Does our defense get the credit it deserves ON THIS BOARD?

[Ring 6]

Actually, the long term outlook for this defense is very good. This defense is probably only going to get better over the next few seasons if we lock up Vince.

Will you stop being positive. Everything that happened before now is over and doesnt exist, and we can simply hope to be ranked 16th and get an 8-8 record every year from hereforth. To suggest the possibity of anything more than that makes you a Pollyannic Homer.

 

[jeffbiologist]

Stats dont win games, players win games...or lose em. We had leads in playoff games in the 4th quarter and lost. BB got so sick of it he went the other way--trying to score a million points so it didnt matter about the D.....and in the end last year wouldnt you know....that combo came back and bit him. There was enough blame to go around, but the statistics are almost meaningless. This team has never been about statistics.

 

[Deus Irae]

Stats dont win games, players win games...or lose em. We had leads in playoff games in the 4th quarter and lost. BB got so sick of it he went the other way--trying to score a million points so it didnt matter about the D.....and in the end last year wouldnt you know....that combo came back and bit him. There was enough blame to go around, but the statistics are almost meaningless. This team has never been about statistics.

What on earth ever gave you the notion that this team isn't about statistics? I'd wager that the Patriots are the most statistically driven team in the NFL, maybe in NFL history.

 

[Wildo7]

Stats dont win games, players win games...or lose em. We had leads in playoff games in the 4th quarter and lost. BB got so sick of it he went the other way--trying to score a million points so it didnt matter about the D.....and in the end last year wouldnt you know....that combo came back and bit him. There was enough blame to go around, but the statistics are almost meaningless. This team has never been about statistics.

The defense gave up 17 points in the Superbowl. That should have been enough to win. The O Line was why we lost.

 

[DarrylS]

The problem is that the defense is a given, and this is what we expect of this team.. a very good of outstanding players, mixed in with some rookies and other vets.. one thing that this team has done well is not to fall in love with some of its vets.. Colvin comes to mind.. then pick up some new veterans from other teams, Thomas comes to mind..

This is not a flashy defense, but a D that does its job well, there are no Jason Taylors, or Troy P.. but a some very good players, complimented by a lot of blue collar guys who do their jobs quite well and allow themselves to be coached..

It seems that those who have grown up with this team give them more credit, than the more recent fans..

 

[Ring 6]

Stats dont win games, players win games...or lose em. We had leads in playoff games in the 4th quarter and lost. BB got so sick of it he went the other way--trying to score a million points so it didnt matter about the D.....and in the end last year wouldnt you know....that combo came back and bit him. There was enough blame to go around, but the statistics are almost meaningless. This team has never been about statistics.

Not when those statistics relate to the SCOREBOARD.

 

[MassPats38]

Certainly the defense has changed over the years, but I would not be surprised by the overall results given Belichick's emphasis on defense over the years.

Do I suspect fans forgot about defense last year with the prolific offense? Certainly. Did defense take a hit losing to the Colts in the championship? Yes.

Since 2001, in my opinion, the defenses have been outstanding or not based on the health of the front 7. Given the complexity of the schemes, it is difficult to put a replacement in that group and get by with the secondary. The poor defensive years reflect injuries to that group and an inability to either stop the run or pressure the passer into making mistakes. While such a conclusion may be true of any defense, I believe it is more so for the Patriots.

Belichick had a good D in 2001. He built a great defense in 2003 and 2004. The defense has evolved over time, and Belichick has kept an eye out for new blood. But linebackers capable of filling the responsibilities of this defense are not a dime a dozen, so it is always interesting to see what happens with the new acquisitions. I like Thomas. Mayo has looked good so far. It will also be interesting to see if the D-line can be kept together in the long run.

Bottom line is I like the defense but I suspect with the Brady/Moss story last year the population may discount its contribution to victories. Do I think this is the 2003 Patriots defense capable of pounding opposing offenses en route to a championship? I hope so, but I am not sure. Good, but maybe not great. Whether it develops into a great defense with the new additions remains to be seen, but I like what I've seen so far.

 

[BradyManny]

Will you stop being positive. Everything that happened before now is over and doesnt exist, and we can simply hope to be ranked 16th and get an 8-8 record every year from hereforth. To suggest the possibity of anything more than that makes you a Pollyannic Homer.

I know, silly me - to think that the Patriots of all teams could deal with some of its crucial players leaving/retiring....I mean, they've never had to deal with that before!

 

[Frezo]

Andy - Are these stats for regular season only or do they include playoffs?

 

[Ring 6]

The problem is that the defense is a given, and this is what we expect of this team.. a very good of outstanding players, mixed in with some rookies and other vets.. one thing that this team has done well is not to fall in love with some of its vets.. Colvin comes to mind.. then pick up some new veterans from other teams, Thomas comes to mind..

