Felger: Pats moving to a more "aggressive" scheme?

[Wolfpack]

Sure, the defense helped them get a 17-3 against the Rams, but they let them score two TD's in the 4th quarter. But honestly, the Pats had no business winning that game just like the Giants in 2007.

The Patriots offense scored 13 points (7 of which were set up by a recovered fumble) against a team that averaged 31 points a game during the regular season and 37 in the playoffs.

That is the dictionary definition of the defense winning a game for you. Any statements to the contrary is just pure ignorance.

 

[Patriot 37]

The Patriots offense scored 13 points (7 of which were set up by a recovered fumble) against a team that averaged 31 points a game during the regular season and 37 in the playoffs.

That is the dictionary definition of the defense winning a game for you. Any statements to the contrary is just pure ignorance.

Law's pick 6 to me was the most important play in Patriot history, it put one of the best Offenses ever on their heels for two quarters. The D won that game and Law was MVP.

 

[Jared]

But honestly, the Pats had no business winning that game just like the Giants in 2007.

I disagree with your last point. The Giants played excellently, especially on the defensive front. They only lost to the Patriots by 3 points a few weeks earlier. The Patriots were no juggernaut the entire second half of the season, with near losses to the Ravens, Eagles and Giants, and a hard fought game with a mediocre Jets team.

Everyone gets hung up on the records. The Patriots in 2007 were not worlds better than their opponents.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

I disagree with your last point. The Giants played excellently, especially on the defensive front. They only lost to the Patriots by 3 points a few weeks earlier. The Patriots were no juggernaut the entire second half of the season, with near losses to the Ravens, Eagles and Giants, and a hard fought game with a mediocre Jets team.

Everyone gets hung up on the records. The Patriots in 2007 were not worlds better than their opponents.

You're right about the Pats not being that much better than their opponents in the 2nd half of the season. However, if the Pats would've unveiled their spread offense in the super bowl, the Giants would've gotten their a**es kicked just like every team did in the first half of the season. Teams had no idea how to defend it. As the season wore on, teams were getting closer and closer in finding a defense to slow down the Pats offense because they ran the same thing over and over again. First, it was the Eagles, then the Ravens, Giants, Chargers and then the Giants in the super bowl.

Although it was fun to watch the Pats try to blowout every team they faced, it ended up screwing them over in the biggest game in NFL history because teams finally had enough film to formulate a game plan against their offense. Only Pats fans understood their mentality of playing for "60 minutes" because of the collapse in Indy in 2006. The Pats didn't care if they were up by 30 in the 4th quarter. They wanted to prevent no bullsh*t occurring like it did in Indy of '06.

Also, Bruschi admitted on NFL Live that the pressure became too overwhelming for the Pats by the time they faced the Giants in the super bowl. They played not to lose.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

The Manning matchups are excellent examples of how the NFL has changed since the "put a skirt on the WRs" point of :singing:emphasis was put into place by Polian & Co. It used to be that physical corners who could give a great jam on the receivers was the way to beat Manning. You can't do that now, because the whistles now come when you sneeze on receivers. The result has been that the Manning system of "all timing passes, all the time" has become more effective, and it's become more important that you get to Manning, since you can't throw the timing off of passes by redirecting receivers anymore.

Not surprisingly, Manning & Co. have been to 2 Super Bowls since the rule change. If the league brought back the old way of calling contact, Manning would never see another Super Bowl without buying a ticket or watching on his television.

This is a very good point about the rule change and yet another reason why I feel the 1-gap is more conducive in this NFL. I agree with the bolded statement, and that's why I think a defense in the Rex Ryan style is a better way of going about defending Manning and other elite QB's. That style of defense gets into the backfield quicker and disrupts Manning's timing much more than the style we have played, and that's why I'm such an advocate of it. Granted, you need to have some talented corners who can press and stick with their guy. Revis is the perfect guy for that, but as we saw in the AFCCG, if you've got bums like Lowery and Lito as your other two guys, you are going to eventually get burned. That's why if I'm a Jets fan, I am pumped about the Cromartie and Wilson additions at corner.

