break an offense. And finding a "special" one is not only rare, its exceedingly hard to predict. The Pats don't have an excess of "special" players, but we did manage to luck out that one of them turned out to be a QB.

So if you are rating the division's DL's for this upcoming season based on individual players, I don't think there is any question that ours would be rated #4, but that doesn't mean that it won't be a good DL. The same goes for the secondary. Remember that those "ratings" are based on what players have done in the PAST. Given the reality that the "talent" levels are all pretty close, how our team does will be more a function of the quality of the coaching, how the team takes to the coaching, and how good the QB is.

I believe that due to the quality of the depth, coaching, and the youth of some of the key players, our DL could be a lot better then they are currently rated now. I believe that the fact that along with our strength at LB, we can overcome the losses we suffered in the secondary, and end up with a defense that will be just as good as what we had last season.

So, MG, even though I lied about being brief, , I didn't lie about my assessment of what this DL can be. I know for a fact it can be solid with players like Siliga, Chris Jones, Branch, Chandler Jones, and Ninko. But who knows what Easley and Brown can bring to the table. Both have the potential to become "special" players. Also we have to see what effect a LB crew of Hightower, Mayo and Collins has on the DL, because I think that LB group has a chance to be extraordinary this season

Chandler Jones
Ninko
Sheard
Flowers
Brown
Easley
Hightower
Collins
Bequette

I'm ok with our top DL players

And there still some 2nd tier guys that can get a sack or 2, Grisson, Zach Moore, Chris Jones, Joe Vellano.

Excited to see our new and improved DL

IllegalContact said:

are they mutually exclusive or are you just being yourself?

Click to expand...

Apparently you don't understand what "predictive" means.

I was too lazy to look up the stat.

QUESTION
In the last 10 years, how many of the teams leading in sacks were also Super Bowl winners?

Alternatively,

Of the last 10 Super Bowl, winners how many led the league in the number of sacks? Where were the SB winners in number of sacks?

patfanken said:

5. Last season the talent in the secondary (mainly Revis) allowed the defense to attack the offense from the secondary. This season, that will switch to the front 7. We will attack the offense with them, while the secondary will play more zone to minimize the" big play", and be better prepared to take advantage of the mistakes the forcing unit will cause.

Click to expand...

I hope this is true, but I can't remember BB ever employing a true attacking front 7. I still expect to see too much read and react. This team needs an attacking, penetrating front 7. If it happens I'll be pleasantly surprised.

mgteich said:

Apparently you don't understand what "predictive" means.

I was too lazy to look up the stat.

QUESTION
In the last 10 years, how many of the teams leading in sacks were also Super Bowl winners?

Alternatively,

Of the last 10 Super Bowl, winners how many led the league in the number of sacks? Where were the SB winners in number of sacks?

Click to expand...

so you're saying leading the NFL in sacks prevents a team winning a superbowl?

IllegalContact said:

so you're saying leading the NFL in sacks prevents a team winning a superbowl?

Click to expand...

I am simply saying that there may be stats that are more predictive than leading the league in sacks. Perhaps, leaden the league in net points is better. Perhaps leading the league in the net number of big playing is more predictive. Perhaps leading the league in net turnovers is more predictive.

patfanken said:

So if you are rating the division's DL's for this upcoming season based on individual players, I don't think there is any question that ours would be rated #4, but that doesn't mean that it won't be a good DL. The same goes for the secondary. Remember that those "ratings" are based on what players have done in the PAST. Given the reality that the "talent" levels are all pretty close, how our team does will be more a function of the quality of the coaching, how the team takes to the coaching, and how good the QB is.

I believe that due to the quality of the depth, coaching, and the youth of some of the key players, our DL could be a lot better then they are currently rated now. I believe that the fact that along with our strength at LB, we can overcome the losses we suffered in the secondary, and end up with a defense that will be just as good as what we had last season.

So, MG, even though I lied about being brief, , I didn't lie about my assessment of what this DL can be. I know for a fact it can be solid with players like Siliga, Chris Jones, Branch, Chandler Jones, and Ninko. But who knows what Easley and Brown can bring to the table. Both have the potential to become "special" players. Also we have to see what effect a LB crew of Hightower, Mayo and Collins has on the DL, because I think that LB group has a chance to be extraordinary this season

Click to expand...

You and I are rarely brief.

I agree with almost all of your comments.

1) Yes, the DL could be much better than the quality of past performance of the players indicates.

2) Yes, the linebacker crew could be special. Of course, that presumes that all three remain healthy. As you say, they need to be special in order to make up for the losses of all of our top three corners from last year, including the loss of an all-pro player.

