Too much emotion in your response, K.
1. The 2011 team points out just how little total yards should rank in measuring a defense. You are right that the 2011 defense WAS historically bad in giving up yard, but ranked in the middle in the MUCH more important category of points allowed. And the for sure, defense was NOT the reason the Pats lost the superbowl that year. They forced 4 fumbles that game (none of which the Pats recovered). That historically bad defense held the Giants to 14 points for 58 minutes of that game and 21 in total. That SHOULD have been enough for our historically GOOD offense to win that game.
2. Keen sense of the obvious, you don't have to be a former coach to know that EVERY coach worth his salt learns very early to scheme around any physical limitations he has. You think Matty P (along with every other DC) isn't doing that? C'mon.
3. Your comment that the defense can't get off the field on third down is just hyperbole. When in fact they are getting off the field more than half the time. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like it to be better, but it's not the "critical" stat you seem to imply.
4. Same goes for the red zone stat. Allowing 10 TD's in 14 trips into the red zone is definitely cringe worthy. But shouldn't the fact that they have only allowed defenses 14 trips into the red zone in 6 games worthy of a "good job". That just over twice in every game the defense is allowing teams to be first and 10 inside our 20. That's pretty good defense I'd say
Bottom line: I never said points allowed was the ONLY stat you need, but it is the ONLY one that ultimately counts. All the other ones are just indicators or aids that help a coach better understand how he can do his job better. Right now the defense has been good enough to overcome those negative stat lines to get the good results we currently have from the ONE stat that actually means anything.
But like McCourty says, those "lesser" stats aren't completely unimportant. Nor are they being ignored by the team. They would like to see that 3rd down stat improve, BUT NOT if it means getting off the field more often on 3rd down, but allowing 25- 30 points a game.
Here is a comparison that kind of illustrates it.
Pitchers in baseball are much like defenses in football, in this regard.
You can have a pitcher who strikes out a lot of hitters, allows fewer that normal base runners, yet an average amount of runs.
You can also have a pitcher who rarely strikes anyone out, allows a lot of hits, and runners, but very few runs.
In the end the guy who allowed fewer runs pitched better, but people will argue the other guy is a better pitcher.
This discussion often gets caught up in that dynamic.
Its RESULTS vs. predicting future results.
The 2011 Patriot defense, by allowing an average amount of points, but taking the ball away the most in the league. The RESULTS were an above average defense.
Looking at the unorthodox way that they did, essentially being easy to complete a pass on, but tightening up to prevent points, people will say that's a bad defense, and it must be that they just got lucky because they made so many bad plays but it didn't amount to as much as it normally would on the scoreboard.
The 2011 Patriots defense had some crappy players on it and some severe weaknesses, but on the field it overcame that and performed like an above average defense.
Just like you can't say a win shouldn't count as a win because you don't like how they won, the same goes here.