Overall, since you said it is now becoming more important to get to Manning quicker, do you feel the Pats do need to be a little more aggressive with their DL and LB's, or do you feel the Pats just need better players in their roles along the front 7 (replacement for Seymour, upgrade at OLB)?

As I've said before, I think it's a bit of a combination. I do think the D does need to up it's aggression and maybe go a little more 1-gap, but I also do think you need some better personnel at some of the positions in the front seven, specifically RDE and OLB. However, I also think you can make up for some of that lack of talent by being a more aggressive team like the Jets have. I mean their D-Line was a combo off Ellis, Pouha, DeVito, and Douglas last year after Jenkins went down, and the pressure they were able to get on QB's was still immense.

 

[Deus Irae]

Overall, since you said it is now becoming more important to get to Manning quicker, do you feel the Pats do need to be a little more aggressive with their DL and LB's, or do you feel the Pats just need better players in their roles along the front 7 (replacement for Seymour, upgrade at OLB)?

Well, better players allow you to be more aggressive. We saw this prior to 2008, when the Patriots had Hobbs and Samuel at the corners, and Harrison/Meriweather/Wilson/Sanders at safety. The team was able to take advantage of having those players back in the secondary, and bring pressure from anywhere in the front seven. We saw that a lot in the 2007 campaign, where the Patriots were #2 in sacks despite Seymour missing about half the season, Colvin going down with an injury and AdT also being hampered by injury. The team was able to do things like pressuring via ILBs (Bruschi had 2 sacks, which is more than Mayo has in his first 2 seasons combined, and just 1 less than Guyton and Mayo combined to date, or about 4 seasons worth of play. Seau also had 3.5 sacks on top of that.).

In a 3-4, if you have the sort of lineup the Patriots used to have, you can bring pressure from anywhere on the field and not leave a lot of open areas for QBs to throw to. That's not really been the case with this team for the past 2 seasons. My hope, now, is that the defensive backfield can buy time for the underwhelming pass rushing talent in the front 7 to get some kind of pressure on the QB. If this team has to start sending extra men, though, it's going to make for big plays against the defense, because the subpar coverage skills of the linebackers will get exposed.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

Well, better players allow you to be more aggressive. We saw this prior to 2008, when the Patriots had Hobbs and Samuel at the corners, and Harrison/Meriweather/Wilson/Sanders at safety. The team was able to take advantage of having those players back in the secondary, and bring pressure from anywhere in the front seven. We saw that a lot in the 2007 campaign, where the Patriots were #2 in sacks despite Seymour missing about half the season, Colvin going down with an injury and AdT also being hampered by injury. The team was able to do things like pressuring via ILBs (Bruschi had 2 sacks, which is more than Mayo has in his first 2 seasons combined, and just 1 less than Guyton and Mayo combined to date, or about 4 seasons worth of play. Seau also had 3.5 sacks on top of that.).

In a 3-4, if you have the sort of lineup the Patriots used to have, you can bring pressure from anywhere on the field and not leave a lot of open areas for QBs to throw to. That's not really been the case with this team for the past 2 seasons. My hope, now, is that the defensive backfield can buy time for the underwhelming pass rushing talent in the front 7 to get some kind of pressure on the QB. If this team has to start sending extra men, though, it's going to make for big plays against the defense, because the subpar coverage skills of the linebackers will get exposed.

I see what your saying and it's a good point. A more reliable secondary that can hold their own in coverage and be counted on to play mistake-free football for the most part should help the front 7 be able to be more aggressive.

However, I also think those sack totals were also due to the Patriots having such large leads. When you're up 35-7 or 28-3, the other team has got to air it out to try to get in the game. You can basically just pin your ears back and get after the QB and throw various blitz packages at them. You don't really have to account for the running game when you have a 20+ point lead and your offense is putting points on the board almost every time down the field.

So while the thing about a more reliable and better secondary is true, I think the fact that the offense was so dominant enabled the defense to play that way.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

However, I also think those sack totals were also due to the Patriots having such large leads. When you're up 35-7 or 28-3, the other team has got to air it out to try to get in the game. You can basically just pin your ears back and get after the QB and throw various blitz packages at them. You don't really have to account for the running game when you have a 20+ point lead and your offense is putting points on the board almost every time down the field.

