A Balanced Look at the Defense

[RobertWeathers]

I know we would love to see GB and NE meet in the Super Bowl but that scenario would put a wound in the term 'Defense Wins Championships'....it will never be the same again for those that believe that is true,should it happen.

I would submit that pure defense does not win championships rather the most balanced team wins them playing the best at the right time of year.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Andy is never wrong guys..haven't you learned anything?

Village idiot I

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

A Homeristic and Completely Delusional Look at the Defense
by AndyJohnson

Village Idiot II

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

What kills me is that people actually believe his ramblings.

Village Idiot III

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

"Branch Davidians"

Village idiot IV

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

beating on a corpse is disgusting

Lead Village Idiot

Outfit them with dunce caps and we have house band.

I hear borg is available as road manager.

 

[Rob0729]

I would submit that pure defense does not win championships rather the most balanced team wins them playing the best at the right time of year.

I don't even know if I agree with that. In recent years, both New Orleans and the Packers did not have great defenses when they won the Super Bowl nor were they particularly balanced definitely not the most balanced. The Steelers were certainly more balanced than the Packers last year although the Packers had the dominant offense.

 

[JackBauer]

Lead Village Idiot

Outfit them with dunce caps and we have house band.

I hear borg is available as road manager.

Simkin and Darolyn for Vice President and Treasurer, respectively.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I don't even know if I agree with that. In recent years, both New Orleans and the Packers did not have great defenses when they won the Super Bowl nor were they particularly balanced definitely not the most balanced. The Steelers were certainly more balanced than the Packers last year although the Packers had the dominant offense.

Yea after I wrote that I started to think about all the SB participants and each team's make up and how they were playing entering the SB. With that said I'll stand by it and try to defend it.

I think last year GB's D was much better than this year's and on par with Pitt's. GB's O was better than Pitts so they won.

I think maybe Indy was a little better of a team than NO but losing Freeney killed them. I'd like to think that NO was playing a little bit better going on. Plus losing Freeney made NO the more balanced team.

Pitt was more balanced than AZ

G'ints were playing better than the Pats going in. Pats O was on fumes, but the D was playing well. Not a better team.

 

[RayClay]

I think, overall, we have good balance and one unit we need to work on (secondary). Offense is fine, BJ is a consistent runner and we have vet and rookie possibilities for RB/receiver. Maybe Ocho.Underwood chip in, maybe not, either way more than anybody except GB can say.

On D, we really neve depended on fat Albert, his total snaps were minimal. Without him, we are less spectacular, but pretty solid. We've got a pass rushing unit that destroyed the Jets, good line combinations and reserves with Deaderick Warren and Love and possible additions of Ellis and Brace. I don't worry about who's not playing, our line is effective. Vince, of course.

Our LBs have been good, realizing spikes and Mayo out, then Mayo playing out of position. I think we had good input besides Guyton, and Fletchers due back. Ninkovich is damn solid, more credit is due IMO.

The secondary is a weakness, no doubt. If anyone though otherwise after the purges, they probably still believe in Santa Claus (sorry, don't let simkin read that).

If anyone I can think of is more up to the task of devising a pass defense from scratch, it's Belichick and i expect him to use every available snap to work on it.

Don't forget, he'll be unconventional and maybe use undersized linebackers to take pressure off (lots of snaps for White lately and it's not a mistake using Niko in coverage against the Colts IMO.

Every team has weaknesses, sometimes just a complacent attitude, not talent. I think our front seven is fine and the secondary will be bolstered by schemes and unconventional lineups.

It's about matching up and winning a few games, ultimately, not putting 22 all pros on the field.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Lead Village Idiot

Outfit them with dunce caps and we have house band.

I hear borg is available as road manager.

im not sure what you are adding by calling everyone an idiot. perhaps you should go follow the steelers?

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

im not sure what you are adding by calling everyone an idiot. perhaps you should go follow the steelers?

just let him be..he never adds anything good to the conversations

 

[Ring 6]

Point well taken.
From a more general view, I watch the D give up A LOT of yards (granted it is sometimes due to conditions of the game such as a lopsided score) and it makes me starkly concerned. It may be unfair to the D but all those 'yards allowed' makes their solid 'points allowed' performance appear less valid.