This is not a flashy defense, but a D that does its job well, there are no Jason Taylors, or Troy P.. but a some very good players, complimented by a lot of blue collar guys who do their jobs quite well and allow themselves to be coached..

It seems that those who have grown up with this team give them more credit, than the more recent fans..

I think that is part of what I am implying.
Generally our defense is talked about around here like its a great defense. (You absolutley get more posts about: cant getoff the field on 3rd down; lack of pass rush;giving too much cushion;so and so sucks, than you do about the success of the D)
I think that it IS worse than fans of other teams that anything imperfect is trashed by many fans. I didnt compare other teams, but from those numbers there is no question that we are least top 2 or 3 over the last 5 years in the only stats that matters...points allowed.

Does it feel like the fans on this board typically speak like thats the success they are talking about?

Look at this thread, equally as negative as it is positive.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy - Are these stats for regular season only or do they include playoffs?

Reg season

 

[Ring 6]

Certainly the defense has changed over the years, but I would not be surprised by the overall results given Belichick's emphasis on defense over the years.

Do I suspect fans forgot about defense last year with the prolific offense? Certainly. Did defense take a hit losing to the Colts in the championship? Yes.

Since 2001, in my opinion, the defenses have been outstanding or not based on the health of the front 7. Given the complexity of the schemes, it is difficult to put a replacement in that group and get by with the secondary. The poor defensive years reflect injuries to that group and an inability to either stop the run or pressure the passer into making mistakes. While such a conclusion may be true of any defense, I believe it is more so for the Patriots.

Belichick had a good D in 2001. He built a great defense in 2003 and 2004. The defense has evolved over time, and Belichick has kept an eye out for new blood. But linebackers capable of filling the responsibilities of this defense are not a dime a dozen, so it is always interesting to see what happens with the new acquisitions. I like Thomas. Mayo has looked good so far. It will also be interesting to see if the D-line can be kept together in the long run.

Bottom line is I like the defense but I suspect with the Brady/Moss story last year the population may discount its contribution to victories. Do I think this is the 2003 Patriots defense capable of pounding opposing offenses en route to a championship? I hope so, but I am not sure. Good, but maybe not great. Whether it develops into a great defense with the new additions remains to be seen, but I like what I've seen so far.

Again, part of what I am saying.
Lets suppose that with Matt Cassel at QB the defense has to DOMINATE AND LEAD US TO THE SB.
How far away are we from that if in 4 of the last 5 years our D was 1st, 2nd, 2nd and 4th in points allowed? How much better to they need to be than that to be dominant enough to lead us to a SB.
There have been a TON of comments on this board mocking the idea that the D could lead us to the SB. There have been a lot calling the 07 DE mediocre and having its @ss covered by the O.

How much better than ranked 4th last year do they have to be this year????

PERFECT EXAMPLE WARNING:

It has been believed forever in the NFL that if you are playing from ahead your defensive statistics are hurt because you play prevent defense and give up cheap yards and points.

By a 100 to 1 margin, the posters on this board claim the exact OPPOSITE in order to denigrate the 2007 defense. It is COMMON for people to say the defense wasnt as good as it looked because it was playing ahead. 75 years of NFL football say defensive stats are negatively impacted by playing with big leads, but this board accepts the false opposite to be the truth.

 

[O.Z.O.]

Again, part of what I am saying.
Lets suppose that with Matt Cassel at QB the defense has to DOMINATE AND LEAD US TO THE SB.
How far away are we from that if in 4 of the last 5 years our D was 1st, 2nd, 2nd and 4th in points allowed? How much better to they need to be than that to be dominant enough to lead us to a SB.
There have been a TON of comments on this board mocking the idea that the D could lead us to the SB. There have been a lot calling the 07 DE mediocre and having its @ss covered by the O.

How much better than ranked 4th last year do they have to be this year????

PERFECT EXAMPLE WARNING:

It has been believed forever in the NFL that if you are playing from ahead your defensive statistics are hurt because you play prevent defense and give up cheap yards and points.

By a 100 to 1 margin, the posters on this board claim the exact OPPOSITE in order to denigrate the 2007 defense. It is COMMON for people to say the defense wasnt as good as it looked because it was playing ahead. 75 years of NFL football say defensive stats are negatively impacted by playing with big leads, but this board accepts the false opposite to be the truth.

I'm 100% with you on this. Playing the prevent defense screws up a lot of stats. Personally, I don't understand it. Keep the pressure on, keep what works.

How many games last year did we see the offense run out to huge early leads, in large part because the defense played so well, forcing turnovers and punts to give the offense more opps. If the defense had to play straight up the entire game through last season, how much better might it have been?

 

[MassPats38]

Again, part of what I am saying.
Lets suppose that with Matt Cassel at QB the defense has to DOMINATE AND LEAD US TO THE SB.
How far away are we from that if in 4 of the last 5 years our D was 1st, 2nd, 2nd and 4th in points allowed? How much better to they need to be than that to be dominant enough to lead us to a SB.
There have been a TON of comments on this board mocking the idea that the D could lead us to the SB. There have been a lot calling the 07 DE mediocre and having its @ss covered by the O.

