Belichick: Most Important Defensive Stat is Points Allowed

[Ring 6]

Andy, would you consider a pass rush, specifically a 4th quarter pass rush, As a top 3 need of a team that wants to win a championship

And of course i care about points. giving up 40 a game will get us no where

Its not a matter of ranking needs. Its a matter of team defense, and getting the job done.
There is no defense in the league that you can't throw against because of their pass rush. Most of the difference in pass rush between teams is how you choose to play your scheme.
There are very few players in the NFL who can generate a consistent pass rush all on their own, and none that can do it on demand. The worst defense in the world is the one that sells out to get to the QB and doesn't get there.
My point is you have a preference of how you want to play defense, but that does not mean it is a better way, and it certainly does not mean that the piece of the puzzle that you are considering the key is more important than the result. The result is only points and turnovers. Those are what directly affect wins and losses, and all of the other statistics are things that contribute to whether you succeed at points and turnovers.

 

[Kontradiction]

No it IS the end all and be all in determining how good your defense is. Otherwise they will have to devise a new method of determining the winner of the game. Should it be best 3rd down efficiency wins? How about best red zone ratio? Or the old stand by, most TO's gets the W. No Kontra, in the end the team with the most points wins the game, and until that changes the fewer points your defense allows the better it is.

That being said, all those other things are just indicators. Things you can use to isolate when you are breaking down the evaluation of your defense. They have some value in helping you pinpoint specific areas you concentrate on in improving your defensive production. But the "end all and be all" goal of the defense is to limit the number of points that are scored by the offense.

No, it's not. If that were the case, the 2011 Pats and Packers would have been considered middle of the road defenses because that's where they were ranked in the points allowed category. They were also, at the time, the two worst pass defenses of all time and big reasons why neither team won the Super Bowl that year. You're a coach, Ken. You know better than most that good coaches can scheme around poor talent to limit points in the red area. In the meantime, as the defense can't get off the field on 3rd down, your offense can't get on the field to score points. So yes, points allowed is always the most important stat for measuring a defense. But it's far from the only one you need to use when measuring it. In that vein, it is not the be-all, end-all.

 

[patfanken]

No, it's not. If that were the case, the 2011 Pats and Packers would have been considered middle of the road defenses because that's where they were ranked in the points allowed category. They were also, at the time, the two worst pass defenses of all time and big reasons why neither team won the Super Bowl that year. You're a coach, Ken. You know better than most that good coaches can scheme around poor talent to limit points in the red area. In the meantime, as the defense can't get off the field on 3rd down, your offense can't get on the field to score points. So yes, points allowed is always the most important stat for measuring a defense. But it's far from the only one you need to use when measuring it. In that vein, it is not the be-all, end-all.

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 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.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

 

[PScottman]

The teams problem from for a very long time was the lack of a pass rush.

prob·lemˈpräbləm: noun 1. a matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or harmful and needing to be dealt with and overcome.

So if the definition is "to be overcome" and the team (utilizing a philosophy not focused on pass rush) has won more games than any other over the past decade...how have they not overcome the problem? Because they haven't won every Super Bowl, every year?

You're getting so much push back because of the focus on a single solitary aspect of an entire team's defense as causal. You and PatriotsPimp and Marqui, et al have this meme that pass rush solves all current (and solely statistical given the Pats' record especially without Brady) defensive ills.

I would posit that perhaps the easiest aspect of defense to game plan against, say instead of pass coverage fundamentals, run defense, or team speed, is pass rush. That doesn't mean player skill doesn't come into play, but how many all-world pass rushers lay an egg against the Pats more often than they succeed? JJ Watt. Suh. James Harrison in his prime. Dumervil. Suggs. Etc, etc.

That, paired with the 'BB philosophy' success over the long term that eschews unbridled, non-schematic, gap undisciplined rushing, debunks the notion that pass rush is the key to winning defense. Yes, defense wins championships...team defense - including coverage, run stopping, tackling, and yes, pass rush - in concert to form a whole.

 

[fightingirish595]

prob·lemˈpräbləm: noun 1. a matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or harmful and needing to be dealt with and overcome.

