This year may be the best defense of the BB era.
No matter who is out, the D plays well, because it is a TEAM defense.
I think we'll see how well this holds up now that we're getting injuries at key LB spots. Seau's loss, in my eyes, could hurt more than we would have thought upon his signing.
I think what has made it better include the following:
Warren and Wilforks continued improvement.
It's been great to see Wilfork continue his improvement from the second half of last season. I was quite worried about him after the first 6 or so weeks of 2005. He's turning the corner quite well.
Warren is possibly the best player on the defense. That's saying alot when you consider who else he's out there with. Warren is really making all of us that doubted his drafting look foolish (I was one of those).
The corners being more comfortable in the system (see notes below re pass D)
What corners?? haha. All joking aside, I think Asante has really elevated his play for the most part (though he still gives up too many catches, IMO). Hobbs has done a good job for the most part, though he's been the victim of alot of catches lately himself. I give him a pass on the PI calls because I thought they were mainly bogus. That holding call was an absolute joke.
Colvin is playing better this season than any OLb has in one season since BB arrived.
You really think he's outplayed the McG/Vrabes combo from 2003/2004? I can't say that I agree, but I think he's played very well.
While our depth may not be name players, guy like Wright, TBC, Sanders, Hawkins, simply do their job. They dont do anything great, but dont have to. The only D problems we have ever had under BB (outside of 2000 when no one understood what they were doing) was when players coming off the bench were liabilities. When we bring in a sub, and he is a 'neutral' we are always fine.
I agree with most of this, except that the only time we've had D problems was when bench players were liabilities. Steve Martin was a starter in 2002. And he was horrid. The same can be said of Starkes in 2005 as a starter. Add Monty Beisel to that list when he was tried as a starter in 2005. 2005 Chad Brown as well (though Beisel and Brown technically only started because both Bruschi and Johnson were gone at season's start, but they were still starters). The instances are limited, but they're there. The backups this year have done an admirable job (except for Sanders in the Jets game, that was poo).
D FACTS:
-We are 6th in total defense. Our scheme says thats about as good as we could ever be, since we are above all ocnservative.
-We are #3 vs the run. 83 yards a game and 3.4 a carry. Those are close to if not the best ever by a BB D.
-We have given up more than 17 points ONE time.
-We have allowed 13 defensive TDs in 11 games. That is incredible.
-Wehave only allowed ONE run all year of 20+ yards.
-Suddenly, after problems forcing turovers last year we are 8th in Ints. and 6th in total takeaways.
After the first few games where our D looked early-2005ish (turnover and yard-wise, not point-wise) they have played very well and looked far more like the late-2005 D. I'm glad they've been able to sustain their success since those early struggles.
Notes about pass D.
Invariably, we hear the commentary about bad QBs 'doing well' against us. But this has been happening for years, and it always happens the same way. EARLY in the game, these weaker QBs complete a lot of passes against us. (Harrington comes specifically to mind) Then as the game wears on all of a sudden they cannot complete them, and many times begin throwing Ints.
THIS IS A CORE BB PHILOSOPHY, and one of the reasons young QBs always struggle vs his D. Early in the game they see coverages they can understand, and since they are NFL caliber arms they complete some passes. As the game wears on what they think they see isnt what we are playing. The confidence they develop early in the game (I can see it happening during some games, the QB thinking this isnt so hard, that D isnt so complicated) then the schemes change and they look pathetic.
Interesting theory and I can actually see it. Though I'm sure if you asked BB if they allow completions early to play with the QBs psyche he'd respond that they never want to allow completions.
I am CERTAIN that in the first quarter yesterday there we tons of Pat fans whining about the coverage, and how Grossman was completing all those crossing patterns, and the coverage seemed 'soft'. As the game wore on what he was doing early was no longer working because the schemes changed (and were disguised) but he kept trying to do the same thing.
I really felt like the Pats defense against the Bears was trying to pressure Grossman and it eventually got into his head. The officials also helped get into his head by giving so many tickytacky PI/D holding calls in those 0-coverage man-to-man situations.
I am certain that he wouldn't have thrown up that final deep bomb if he wasn't confident that a PI call was likely. Banta-Cain helped force the issue, but the Refs are the ones that instilled that false confidence.
Its not as if BB lets them succeed early. But, there are many ways to play defense. BB prefers to play a concept early in the game that says what you see is what you get, come beat it, and his defenders must make good plays in a scheme without disguise. As the game wears on he disguises and changes the schemes, and now the opposing QB is lulled into confusion, and the scheme sets up the players.
Good further analysis on your earlier theory. This part I fully agree with, and is more or less what I was describing in the prior reply.
Once again, good stuff Andy, it's good to see you back. Football talk! There are alot of fluff posters around these days, so it's good to have some substance back.
Where did you go for all that time??