BOTTOM LINE
I agree that our defense could be "just as good as we had last year", as long as the DL improves and there are no injuries at LB. After all, it's not like we and the top defense in the NFL last year.

Personally, I think that the key to the defense is the health of our linebacking corps. With the addition of Fletcher, I suppose that we are better off than last year in LB depth.

AND HOW GOOD WAS THE DEFENSE LAST YEAR?
9th in points allowed
10th in yards per offensive play
13th in total yards

It would seem that a Super Bowl repeat is likely to require about the same average production from the defense as last year. And, of course, we need another outstanding year from Brady.

skinnydog said:

I hope this is true, but I can't remember BB ever employing a true attacking front 7. I still expect to see too much read and react. This team needs an attacking, penetrating front 7. If it happens I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Click to expand...

You might already be surprised if you checked out some pressure stats from our lb

skinnydog said:

I hope this is true, but I can't remember BB ever employing a true attacking front 7. I still expect to see too much read and react. This team needs an attacking, penetrating front 7. If it happens I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Click to expand...

I hope you understand that I'm not entirely happy that the front 7 will be attacking more this year. I know an attacking penetrating D is a fan favorite and read and react frustrates most fans, but you have to remember BB has done very well with that kind of D.

It may not fair well in a lot of defensive stats, but it usually does very well in scoring D. Also you should remember that over the years there have a been a lot more "attacking defenses" that have played for losing teams that ones that played for winners.

I get the feeling this isn't what BB "wants" to be doing. But its what he feels he "has" to do given his roster and the current state of the game. One of Bill's greatest attributes is that he's not afraid to change with the time. He has always been one step ahead of the game for most of the 40 years he's been in the game.

That being said I truly believe that at the heart of his soul Bill is a read and react/zone coach who believes that the game is one of errors and the longer you keep an offense on the field the more likely they will make the mistake that allows you to get off the field or turn it over. The thing is, Bill has had a LOT of success over the years even though he's frustrated a lot of fans and players

mgteich said:

Apparently you don't understand what "predictive" means.

I was too lazy to look up the stat.

QUESTION
In the last 10 years, how many of the teams leading in sacks were also Super Bowl winners?

Alternatively,

Of the last 10 Super Bowl, winners how many led the league in the number of sacks? Where were the SB winners in number of sacks?

Click to expand...

Just for fun, I looked it up (went back to 2001):

2001: Patriots were 14th in sacks (40). Leader was Pitt (55)
2002: Bucs were 6th (43). Leader was Philly (56)
2003: Patriots were 6th (41). Leader was Baltimore (47)
2004: Patriots were 3rd (45). Leader was Atlanta (48)
2005: Steelers were 3rd (47). Leader was Seattle (50)
2006: Colts were 30th (25). Leader was San Diego (61)
2007: Giants were 1st (53).
2008: Steelers were 2nd (51). Leader was Dallas (59)
2009: Saints were 13th (35). Leader was Minnesota (48)
2010: Packers were 2nd (47). Leader was Pitt (48)
2011: Giants were 3rd (48). Leader was Minn/Philly (50)
2012: Ravens were 15th (37). Leader was Denver/St Louis (52)
2013: Seahawks were 8th (44). Leader was Carolina (60)
2014: Patriots were 13th (40). Leader was Buffalo (54)

Just a quick analysis tells me there's no real definitive pattern. It does seem like more often than not you need to be in the top half of the league in sacks, but that's not exactly a high minimum bar to reach.

patfanken said:

That's a gloomy interpretation of my post, MG. Let me try to briefly expand on the concept I was trying for.

People tend to look at individuals to rate how good or bad a team might be. And while having good "individuals" is important, its not everything. The Pats have garnered their great success over the last 15 years by exemplifying the principal that the SUM can often be greater than the individual parts.

Another important principal to keep in mind is that in reality, around 90% of NFL players have pretty much the same athletic ability, so when you are talking about how good or bad a team is, EVERY team is pretty much equal, with most having those 4 or 5 "special guys" sprinkled through the roster. What really differentiates a team's success in such an equal environment where the margin between winning and losing are so incredibly small, are the following.

1. Coaching - more than in any other team sport, in football, coaching can have a bigger effect on a team's success or failure.

2. How well your team plays together as a unit. This involves communication, semantics, leadership, and how much fun the group is having.....as a group. The mediots call this "chemistry", but in the end its more about can you trust the guy next to you to have our back. The belief that your teammate is doing all he can to be the best he can be for this week. And again, in football, good "chemistry" is a bigger factor than in the other team sports.