So if the definition is "to be overcome" and the team (utilizing a philosophy not focused on pass rush) has won more games than any other over the past decade...how have they not overcome the problem? Because they haven't won every Super Bowl, every year?

You're getting so much push back because of the focus on a single solitary aspect of an entire team's defense as causal. You and PatriotsPimp and Marqui, et al have this meme that pass rush solves all current (and solely statistical given the Pats' record especially without Brady) defensive ills.

I would posit that perhaps the easiest aspect of defense to game plan against, say instead of pass coverage fundamentals, run defense, or team speed, is pass rush. That doesn't mean player skill doesn't come into play, but how many all-world pass rushers lay an egg against the Pats more often than they succeed? JJ Watt. Suh. James Harrison in his prime. Dumervil. Suggs. Etc, etc.

That, paired with the 'BB philosophy' success over the long term that eschews unbridled, non-schematic, gap undisciplined rushing, debunks the notion that pass rush is the key to winning defense. Yes, defense wins championships...team defense - including coverage, run stopping, tackling, and yes, pass rush - in concert to form a whole.

Yes for a 3 year period, they absolutely weren't able to put out a good enough pass rush. In my opinion of course. But obviously the secondary wasn't very good either. They haven't won the superbowl every year because they weren't good enough. Other teams were better. every team has flaws. You can tell me the Patriots dont scheme to get a pass rush. okay fine, but when they send 4 guys after the QB, You cant tell me those guys are not being coached to get to the passer without running past the quarterback. Im just not going to buy that. The Patriots should not win the Super Bowl every year because its too hard to do. But theres nothing wrong with looking at why teams around the NFL lost in the playoffs and improving on it. I'm just trying to forecast what i can see as potential problems in the playoffs. If you and other people think were fine then okay that is your opinion.

 

[fightingirish595]

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 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.

You were a coach, where at and what level? coaching runs deep in my family so just curious

 

[deroc5050]

I could be wrong, but I just got the feeling that some people here think yards/game mattered more. Obviously both yards and points are important but people here differ on which is more important.

Well if you don't give up first downs, then you wont give up points. Which team ranks among the best in yrds allowed and whats their point total?

I could be wrong but I think most offensive coordinators want to win the time of possession battle against New England, long sustained drives and limit how many times Brady and Co get the ball.

 

[PScottman]

You can tell me the Patriots dont scheme to get a pass rush. okay fine, but when they send 4 guys after the QB, You cant tell me those guys are not being coached to get to the passer without running past the quarterback.

I don't think I'm telling you either of those. I am saying that the pass rushers here don't have the unrestricted freedom and full bore stunting and other schematic rushes at the frequency of other teams. They do scheme pass rush, and do use those techniques, but at less frequency and are often even more restrictive against good running QBs.

Given what you've seen so far this and the past two years, do you think Hightower couldn't get the quarterback pretty frequently if unleashed in similar manner to Miller in Denver? I think he could, but that's a skill used at specific points of the game to try and impact momentum...create turnovers...or maximize field position. See the safeties the past two weeks - unleashed for a down and distance, field position, formations and other factors to increase return on the risk of taking him out of coverage.

How about Bruschi or Mayo in their primes? Why did Colvin's sack totals lessen when he got here? Still highly successful players in winning, even dominant defenses. Good or even great pass rushers, but never statistically among the league leaders...still winning.

 

[patfanken]

You were a coach, where at and what level? coaching runs deep in my family so just curious

HS and in MA

 

[Jlaff]

I know some people have said an undergrad degree does not make an economist, but I would have to disagree based on my understanding of what an economist is. Economics, in my view, is about a way of viewing the world. Read Freakonomics for a crash course on this (and an entertaining read).

Belichick has brought his own brand of moneyball/economics to every aspect of the NFL game. I have no doubt his background in economics is either evidence of the way he already thought, or the impetus for the way he thinks now. It's so damn simple it's astounding. It's not about getting the most sacks, or off the field on every third down (which he would of course appreciate), it's simply focusing on the most basic approach to winning football games (score more than the other guy), and developing an imperfect-but-effective-for-its-purpose defensive scheme that is most likely to realize that.

 

[fightingirish595]

HS and in MA

Interesting I have family who coached up in cape cod

 

[nabwong]

Definitely

1. W-L
2. Points
3. Turnovers

Everything else is fantasy football.

