How about a position by position breakdown of why the defense is struggling?

[Deus Irae]

For example:

2001-2002 Playoffs

Divisional Round- WIN
Yards allowed 230
Points allowed 13

Championship Round- WIN
Yards allowed 306
Points allowed 17

Super Bowl- WIN
Yards allowed 427
Points allowed 17


So yes, this has very clearly been a "bend but don't break" defense from day one.

The number of people who spout this nonsense is very disappointing, and trying to use 2001 as proof of it is insane (game 1 was the snow, game 2 was Bledsoe, game 3 was against the Greatest Show on Turf).

Holy crap, the Pitt game's a perfect example.

14 drives
6 3 and outs
8 drives allowing fewer than 20 yards
1 drive of more than 20 yards that was off a N.E. turnover at the N.E. 32 and resulted in a TD

As for the Raiders game

14 drives
4 3 and outs
4 4 and outs
1 2 play drive at end of half
1 1 play drive at end of half

That's not even "bend but don't break" in a fever dream.

 

[RayClay]

As usual, people assume we can sign everyone to huge, long term contracts and that everyone will live up to said contracts. some teams do, then go down the tubes with imbalance and complacency of high paid, secure players.

I like Jones, but his escapade at the local police station and the money pass rushers command [and his late season fades] mitigate against betting the house on him IMO.

Collins is potentially awesome. for whatever reason, he was far from awesome this season, not even basically doing his job [leaving embarrassing holes]. You going to mortgage the farm for that, or the mysteriously disappearing Sheard?

Some players really want to play for the Pats, some don't care. Other teams give out huge, long term contracts and live with the results, the pats usually don't, when they have doubts. The acquisition of McLellin, Van Noy etc., tells me they've had doubts for a while.

Rather than live in imaginary land, where all players give 100% and play the scheme regardless of contract, I guess I have to live in the real world where our team takes the criticism and tries to patch rather than get tied in knots with contracts. And still spends to the cap, imagine that.

They need a LB who can cover. plenty of time til the playoffs, we'll see. Sheard is still on the team. will he snap out of his funk? We'll see. Van Noy looks promising and Flowers too. I think Rowe is well worth spending time with. Graceful, big and fast, he just needs to stop flapping his arms around IMO.

Team saw the problems and made moves. Will they be enough? I think better than letting free lancing and attitudes fester. Just my opinion.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

The way some people post, they make it seem like The players are coached not to get to the quarterback. I highly doubt belichick is coaching his front four not to get to the quarterback. Effective D ends can get to the quarterback while staying in their lanes and not running by the quarterback. The staple of a belichick D is a player who can set the edge and get after the passer, (taylor, willie). In addition a belichick D will ideally be stought against the run with no more than 7. Bill belichick might not even be in this position if not for LT. Bill admits a players game. Bills great, only a fool would deny, But would the greatness of him and parcells even be recognized without LT? The man wrecked games. Bills gameplan in superbowl 25 is legendary

I think those Giants coaches worked with what they had. LT was indeed special. But the coaches earned their success; and their subsequent success elsewhere backs it up.

 

[patsbrasilpatriotas]

As usual, people assume we can sign everyone to huge, long term contracts and that everyone will live up to said contracts. some teams do, then go down the tubes with imbalance and complacency of high paid, secure players.

I like Jones, but his escapade at the local police station and the money pass rushers command [and his late season fades] mitigate against betting the house on him IMO.

Collins is potentially awesome. for whatever reason, he was far from awesome this season, not even basically doing his job [leaving embarrassing holes]. You going to mortgage the farm for that, or the mysteriously disappearing Sheard?

Some players really want to play for the Pats, some don't care. Other teams give out huge, long term contracts and live with the results, the pats usually don't, when they have doubts. The acquisition of McLellin, Van Noy etc., tells me they've had doubts for a while.

Rather than live in imaginary land, where all players give 100% and play the scheme regardless of contract, I guess I have to live in the real world where our team takes the criticism and tries to patch rather than get tied in knots with contracts. And still spends to the cap, imagine that.