You're correct. Any moron knows this, but many Pats fans want to believe their pass rush was legit in 2007. Deus still doesn't get it and probably never will.

 

[Marqui]

The defense really was painful to watch at times last year and I'd welcome some more aggressive scheming. Although I'm not sure a complete change to a 1-gap 3-4 is necessary. Personally, I'm hoping Oakland tanks this year and hands NE a high pick they can use on a young impact pass rusher

 

[Deus Irae]

I see what your saying and it's a good point. A more reliable secondary that can hold their own in coverage and be counted on to play mistake-free football for the most part should help the front 7 be able to be more aggressive.

However, I also think those sack totals were also due to the Patriots having such large leads. When you're up 35-7 or 28-3, the other team has got to air it out to try to get in the game. You can basically just pin your ears back and get after the QB and throw various blitz packages at them. You don't really have to account for the running game when you have a 20+ point lead and your offense is putting points on the board almost every time down the field.

So while the thing about a more reliable and better secondary is true, I think the fact that the offense was so dominant enabled the defense to play that way.

The team finished with 44 sacks in 2006, when the team was not blowing everyone out, so it's not as if the 47 tallied in 2007 was out of the blue, despite what some people would have you believe. It's certainly possible that 2007 was aided by the scores but, on the other hand, one could argue that the numbers were hindered by injuries to Seymour and Colvin.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

You're correct. Any moron knows this, but many Pats fans want to believe their pass rush was legit in 2007. Deus still doesn't get it and probably never will.

The team finished with 44 sacks in 2006, when the team was not blowing everyone out, so it's not as if the 47 tallied in 2007 was out of the blue, despite what some people would have you believe. It's certainly possible that 2007 was aided by the scores but, on the other hand, one could argue that the numbers were hindered by injuries to Seymour and Colvin.

Deus does make a fair point that they had 44 sacks in 06 though. But I know many times even players like Vrabel and Bruschi have said the reason Vrabes had double digit sacks and guys like Bruschi and Seau were even racking up a decent amount was due to their ability to just pin their ears back and go right at the QB. I think that played a pretty big role in the sack totals.

Idk, sometimes those stats are skewed as well. Like the Jets only had 1 more sack than the Pats in 09 but their defense was leaps and bounds better at getting pressure on the QB. It'd be interesting to go back and log each sack throughout the 06 season to see if they were just padding their stats against bad teams, like Banta-Cain did vs the Bills this year with 5 sacks against them in two games, or if they were legitimately great at getting to the QB.

Regardless, I think we all agree an improvement from 09 is a MUST if this team is going to go anywhere this year.

The defense really was painful to watch at times last year and I'd welcome some more aggressive scheming. Although I'm not sure a complete change to a 1-gap 3-4 is necessary. Personally, I'm hoping Oakland tanks this year and hands NE a high pick they can use on a young impact pass rusher

I agree on some more aggressive scheming. I've been talking about it since the middle of last season. Hopefully it will finally happen.

How nice would it be for Oakland to have a top 3 pick that we could use to snare Robert Quinn? Quinn and Cunningham with Banta-Cain and hopefully Crable would be a nice OLB corps.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

The Manning matchups are excellent examples of how the NFL has changed since the "put a skirt on the WRs" point of emphasis was put into place by Polian & Co. It used to be that physical corners who could give a great jam on the receivers was the way to beat Manning. You can't do that now, because the whistles now come when you sneeze on receivers. The result has been that the Manning system of "all timing passes, all the time" has become more effective, and it's become more important that you get to Manning, since you can't throw the timing off of passes by redirecting receivers anymore.

Not surprisingly, Manning & Co. have been to 2 Super Bowls since the rule change. If the league brought back the old way of calling contact, Manning would never see another Super Bowl without buying a ticket or watching on his television.

Douche

You are 100 percent correct. However, until the rules change what is...is reality.

The main point has to be flexibility. You can'y passively sit back on elite QB's because they will pick you apart. You can't always blitz because they will pick that apart.

What you can do is minimize points through variation and rely on your elite QB. The 2009 game in Indy was well played. Absent the bogus Butler PI call, the Pats win easily and maybe the season changes.