See, I think this is at the heart of what I am talking about. My OP was designed to strip away perception and statistics that can taint the argument and simply look at what the defense has done to contribute to winning and losing games.
I am talking about what they have done on the field to contribute to winning and losing, not taking cumulative statistics and trying to apply them to situations that will be different. To give a stark example, if we were ahead 38-7 with 1 minute left, and played a prevent defense with 7 DBs and the safeties 40 yards deep and the opponent had 4 straight 20 yard runs for a TD those 4 carries for 80 yards wouldn't be very relevant to how we would do stopping a run first offense. Yet, they would make our run D look statistically poor.

Which leads me back to, can a defense that seemingly always has yards piled up on them be effective enough against top opponents when the O is misfiring?

I wish I had the time to break it out, but I do not think your statement that they always have yards piled up is as accurate as you think. An awful lot of those yards were after the game was out of hand. Miami, Oakland and Indy alone piled up tons of yards after the game was out of reach, and there were others too. Just those 3 probably skew the yards stat by 60 a game over the season. 60 less a game would rank them 18th. The Vikings, ranked 20th, for example, would appear to have a 'better' defense by rote statistic view. However, if the Patriots are allowing the same number of yards while the game is not decided, then allowing an extra 100 playing prevent pass defense to win while the Vikings are allowing 40 rushing yards while the other team runs out the clock and the Vikings lose, is the statistic at all telling?
I think we allow bucket loads of yards after the game is out of reach, but while it is competitive its not nearly as much as you think.
That shouldn't change when the offense isn't having a great day because what appears to be the main element in the excessive yards allowed (big lead) wouldn't be there.

The good news is I believe the O is getting back on track and may be capable of scoring a lot on any team. I also believe the Patriot D when healthy is good enough to compliment the O. But I also have watched the O struggle (like in Dallas, Pitt, first half of KC, First half of Jets, much of the Giants game) and that is where the D's ability comes into play and whether it will shine or not shine through.

And it had pretty consistently played well in those circumstances.

At this point you seem more convinced than I that the D's ability can lead the team to victory in that type situation in the playoffs.

I'm not sure where you find conclusion in my posts, I have not made any.
I have simply assessed what they have actually done, attempting to strip away conjecture and projection. I can see how that sounds more confident than many fans are, but that really isn't ME being MORE confident, it is THEM realizing the FACTS conflict with their lack of confidence.
Again, I drew no conclusion, so anyone saying my OP was overly optimistic is simply saying the facts in it conflict with their level of pessimism.

Admittedly, however, my pessimism is based on a 'what I've seen' hunch versus what you correctly point out regarding the breakdown of the W-L results.

There is certainly no doubt that there are a lot of plays that could be made out there that haven't been. But I think situation is critical in assessing it. Without question we have had an enormous amount of injuries at LB and DB. It stands to reason the talent of the players out there in coverage is compromised. It further stands to reason that when you take those players and tie one hand behind their back by going into a prevent philosophy that takes weakens coverage in areas to eliminate the big play, and abandons any blitzing to help the coverage that those stressed areas are even more exposed by backup talent manning them. But it has yet to be seen IMO that those circumstances translate to major issues when NOT playing prevent.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy is never wrong guys..haven't you learned anything?

Nice contribution. Do you have anything to add that isn't adolescent level?

 

[Ring 6]

A Homeristic and Completely Delusional Look at the Defense
by AndyJohnson

That is a you problem.
I broke down the defenses contribution to winning or losing games. I offered no conclusion, just the facts.
You call that homeristic and delusional.
Thank you, you have only proven that you view FACTS as delusional, which proves your opinion is, in fact, delusional.
Perhaps instead of calling the facts delusional, you should take a look at them and reassess why you find them to not match with your perception.

Or just continue to sling insults at any attempts to educate you.

 

[ausbacker]

Correct me if I am wrong Andy but it seems that your magical breakthrough when assessing the Patriots defensive performance is just the team's win-loss record masquerading other data as your interpretation of game sequences as a fact.

You're a peculiar fellow.

 

[Ring 6]

I knew this was your level of understanding,

You knew this was my level of understanding a post that said "didn't you learn anything from 14-2"
How could anyone understand that?

but to be so indignant about it reeks of delusion.

I am indignant about your lame response.

and no, not everything they do is wrong......but the defense is.....

