The defense is not "bad," and saying that doesn't make me a homer. If you want to see a "bad" defense, watch a Lions game. Watch a Giants game. The Patriots defense is slightly above average. It certainly can't carry the team when the offense is creating turnover after turnover. I would give it a C+.
While it's great to point out games where the defense obviously fell apart, like Indy, there are others where they were able to maintain close leads--like the Panthers game, or Bills game, for instance. Maybe you can argue that those were sub-par offenses, but the Panthers went on to crush the Vikings and some other good teams. We also annihilated the Jets a few weeks back.
They're able to zero-in on one-dimensional offenses, and for the most part, contain them. You can take that for granted if you want, but a lot teams don't have that kind of defense. That's why I say they're above average. No doubt it needs a lot of work, but with a few more pieces, better tackling, and actual leadership from the players, and it could develop into an impressive unit at some point in the future.
But the Patriots have more problems than the defense. Like 2007, our offense really slowed down toward the end of the year. We lack a consistent threat on the ground, and the offensive line needs more talent. I'd like see some maulers added at right guard and tackle.
Edelman is going to be a very good receiver in a few years, and perhaps sooner depending on the kind of offseason he has. Despite what people say, he isn't Wes Welker; he's a better vertical threat than Wes is and that should bode well for the offense. Brandon Tate was a waste of a third round pick.
While I believe the defense has potential, I'm not sure that the Patriots will make the right moves to bring it along. We need more power on the defensive line, another inside linebacker, and a pass rusher. I think our secondary is good enough if we can re-sign Leigh Bodden; there are several young players back there who haven't reached their full potential yet.
I also still like the Seymour trade. I felt that was a good move--as long as we re-sign Vince Wilfork. If that doesn't happen, it won't make any sense to me. I understood the Seymour trade in the context of the Patriots not being willing to shell out the cash for him in 2010, presumably because they had so many other players to negotiate with, like Wilfork. In that scenario, it makes a lot of sense to get some value for Seymour, and a high first round pick is excellent value. Some of you who criticized that trade might be singing a different tune on draft day in 2011, assuming we actually use the pick.
However, if they don't pay Vince in the offseason, the team is in big trouble.
As far as the rest of the offseason is concerned, I'd grade 2009 as a C. There were some poor free agent signings (like Galloway and Springs--no 34 yr old corner should get a 3-year deal, even if they're still a decent player) and a few horrible trades (Greg Lewis, Derrick Burgess, Alex Smith).
At the same time, there were some good moves, like signing Leigh Bodden, bringing Tully Banta-Cain back, and trading down to get Darius Butler and Julian Edelman. So it isn't as bad as the panic-button mashers want to believe. But no doubt it needs to be much more consistent in 2010. I hope Belichick really does take a look back at 2009 and learn from it.