3. If one of your "special" players happens to be a QB. In a game dominated by TEAM play, the anomaly is that the QB position has evolved into the one position that can make or break an offense. And finding a "special" one is not only rare, its exceedingly hard to predict. The Pats don't have an excess of "special" players, but we did manage to luck out that one of them turned out to be a QB.

So if you are rating the division's DL's for this upcoming season based on individual players, I don't think there is any question that ours would be rated #4, but that doesn't mean that it won't be a good DL. The same goes for the secondary. Remember that those "ratings" are based on what players have done in the PAST. Given the reality that the "talent" levels are all pretty close, how our team does will be more a function of the quality of the coaching, how the team takes to the coaching, and how good the QB is.

I believe that due to the quality of the depth, coaching, and the youth of some of the key players, our DL could be a lot better then they are currently rated now. I believe that the fact that along with our strength at LB, we can overcome the losses we suffered in the secondary, and end up with a defense that will be just as good as what we had last season.

So, MG, even though I lied about being brief, , I didn't lie about my assessment of what this DL can be. I know for a fact it can be solid with players like Siliga, Chris Jones, Branch, Chandler Jones, and Ninko. But who knows what Easley and Brown can bring to the table. Both have the potential to become "special" players. Also we have to see what effect a LB crew of Hightower, Mayo and Collins has on the DL, because I think that LB group has a chance to be extraordinary this season

Click to expand...

They need easley and brown to be those "special" players. If so, it will fall into place. if not, they'll need to regroup and patch into some sort of scheme.

skinnydog said:

I hope this is true, but I can't remember BB ever employing a true attacking front 7. I still expect to see too much read and react. This team needs an attacking, penetrating front 7. If it happens I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Click to expand...

They don't have the personnel to play that effectively. They're pretty much depending on an attacking front seven to cover for their secondary and lack of wilfork.

patfanken said:

I hope you understand that I'm not entirely happy that the front 7 will be attacking more this year. I know an attacking penetrating D is a fan favorite and read and react frustrates most fans, but you have to remember BB has done very well with that kind of D.

It may not fair well in a lot of defensive stats, but it usually does very well in scoring D. Also you should remember that over the years there have a been a lot more "attacking defenses" that have played for losing teams that ones that played for winners.

I get the feeling this isn't what BB "wants" to be doing. But its what he feels he "has" to do given his roster and the current state of the game. One of Bill's greatest attributes is that he's not afraid to change with the time. He has always been one step ahead of the game for most of the 40 years he's been in the game.

That being said I truly believe that at the heart of his soul Bill is a read and react/zone coach who believes that the game is one of errors and the longer you keep an offense on the field the more likely they will make the mistake that allows you to get off the field or turn it over. The thing is, Bill has had a LOT of success over the years even though he's frustrated a lot of fans and players

Click to expand...

In the past, he's had huge, talented 1st round picks and very large LBs. He had corners who could play man and/or stick receivers at the line. He can play Siliga and Branch all the time if he wants to have a mediocre version of the old defense, or he can use all his young 1st rounders who have size and quickness, but not Wilfork, Seymour, Warren type size and skills.

All their top players are built to attack and their is no turning back, IMO. Plus, give any QB lots of time against this secondary and it's not in our favor.

mgteich said:

I am simply saying that there may be stats that are more predictive than leading the league in sacks. Perhaps, leaden the league in net points is better. Perhaps leading the league in the net number of big playing is more predictive. Perhaps leading the league in net turnovers is more predictive.

Click to expand...

nobody was saying what was better.....you provided the impression that leading the league in sacks and winning the superbowl were mutually exclusive.

I took the comment as a desire for an improved pass rush.....which nobody would argue would be a big help given the current makeup of our secondary

patfanken said:

I hope you understand that I'm not entirely happy that the front 7 will be attacking more this year. I know an attacking penetrating D is a fan favorite and read and react frustrates most fans, but you have to remember BB has done very well with that kind of D.

It may not fair well in a lot of defensive stats, but it usually does very well in scoring D. Also you should remember that over the years there have a been a lot more "attacking defenses" that have played for losing teams that ones that played for winners.

I get the feeling this isn't what BB "wants" to be doing. But its what he feels he "has" to do given his roster and the current state of the game. One of Bill's greatest attributes is that he's not afraid to change with the time. He has always been one step ahead of the game for most of the 40 years he's been in the game.

That being said I truly believe that at the heart of his soul Bill is a read and react/zone coach who believes that the game is one of errors and the longer you keep an offense on the field the more likely they will make the mistake that allows you to get off the field or turn it over. The thing is, Bill has had a LOT of success over the years even though he's frustrated a lot of fans and players

Click to expand...