How much better than ranked 4th last year do they have to be this year????

PERFECT EXAMPLE WARNING:

It has been believed forever in the NFL that if you are playing from ahead your defensive statistics are hurt because you play prevent defense and give up cheap yards and points.

By a 100 to 1 margin, the posters on this board claim the exact OPPOSITE in order to denigrate the 2007 defense. It is COMMON for people to say the defense wasnt as good as it looked because it was playing ahead. 75 years of NFL football say defensive stats are negatively impacted by playing with big leads, but this board accepts the false opposite to be the truth.

I would agree on the prevent defense theory last year with the leads well in place through many of the games. I also suspect, despite the player contentions to the contrary, it is psychologically tough (unless you have a shutout going) to mentally go full bore when you are winning by 28 points. That is basic human nature.

It also depends on what statistics you choose for defenses as a measure of competency. I assume these rankings are points allowed, which can be read to imply the offensive time of possession helped the defense (fewer opportunities to score). The ranking could be yards allowed, which could be deceptive if your special teams are awful. I do not accept these arguments with regard to the defense, but doubters short on research might.

Many of the comments I have read seem to graft the defensive performance in the 2nd half of the 2006 AFC Championship game onto the identity of the present defense. Given the package change-outs and personnel changes, that conclusion is just wrong as of 2007. In 2008, more so. Even with the remaining personnel, given injury issues in that game, it is a poor comparison.

This defense is good, plain and simple. There are rookies and veterans on the defense for energy and intelligence as you cannot simply load these schemes with top flight rookies and hope they figure it out. The characters looking to dump Bruschi and Vrabel as old probably need to review the experiment the year Bruschi was out. This is not Madden football.

The offense this year needs to be sufficiently effective to avoid wearing the defense down, which would be the same story for younger defenses. If the offense executes, the defense will do its job as it typically has and it will get the offense opportunities to put the game away. I just wonder if the "defense wins championships" mantra has been flipped to mean the absence of a championship implies a lack of defense. Simply not the case.

 

[mgcolby]

Good post. I'd say a little bit of yes and no, though, to answer your Q...

its 4th in points allowed is generally misleading given the fact that the offense gave the team such big leads that opposing offenses were always playing from behind. Not an easy thing to do for teams facing us.

I disagree. Remember that our offense often times scored quickly, meaning the defense was on the field A LOT. Which also means the opposing offense had more chances to score. Past teams such as the Colts, Chiefs and Rams all go against what you are saying.

I believe the opposite is true: I think our offensive success only makes the defensive success more impressive.

I would assume like most things the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[mgcolby]

Take a good look at the defense now and enjoy what has transpired over this decade for within 2-3 years there will be a nucleus of starting players retiring (Bruschi,Harrison,possibly Vrabel by 2010)

Personally I would substitute Seymour with Harrison given the length of time and SB rings. But we are hopefully developing a new nucleus or at least adding to the remaining. Wilfork, Warren, Hobbs with promising potential in Mayo and Meriweather. We have watched BB's plan in action for a while now and it works! He always felt you needed a good corps of older savvy vets, mid-career and younger players with upside - all getting substantial playing time to keep the wheel moving.

 

[Wildo7]

Again, part of what I am saying.
Lets suppose that with Matt Cassel at QB the defense has to DOMINATE AND LEAD US TO THE SB.
How far away are we from that if in 4 of the last 5 years our D was 1st, 2nd, 2nd and 4th in points allowed? How much better to they need to be than that to be dominant enough to lead us to a SB.
There have been a TON of comments on this board mocking the idea that the D could lead us to the SB. There have been a lot calling the 07 DE mediocre and having its @ss covered by the O.

How much better than ranked 4th last year do they have to be this year????

PERFECT EXAMPLE WARNING:

It has been believed forever in the NFL that if you are playing from ahead your defensive statistics are hurt because you play prevent defense and give up cheap yards and points.

By a 100 to 1 margin, the posters on this board claim the exact OPPOSITE in order to denigrate the 2007 defense. It is COMMON for people to say the defense wasnt as good as it looked because it was playing ahead. 75 years of NFL football say defensive stats are negatively impacted by playing with big leads, but this board accepts the false opposite to be the truth.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/121897-defense-can-dominant.html

Just saying....

 

[AzPatsFan]

Take a good look at the defense now and enjoy what has transpired over this decade for within 2-3 years there will be a nucleus of starting players retiring (Bruschi,Harrison,possibly Vrabel by 2010)

I look out on the field this year, and I don't see... Byant Cox, Roman Phifer, Ted Johnson, Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy, Ted Washington, Willie McGinnest, Asante Samuel, Rosey Colvin nor Junior Seau.

How can we ever hope to compete??