 

[mgteich]

Another is plays per point. After all, 2 defenses aren't equal if one is on the field 50% more, and they yield the same points per game. Belichick makes team work for their points.

 

[brdmaverick]

Ah, yes. They lost a game, therefore third-down D is more important than points. I'm sure the loss had nothing to do with Crumpler dropping an easy TD or Brady running for his life. Or the Jets playing out of their minds for a day.

Agreed. That's like saying the record setting (at the time) Pats offense in 2007 was bad because they only scored 14 points in the Super Bowl.

In other words, like you, I'm not sure why the poster would choose to see one game as a better indicator of performance instead of looking at the entire body of work.

 

[Nunchucks]

Points allowed matter a lot. However, when a defense cannot get off the field and the offense struggles, even if you hold a team to 14 points, it may not be enough. Possessions matter. That last superbowl against the Giants shows the huge gaping hole in "the only thing that matters is points" theory. Get off the field, get the ball to the offense!

 

[brdmaverick]

Ok, here's my teak on this topic.

The most important thing in football is WINNING (I assume no one will disagree with that).

Points allowed is a one of the two biggest factors in winning (the other being Points Scored). I'd still be surprised if there were any naysayers so far.

So when it comes to the Super Bowl, I don't care if we win 3-0, 45-44, or 45-0.....winning is the only thing that matters.

While winning each individual game is also important, we as fans not only look points allowed (and points scored) for the game just played but we also look at hte other stats (yards allowed) to predict how the team will fare in FUTURE games. We use those other stats to measure their probability of getting MORE wins. So obviously points allowed is important, but the other factors assess the manner in which that result was obtained and help predict if that points allowed result was a fluke or a norm.

After all, if the defense gave us 21 points on three drives in which the offense got the ball in a goal-to-go situation that could be chalked up as more 'fluke' than 'norm'. Now in that game it won't matter, 21 poitns is still 21 points that will need to be overcome, but if you lose that game most people wouldn't be thinking that wholesale defensive changes need to be made.

So as someone said earlier, all of the stats in a way matter and don't matter at the same time. Football is not as kind to analytics as baseball is. There are two many variables telling the story in football.

 

[brdmaverick]

Here's another good example...........

The 2013 Broncos were a record setting offense and many here thought it was a moral victory that we held them to 26 points. For anyone who actually watched that game would have seen it differently. The Broncos game plan was to control the ball, converting third down after thrid down. They maintained ball possession brilliantly and kept Brady off the field. Even though our defense did make some stops near the goal line to force field goal attempts, the defense couldnt' get off the field when they had to.

 

[Ring 6]

Another is plays per point. After all, 2 defenses aren't equal if one is on the field 50% more, and they yield the same points per game. Belichick makes team work for their points.

That doesn't happen. No defense is on the field 50% more than any other.

 

[Ring 6]

Ok, here's my teak on this topic.

The most important thing in football is WINNING (I assume no one will disagree with that).

Points allowed is a one of the two biggest factors in winning (the other being Points Scored). I'd still be surprised if there were any naysayers so far.

So when it comes to the Super Bowl, I don't care if we win 3-0, 45-44, or 45-0.....winning is the only thing that matters.

While winning each individual game is also important, we as fans not only look points allowed (and points scored) for the game just played but we also look at hte other stats (yards allowed) to predict how the team will fare in FUTURE games. We use those other stats to measure their probability of getting MORE wins. So obviously points allowed is important, but the other factors assess the manner in which that result was obtained and help predict if that points allowed result was a fluke or a norm.

After all, if the defense gave us 21 points on three drives in which the offense got the ball in a goal-to-go situation that could be chalked up as more 'fluke' than 'norm'. Now in that game it won't matter, 21 poitns is still 21 points that will need to be overcome, but if you lose that game most people wouldn't be thinking that wholesale defensive changes need to be made.

So as someone said earlier, all of the stats in a way matter and don't matter at the same time. Football is not as kind to analytics as baseball is. There are two many variables telling the story in football.

This is pretty much my point.
There are hundreds of variables and ONE result.
The result is much more indicative of the future results in the exact same area, than an analysis of the variables that go into making up the result.