I think a read and react defense is a relic of the pre 2005 era when corners could do a lot more grabbing and bumping of receivers down the field. Today receivers get separation quicker and even mediocre QBs make completions unless they are under pressure. Post 2005 I so think Brady and the offense contributed a lot to any success the defense had (outside of a couple years). They could score so often they forced a lot of teams to get impatient and take unnecessary risks because the were trying to keep up with the Pats. If that keeps up the read and react can work out ok but if not . . .

That's a good point. There was a time when anything over 50% was a good day for an NFL QB. As little as 10 years ago 60% made you a top 10 QB. These days even mediocre QB's can reach 60% and 70% is becoming the mark of an elite QB. The best defenses in the league suffer a 60% completion rate for the most part. That might be a shock for fans who want to dump players after the first pass completion of the year.

The need to create pressure on the QB has become priority #1, league wide, especially up the middle. That's why they paid so much for a guy like Suh in Miami, and why Easley/Brown COULD be so important to the Pats. Remember it's all about the pressures, NOT necessarily the sacks.

But also remember that ALL things in football are cyclical. I think last year was the point where the pendulum started to slowly swing back to the running game. As defensive front 7's become more athletic and lighter, OL's aren't getting smaller, so we are seeing even marginal RB's pile up huge numbers against out manned D's. So don't kiss the old 2 gap/big LB goodbye just yet. It still has a place in the game, just not a prominent one.... at this time.

Sicilian said:

Just for fun, I looked it up (went back to 2001):

2001: Patriots were 14th in sacks (40). Leader was Pitt (55)
2002: Bucs were 6th (43). Leader was Philly (56)
2003: Patriots were 6th (41). Leader was Baltimore (47)
2004: Patriots were 3rd (45). Leader was Atlanta (48)
2005: Steelers were 3rd (47). Leader was Seattle (50)
2006: Colts were 30th (25). Leader was San Diego (61)
2007: Giants were 1st (53).
2008: Steelers were 2nd (51). Leader was Dallas (59)
2009: Saints were 13th (35). Leader was Minnesota (48)
2010: Packers were 2nd (47). Leader was Pitt (48)
2011: Giants were 3rd (48). Leader was Minn/Philly (50)
2012: Ravens were 15th (37). Leader was Denver/St Louis (52)
2013: Seahawks were 8th (44). Leader was Carolina (60)
2014: Patriots were 13th (40). Leader was Buffalo (54)

Just a quick analysis tells me there's no real definitive pattern. It does seem like more often than not you need to be in the top half of the league in sacks, but that's not exactly a high minimum bar to reach.

Click to expand...

Thank you for looking this up and confirming my suspicions. As I said before, I was too lazy to look up the info myself.

IllegalContact said:

you provided the impression that leading the league in sacks and winning the superbowl were mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

not mutually exclusive, just not strongly related

As has been posted, in the last 14 years, the Super Bowl winner has been anywhere from 1st to 30th in the number of sacks.

Sicilian said:

Just for fun, I looked it up (went back to 2001):

2001: Patriots were 14th in sacks (40). Leader was Pitt (55)
2002: Bucs were 6th (43). Leader was Philly (56)
2003: Patriots were 6th (41). Leader was Baltimore (47)
2004: Patriots were 3rd (45). Leader was Atlanta (48)
2005: Steelers were 3rd (47). Leader was Seattle (50)
2006: Colts were 30th (25). Leader was San Diego (61)
2007: Giants were 1st (53).
2008: Steelers were 2nd (51). Leader was Dallas (59)
2009: Saints were 13th (35). Leader was Minnesota (48)
2010: Packers were 2nd (47). Leader was Pitt (48)
2011: Giants were 3rd (48). Leader was Minn/Philly (50)
2012: Ravens were 15th (37). Leader was Denver/St Louis (52)
2013: Seahawks were 8th (44). Leader was Carolina (60)
2014: Patriots were 13th (40). Leader was Buffalo (54)

Just a quick analysis tells me there's no real definitive pattern. It does seem like more often than not you need to be in the top half of the league in sacks, but that's not exactly a high minimum bar to reach.

Click to expand...

Not sure if I'd agree with you about there lacking a definitive pattern. Within seconds it appears as though 8/14 of the past SB winners saw teams ranked in the top SIX, and 9/14 SB winners ranked in the top EIGHT.

So, basically, if you're ranked in the top 25 percent, you have a fairly decent shot. It's almost 2/3 of the past fourteen SB winners. Sounds fairly predictive to me.