My guess is BB is ahead of the game in that we are on our way to where our fifth coverage guy is better than their fifth option. This will allow the flexibilty needed to change pressure and "one gap"/"two gap" variations.

 

[VJCPatriot]

This is an interesting thread. But I would opine that its a MUCH more complex issue. Here are a couple of points to think about on both sides of the issue

1. We would all want our defense to be more effective. Sometimes it looked plain ugly out there, yet somehow, last season, that DEFENSE managed to be the FIFTH best scoring D in the entire NFL. And isn't scoring D the ONLY stat that really counts. Why would BB want to radically change his defensive philosophy when it is clearly still working in a very tough environment.

I wish I could agree with you but I can't. Points allowed is not the definitive stat for a team defense because often times what matters is not how much you score but WHEN you score. The Pats defense of 2009 blew more 4th quarter leads in one season than any other team in the Pats BB era. Quite frankly they could not hold onto leads when the chips were on the line. Why else do you think BB decided to go for it on 4th and 2 in the shadow of his own goalpost to try to ice the game rather than punt it away and let his defense 'handle business'? He had no confidence in it and he had good reason not to.

The whole concept behind "bend but don't break" isn't to rack up great stats, but to keep offenses from scoring points. And while it might be very unsatisfying and frustrating for the fans, the end result is that the Pats have generally been in the top 5 in the all important scoring D, even when languishing in the 20's in a lot of other Defensive stats.

This old fashioned philosophy has resulted in an awful lot of wins over the past decade. I would be a shame just to throw it away simply because it has become "out of fashion".

I understand this philosophy and it works great IF your Defense can actually hunker down and make stops in the crucial red zone area. However this type of defense relies on mistakes by the opponents. When the other team has a QB throwing the ball with precision into the soft spots of the defense, the drive will almost inevitably result in a score unless there is SOME PRESSURE to force an errant pass or mistake. The Dynasty teams of 2001-2004 had that magic mix. The Pats defenses that followed, not so much.

All defenses must adapt, as the OCs will figure out how to beat them. Conversely all offenses must adapt as defenses figure out how to stop them as well. BB's scheme must evolve, not only to fit his personnal, a given, but also to stop today's offenses in today's very liberal ruleset favoring offenses.

2. For all its glitz and glamor, the fact is that that Jets Blitzing aggressive, attacking, sexy defense managed exactly ONE more sack that the Pats had last season.

3. OTOH, the league's offense HAS changed a great deal in the last 5 years. The Polian rules/interpretation changes, drastically changed the way offenses attack the field, and how the D can defend it. Though I DO think that the pendulum is swinging back some, but not much...yet.

4. The Jets may not have had a bunch of sacks last season, but they did FORCE teams to adjust to what THEY did as opposed to the other way around. And they did cause a lot more "pressures" than the Pats.

I am much more impressed by the pressures and turnovers that the Jets defense forced. Sacks are really an overrated stat unless they also go hand in hand with a lack of forcing pressure on the ball handler. That lack of pressure was evident in the Pats D last season as they just could not get off the field on 3rd downs late in the game. Turnovers are particularly valuable. They are like gold - getting an extra possession is so advantageous you can often just look at the turnovers stat in the boxscore and figure out who won the game.

The Pats defense did not force a lot of turnovers, particularly not during crunch time. Turnover forcing plays like what Tracey Porter did last year in the Superbowl is what seals games and wins championships. The Pats 2009 defense was not capable of making plays like that.

Another statistic that I look at is yards per play. Now we know that bend but don't break usually yields more total yards per game. But we don't care about that if we are getting the team to eventually punt the ball. Unfortunately the Pats yards per play of 5.4 ranked 19th in the NFL. That's bottom third. That means more drives are going to be sustained on average and that's not acceptable if you want to win football games.

5. The final factor in whether we should see a "different" style of D this season, will be based on the talent on the field.

Playing a more "aggressive" D would make guys like Lewis, Burgess, and Guyton more effective. The talent in the secondary is better and could allow the front 7 to be more aggressive. Also we have some guys in the secondary who could be effective blitzers in their own right.

It is also one of BB's core philosophies that he build his schemes around the players he has, rather than the other way around. If your players are more suited to be aggressive, then he won't keep them from doing what they do best, just to satisfy his ego.