So you will disregard the facts, and sit on your (mis)perception?
Please, tell me which games you disagree with.

I'm just looking at the Texans starting OLB's (barwin and reed) and I can see ho wdifferent things would be here if they drafted those 2 instead of butler or brace and dowling. but I guess barwin and reed didn't fit the 'system'

We are playing Ninkovich and Mayo at OLB. What difference are you looking for?
Are you trying to tell me they would be better sub package rushers than Carter and Anderson have been?
What are you trying to say, other than you think you are smarter than BB and should be drafting for the Patriots?

 

[Ring 6]

Correct me if I am wrong Andy but it seems that your magical breakthrough when assessing the Patriots defensive performance is just the team's win-loss record masquerading other data as your interpretation of game sequences as a fact.

You're a peculiar fellow.

I'm sorry but what matters other than winning and losing?
Are you really going to tell me that if the defense plays well enough to deserve to win, that is "masquerading" (think you meant masking there) more important factors?

 

[ausbacker]

I'm sorry but what matters other than winning and losing?
Are you really going to tell me that if the defense plays well enough to deserve to win, that is "masquerading" (think you meant masking there) more important factors?

My position is a simple one; it's easier to win a game with an offense that averages 30.2 points and 424 yards of offense per game. This is generally why I refer to the D as a complimentary unit with potential for improvement.

And don't correct me, I chose my words with purpose.

 

[Ring 6]

To that, I agree.



That's the part where your analysis is flawed. Playing with Brady is huge, it dictated a lot of thing on what the other team has to do to keep up. The Colts are a great example. The loss of Manning has exposed their defense, because of their offense shortcomming they are not in the same situation they used to be, and they have not shown they can carry their team, as the offense used to do.

We have seen a few other example of the Pats offense impact on game decision by opposing coaches the last few weeks : the Chiefs going for an onside kick, and the Eagles going for 4th down and the goalline instead of taking the 3 points.

The defense does not play in a vaccuum, they are playing given the situation at the time. And the offense, more time than not, is putting pressure on the opposing offense to keep up. And by putting the pressure on the other team offense, it will have an impact on their decision-making.

All in all, I agree that this defense is sure good enough to be part of a 9-3, as the steading are showing. But let's not underestimate the impact Brady and co have on the defensive results. I think everybody will agree that if one unit is supporting the other, it's the offense that is carrying the team. Not that it means the defense is bad, just that the offense is that good.

I think most Pats fans are concerned about the defense possible shortcoming in the playoffs, the reason being that this is an opportunistic defense, based on turnovers and good red zone play, that might be challenged when they will face more efficient offensive opponents in the playoffs. The purpose of this bend but don't break defense is that it shouldn't give up a short scoring drive; if the offense wants to score, it will take a 10 or 12 plays drive. It's playing the percentage that along the way, given the high number of plays it will take to score, the opponent will eventually make a mistake that they cannot recover from. Works well in the regular season against average opponents, but will it works in the playoffs, when the opponent is better and more efficient ? To that end, your list does not provide anything new...we all know this defense is good enough to be 9-3. Moreover, no 2 games are the same, as we saw last year against the Jets at home, or in 2004 against the Steelers. So by 'grading' the defensive performance on a game by game basis, it doesn't add anything new to the discussion, it just states the obvious that everybody can see by looking at the standings.
The bigger question is, is this defense good enough to carry the team should the offense falters ? Can they produce the same turnovers and good red zone play against more efficient opponents such as the Saints and Packers ?

But we can only assess them in the situations they are in.
Regardless of the impact of Brady, there are times in every game that are competitive.
It only makes sense that if the argument is "How will the defense do in a game that is more competitive" that we look at how they do while the game is competitive.
Your argument that they don't play in a vaccuum and there is an effect of Brady is really consistent with what I am saying. Why include the defense that was played with the game out of hand when assessing how the defense would play in a closer game?
Essentially, the statistical only, yards based approach PENALIZES the defense for having Brady on the other side, yet many fans want to act as if it makes them look better. It is silly to me to say:
-By all accounts the D has played pretty well (9 good 3 bad) while games were competitive
-By all accounts statistically they were awful protecting a big lead
-Therefore when its a close game in the playoffs I predict they will play like they did when they had a big lead rather than like they did when the game was close.