They need a LB who can cover. plenty of time til the playoffs, we'll see. Sheard is still on the team. will he snap out of his funk? We'll see. Van Noy looks promising and Flowers too. I think Rowe is well worth spending time with. Graceful, big and fast, he just needs to stop flapping his arms around IMO.

Team saw the problems and made moves. Will they be enough? I think better than letting free lancing and attitudes fester. Just my opinion.

Perfect...

And we and the ''beat writers'' may never know is that some players do EXACTLY what the coordinators ask them to do.. That's why people like Freeny stick around and people don't understand because he's not makiing plays...

 

[Ring 6]

The number of people who spout this nonsense is very disappointing, and trying to use 2001 as proof of it is insane (game 1 was the snow, game 2 was Bledsoe, game 3 was against the Greatest Show on Turf).

Holy crap, the Pitt game's a perfect example.

14 drives
6 3 and outs
8 drives allowing fewer than 20 yards
1 drive of more than 20 yards that was off a N.E. turnover at the N.E. 32 and resulted in a TD

As for the Raiders game

14 drives
4 3 and outs
4 4 and outs
1 2 play drive at end of half
1 1 play drive at end of half

That's not even "bend but don't break" in a fever dream.

Bend but don't break (which is a fan euphemism) doesn't mean don't stop the other team. You cannot determine the game plan by the results.
Bend but don't break means play conservative and limit the big play. It doesn't say let them get first downs.
Conservative defense is still trying to win every play it is just not doing it with a risky scheme.

Making good plays doesn't mean you were aggressive.
Your argument seems to be since the plan worked it must be he one you like and that's wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

A 4 man rush doesnt require you to be all that agressive. it just requires talent. We had this last year. and Now that depth is gone

And almost no defenses in the NFL is getting to the QB consistently with a 4 man pass rush.
Teams that blitz get more pressure and get burned a lot.
Why in the world with Tom Brady at QB anyone would think you need to be aggressive on defense is beyond me.

 

[PP2]

The number of people who spout this nonsense is very disappointing, and trying to use 2001 as proof of it is insane (game 1 was the snow, game 2 was Bledsoe, game 3 was against the Greatest Show on Turf).

Holy crap, the Pitt game's a perfect example.

14 drives
6 3 and outs
8 drives allowing fewer than 20 yards
1 drive of more than 20 yards that was off a N.E. turnover at the N.E. 32 and resulted in a TD

As for the Raiders game

14 drives
4 3 and outs
4 4 and outs
1 2 play drive at end of half
1 1 play drive at end of half

That's not even "bend but don't break" in a fever dream.

So you're suggesting we ignore the hard fact: the sum total of yards given up?

Let's see your interpretation of the next championship we won:

2003-2004 Playoffs

Divisional Round- WIN
Total Yards Allowed 284
Points allowed 14

Championship Round- WIN
Total Yards Allowed 306
Points allowed 14

Super Bowl- WIN
Total Yards Allowed 387
Points allowed 29

The fact is BB has always played and will always play the "bend but don't break" defense. Why? Simple- after points, the next thing BB values the most is turnovers. The more reps you give the other team, e.g., making them dink and dunk up the field, the more chances you have of generating a turnover.

 

[fightingirish595]

And almost no defenses in the NFL is getting to the QB consistently with a 4 man pass rush.
Teams that blitz get more pressure and get burned a lot.
Why in the world with Tom Brady at QB anyone would think you need to be aggressive on defense is beyond me.

I think nearly every team that won a Super Bowl since the turn of the century was able to get to the quarterback rushing 4. You either need a line that can do it. Or a shutdown secondary

 

[Ring 6]

So you're suggesting we ignore the hard fact: the sum total of yards given up?

Let's see your interpretation of the next championship we won:

2003-2004 Playoffs

Divisional Round- WIN
Total Yards Allowed 284
Points allowed 14

Championship Round- WIN
Total Yards Allowed 306
Points allowed 14

Super Bowl- WIN
Total Yards Allowed 387
Points allowed 29

The fact is BB has always played and will always play the "bend but don't break" defense. Why? Simple- after points, the next thing BB values the most is turnovers. The more reps you give the other team, e.g., making them dink and dunk up the field, the more chances you have of generating a turnover.