BOTTOM LINE - Will we radically change our defensive philosophy? I don't think so. Why woiuld we? Why radically change what is clearly still working. Could we see a more "aggressive" D this year with more blitzing and/or DLmen one gapping. Absolutely. I think the times require it, and the talent can handle it. BUT....we aren't going to see a wholesale change in the defensive philosophy.

I'm looking forward to seeing what BB has cooked up for the defensive scheme in 2010. 'Bend but don't break' does not mean turn the other cheek and let the offense get whatever they want while you sit back and watch. A little aggressiveness would be warranted to force QBs into making bad decisions, a little more deception could be helpful to trick offenses into incorrectly reading the defense, etc. It's fairly apparent to the average unbiased observer what's WRONG with the defense. The tricky part is actually fixing it.

 

[Patspsycho]

Idk, sometimes those stats are skewed as well. Like the Jets only had 1 more sack than the Pats in 09 but their defense was leaps and bounds better at getting pressure on the QB. It'd be interesting to go back and log each sack throughout the 06 season to see if they were just padding their stats against bad teams, like Banta-Cain did vs the Bills this year with 5 sacks against them in two games, or if they were legitimately great at getting to the QB.

Regardless, I think we all agree an improvement from 09 is a MUST if this team is going to go anywhere this year.

I agree on some more aggressive scheming. I've been talking about it since the middle of last season. Hopefully it will finally happen.

1) The Jets had just one more sack than we did last year, but they were the first ranked defense in terms of points allowed. I think there are two critical elements to their success. The first is that last season was the first time anyone had seen the Jets deploy this type of defense under Ryan. At this point in time, everyone now has had a whole summer to study tapes, so their long term success remains to be seen. Also, you will recall that the second time we played the Jets, we fared much better.

The second is that the type of defense the Jets play is a high-risk, high reward type 46 that attacks frequently shifts weakside or overloads, often leaving their CBs on an island, and for the most part this has worked for them (e.g. Revis), and this coming season seems to be even better, with the addition of Cromartie.

However, again this is high-reward/high-risk defense in that it depends on many factors to be successful: youth, athleticism, avoidance of injury, contract issues. It certainly looks much sexier than the Tampa 2 where you sit back and react. However there are glaring gaps in this defense. The open side corner has no safety help, the closed side DE must play man coverage over the TE (presumably Hernandez). There could be a lateral play to the RB, etc.

In short, they are one injury away from being an average defense.

2) In regard to our defense, the biggest obstacles i saw us having the previous season was first and foremost, leadership. Second, getting the techniques and assignments down, and third, maturity.

Last year we didn't really have anyone on the defense willing to call anyone out for missed assignments and consequently few players felt a sense of obligation or responsibility to not repeat the same mistakes. Wilfork was in the middle of a contract dispute, Springs was the most senior DB, and Thomas was the senior LB.

Like it or not, at least half the players on last year's defense were young or were new to the system, and this is going to continue into this year. What everyone seems to forget is that the same thing happened before the superbowl years. Does anyone remember Bruschi blowing assignments or making mental mistakes (as inconceivable as that is)? No, but it did happen, and it does happen to young players.

Now, think about this- is the answer to this to give them more aggressive assignments? To have them blitz more? To keep looking for the magical OLB? Tell them "oh we're gonna try one gap now because we have no patience"? They've been drinking milk for two years now and suddenly we're going to start giving them orange juice because we're not happy with a young defense coming in at no. 5?

Last year at New Orleans, the defense got baptized. There were many missed handoff calls. On more than one instance, the LB corp failed to communicate the correct coverage to the DB. Meriweather whose job was to drop to his landmark and buzz his feet and read, let himself be goaded by a Brees pump fake when he knew his own CB was slant-blitzing weakside. That is a stupid mental mistake which we will see less and less of as this corp matures. That game was, I think, a benchmark, a turning point for the defense. It was a slap in their face.

We are not going to see a philosophical change in the defense. We will see more complicated schemes.

However I'm going to say it again and again until I'm blue in the face, the "magical" pass-rusher is NOT the answer to our "defensive dilemma." Why? If the other team knows who the pass-rusher is, they either stone him or play away from him. Simple as that.

The best pass-rushing is when you don't know where it is coming from and therefore can't scheme for it. And schemes were our achilles heel last season, but we know it won't last for long because our players are only going to get better, wiser, and they will mature as they master the nuances and timing of their assignments and schemes.

 

[PatsCanDoIt]

I remember during or after the first Ravens game the TV guys talking about Bill using more blitzing a lot more blitzing because the routes the Ravens ran took a little more time. Bill sent the kitchen sink at Flacco because he had no outlet. It's about matchups more than scheme. The blitz numbers are heavily influenced by a few games like this one.

Note: Five rushers were used a lot. Almost as much as Pittsburgh. With six or more rushers we were middle of the pack.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

VJC, I think you just wrote up an excellent post. I basically agree with everything you said. I too was way more impressed with the pressure and turnovers the Jets defense created. The keep try to put you on your heels early by disrupting your timing and not allowing you to get a rhythm going.

As you said, how many times did we see a lack of pressure result in this defense not being able to get off the field on 3rd downs? Way too many. There is no doubt the Jets D is more risky. I'm not saying we should become the Jets and just send the house all the time, but I definitely think our defense does need to be more aggressive in general.

The thing I've never liked about this defense is that it relies on your opponent making mistakes. I don't like that philosophy because it kind of feels like it's somewhat out of your control. It's a defense that is somewhat built on percentages and the thought that the opponent will eventually make a miscue. I've always liked Ryan's philosophy because it feels like you are trying to imposed your will on the opponent. You are forcing them into quick decisions and trying to force them into turning the ball over.

1) The Jets had just one more sack than we did last year, but they were the first ranked defense in terms of points allowed. I think there are two critical elements to their success. The first is that last season was the first time anyone had seen the Jets deploy this type of defense under Ryan. At this point in time, everyone now has had a whole summer to study tapes, so their long term success remains to be seen. Also, you will recall that the second time we played the Jets, we fared much better.

The second is that the type of defense the Jets play is a high-risk, high reward type 46 that attacks frequently shifts weakside or overloads, often leaving their CBs on an island, and for the most part this has worked for them (e.g. Revis), and this coming season seems to be even better, with the addition of Cromartie.

However, again this is high-reward/high-risk defense in that it depends on many factors to be successful: youth, athleticism, avoidance of injury, contract issues. It certainly looks much sexier than the Tampa 2 where you sit back and react. However there are glaring gaps in this defense. The open side corner has no safety help, the closed side DE must play man coverage over the TE (presumably Hernandez). There could be a lateral play to the RB, etc.

In short, they are one injury away from being an average defense.

2) In regard to our defense, the biggest obstacles i saw us having the previous season was first and foremost, leadership. Second, getting the techniques and assignments down, and third, maturity.

Last year we didn't really have anyone on the defense willing to call anyone out for missed assignments and consequently few players felt a sense of obligation or responsibility to not repeat the same mistakes. Wilfork was in the middle of a contract dispute, Springs was the most senior DB, and Thomas was the senior LB.

Like it or not, at least half the players on last year's defense were young or were new to the system, and this is going to continue into this year. What everyone seems to forget is that the same thing happened before the superbowl years. Does anyone remember Bruschi blowing assignments or making mental mistakes (as inconceivable as that is)? No, but it did happen, and it does happen to young players.

Now, think about this- is the answer to this to give them more aggressive assignments? To have them blitz more? To keep looking for the magical OLB? Tell them "oh we're gonna try one gap now because we have no patience"? They've been drinking milk for two years now and suddenly we're going to start giving them orange juice because we're not happy with a young defense coming in at no. 5?

Last year at New Orleans, the defense got baptized. There were many missed handoff calls. On more than one instance, the LB corp failed to communicate the correct coverage to the DB. Meriweather whose job was to drop to his landmark and buzz his feet and read, let himself be goaded by a Brees pump fake when he knew his own CB was slant-blitzing weakside. That is a stupid mental mistake which we will see less and less of as this corp matures. That game was, I think, a benchmark, a turning point for the defense. It was a slap in their face.

We are not going to see a philosophical change in the defense. We will see more complicated schemes.

However I'm going to say it again and again until I'm blue in the face, the "magical" pass-rusher is NOT the answer to our "defensive dilemma." Why? If the other team knows who the pass-rusher is, they either stone him or play away from him. Simple as that.

The best pass-rushing is when you don't know where it is coming from and therefore can't scheme for it. And schemes were our achilles heel last season, but we know it won't last for long because our players are only going to get better, wiser, and they will mature as they master the nuances and timing of their assignments and schemes

1) I think the Jets being first in points allowed is pretty outstanding considering the amount of times Sanchez turned the ball over and how pedestrian the Jets offense was in general. Usually I don't think points allowed is the greatest barometer because a team like the Pats or Colts with a dominant offense who has a ton of long drives and big leads at times also effects that. However, the fact that the Jets were that good in points allowed with that offense last year is pretty amazing IMO. As for the not having a lot of tape on it, I don't know if that's necessarily true. It was basically the same type of defense he had been running in Baltimore for quite a while. I agree that it looks even better going into this season b/c of the additions of Cromartie and Wilson. Remember on those dominant Baltimore defenses he had guys like Chris McAlister and Samari Rolle. Revis and Cromartie are a similar tandem if Cromartie plays up to his potential.

2)We definitely had problems with leadership, communication, and overall maturity. I think the "drinking the milk point" is a good one. However, I do not think Belichick would hesitate to make some changes if he felt it would benefit the defense. They will have quite a time to work on it in training camp and already might have in mini camp. It's like last year, all those young guys were being taught the 3-4 and then all of a sudden we start throwing the 4-3 at them.

Any time this defense played a good QB, it got sliced and diced for the most part. Hell, Chad Henne made us look silly. Was that due to the lack of pressure and/or scheme OR the personnel and it's immaturity/miscommunication? I think it was a combination of both. Yes the defense blew assignments and showed its inexperience at times, but is that scheme really the best type of D to defend in this new NFL? As I said in the post above, it is a defense playing the percentages relying on the fact that the opponent will eventually make a mistake and in a way "beat themself." It seems like the QB's are getting better and better as an astonishing 10 QB's passed for more than 4,000 yards. That shows me that the passing game is becoming much more prolific and more and more QB's are becoming adept at throwing with precision and making intelligent decisions.

I don't think that "monster" OLB is an absolute need, but I do not see how it can hurt at all. Having a guy of that caliber will demand double teams and, in essence, will open up room for the other pass rushers to operate. I don't think this defense is built for the "elite" OLB type anyway. The Pats are never really going to have a guy with 15 sacks like a Ware because their OLB job is to engage their blocker and read run/pass and then react. Guys like Ware, Merriman, Woodley, Suggs etc. are all just coming after the QB on most plays, not having to worry about 2-gapping.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

What everyone seems to forget is that the same thing happened before the super bowl years.

There were a few reasons for that. First, as you already know, they had a different defensive philosophy when Carroll was around. Second, they underachieved. And finally, they didn't have any depth.

Does anyone remember Bruschi blowing assignments or making mental mistakes (as inconceivable as that is)? No, but it did happen, and it does happen to young players.

This is an excellent point as I've brought this up before. Bruschi was a back up for 3 years until '99 when Todd Collins left and Katzenmoyer had to fill in for Ted Johnson at MLB. Bruschi wasn't very good his first season as an OLB in a 4-3 defense and didn't become the clutch player we know him to be until 2003 (which isn't too bad considering it was the first year the Pats ran a 3-4 full time).

 

[Kontradiction]

1) The Jets had just one more sack than we did last year, but they were the first ranked defense in terms of points allowed. I think there are two critical elements to their success. The first is that last season was the first time anyone had seen the Jets deploy this type of defense under Ryan. At this point in time, everyone now has had a whole summer to study tapes, so their long term success remains to be seen. Also, you will recall that the second time we played the Jets, we fared much better.

The second is that the type of defense the Jets play is a high-risk, high reward type 46 that attacks frequently shifts weakside or overloads, often leaving their CBs on an island, and for the most part this has worked for them (e.g. Revis), and this coming season seems to be even better, with the addition of Cromartie.

However, again this is high-reward/high-risk defense in that it depends on many factors to be successful: youth, athleticism, avoidance of injury, contract issues. It certainly looks much sexier than the Tampa 2 where you sit back and react. However there are glaring gaps in this defense. The open side corner has no safety help, the closed side DE must play man coverage over the TE (presumably Hernandez). There could be a lateral play to the RB, etc.

In short, they are one injury away from being an average defense.

2) In regard to our defense, the biggest obstacles i saw us having the previous season was first and foremost, leadership. Second, getting the techniques and assignments down, and third, maturity.

Last year we didn't really have anyone on the defense willing to call anyone out for missed assignments and consequently few players felt a sense of obligation or responsibility to not repeat the same mistakes. Wilfork was in the middle of a contract dispute, Springs was the most senior DB, and Thomas was the senior LB.

Like it or not, at least half the players on last year's defense were young or were new to the system, and this is going to continue into this year. What everyone seems to forget is that the same thing happened before the superbowl years. Does anyone remember Bruschi blowing assignments or making mental mistakes (as inconceivable as that is)? No, but it did happen, and it does happen to young players.

Now, think about this- is the answer to this to give them more aggressive assignments? To have them blitz more? To keep looking for the magical OLB? Tell them "oh we're gonna try one gap now because we have no patience"? They've been drinking milk for two years now and suddenly we're going to start giving them orange juice because we're not happy with a young defense coming in at no. 5?

Last year at New Orleans, the defense got baptized. There were many missed handoff calls. On more than one instance, the LB corp failed to communicate the correct coverage to the DB. Meriweather whose job was to drop to his landmark and buzz his feet and read, let himself be goaded by a Brees pump fake when he knew his own CB was slant-blitzing weakside. That is a stupid mental mistake which we will see less and less of as this corp matures. That game was, I think, a benchmark, a turning point for the defense. It was a slap in their face.

We are not going to see a philosophical change in the defense. We will see more complicated schemes.

However I'm going to say it again and again until I'm blue in the face, the "magical" pass-rusher is NOT the answer to our "defensive dilemma." Why? If the other team knows who the pass-rusher is, they either stone him or play away from him. Simple as that.

The best pass-rushing is when you don't know where it is coming from and therefore can't scheme for it. And schemes were our achilles heel last season, but we know it won't last for long because our players are only going to get better, wiser, and they will mature as they master the nuances and timing of their assignments and schemes.

This is a very solid post, but you should remember that BB had to "dumb down" the defense to a more simplistic level in the Panthers game... after the New Orleans debacle. Also, you should remember that Kris Jenkins went out for the year with injury and the Jets defense didn't miss a beat. So they aren't really "one injury away" from being an average defense unless you're talking about Revis. Otherwise though, very solid post.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

This is a very solid post, but you should remember that BB had to "dumb down" the defense to a more simplistic level in the Panthers game... after the New Orleans debacle. Also, you should remember that Kris Jenkins went out for the year with injury and the Jets defense didn't miss a beat. So they aren't really "one injury away" from being an average defense unless you're talking about Revis. Otherwise though, very solid post.

Except they did surrender six 4th quarter leads that resulted in losses.

The "agressive" style from the likes Of the Steelers/Ravens/Ryan looks great on paper because these defenses really pad the stats on weak opponents.

 

[Patspsycho]

This is a very solid post, but you should remember that BB had to "dumb down" the defense to a more simplistic level in the Panthers game... after the New Orleans debacle. Also, you should remember that Kris Jenkins went out for the year with injury and the Jets defense didn't miss a beat. So they aren't really "one injury away" from being an average defense unless you're talking about Revis. Otherwise though, very solid post.

Well that is why I believe that the majority of our problems after leadership was technique and assignments down, because as you saw, it had to be greatly simplified after the Panthers game and remained that way for the middle of the season before it started to pick up again near the end.

And in regard to "one injury away," I meant the CB's- you are correct. I did not make that clear. My argument is that with the Ryan system, you place a lot of pressure on the CB's and if one of them goes down, the system is pedestrian, because although Revis can more than handle his own with Moss, one on one, the problem is that nobody else on that team can, except maybe Cromartie.