This whole bend but don't break thing is being massacred by this board.
BBDB does not mean let the other the drive down the field. It does not mean play bad defense.
It means play conservative football limiting the big play being looser on short stuff and picking your spots to be aggressive.
It means play a 2gap system which has you defenders first move being initiating contact instead of shooting gaps to make plays thereby giving up plays.

Saying a defense was aggressive because it was successful is ridiculous.

When you play defense it is a fact you sacrifice some things to stress others.

This boards impression that BBDB means not trying to stop the opponent and letting them easily move inside your 30 then try is just wrong.
belichick does and always has had a conservative view of defense. Other ways to look at that is do not give up the big play. Limit the big play even if at the expense of allowing smaller ones. Play team defense. Do your job. Do not take yourself out of a play. Make the other guy beat you at what they do not do best. Defend the entire field.

 

[Ring 6]

I think nearly every team that won a Super Bowl since the turn of the century was able to get to the quarterback rushing 4. You either need a line that can do it. Or a shutdown secondary

That's not accurate. Getting a couple of sacks a game with a 4 man just is not "able to get to the QB rushing 4".

 

[skinnydog]

Bend but don't break (which is a fan euphemism) doesn't mean don't stop the other team. You cannot determine the game plan by the results.
Bend but don't break means play conservative and limit the big play. It doesn't say let them get first downs.
Conservative defense is still trying to win every play it is just not doing it with a risky scheme.

Making good plays doesn't mean you were aggressive.
Your argument seems to be since the plan worked it must be he one you like and that's wrong.

It's not just a fan euphemism, just because the current coaches don't use the term. Plenty of former players use it as well. No one is suggesting bend but don't break isn't designed to stop the other team. The current Pats seem to wait for the other team to make mistakes rather than being aggressive and forcing them into errors.

 

[Ring 6]

It's not just a fan euphemism, just because the current coaches don't use the term. Plenty of former players use it as well. No one is suggesting bend but don't break isn't designed to stop the other team. The current Pats seem to wait for the other team to make mistakes rather than being aggressive and forcing them into errors.

But bend but don't break is way to describe what happened, not a philosophy.
Every BB team has done that.
BB has never been a coach who favors risky defensive schemes to force turnovers. Because he doesn't want to give up the big play.
That doesn't mean he never blitzes or never calls an aggressive defensive play it means he picks his spots and does it less frequently.

And the results show he is right.

 

[skinnydog]

And almost no defenses in the NFL is getting to the QB consistently with a 4 man pass rush.
Teams that blitz get more pressure and get burned a lot.
Why in the world with Tom Brady at QB anyone would think you need to be aggressive on defense is beyond me.

The one type of defense that has given TB12 problems is an aggressive attacking defense. If the works against the GOAT why would you not want to use it against lesser QBs.

 

[Ring 6]

The one type of defense that has given TB12 problems is an aggressive attacking defense. If the works against the GOAT why would you not want to use it against lesser QBs.

That's not even true Brady destroys the blitz.

Let me explain.
If you are the better team and you play a cunservarive game you likely win. The worse team needs to be aggressive to flip the script with big plays. When a game comes down to big plays the better team has less of an advantage.

Rex Ryan plays aggressive defense and gives up more points has fewer takeaways and wins fewe games. Look at the numbers of him as a hc and BB for the same time period.
Fans like aggressive when it works and then assume it always works and it doesn't.

 

[PP2]

The one type of defense that has given TB12 problems is an aggressive attacking defense. If the works against the GOAT why would you not want to use it against lesser QBs.

Our only real achilles heel is when the other team is able to collapse our pocket while rushing only four.

That's by no means an aggressive defense.

 

[fightingirish595]

That's not accurate. Getting a couple of sacks a game with a 4 man just is not "able to get to the QB rushing 4".

Pass rush doesn't need to show up in the stat sheet

 

[fightingirish595]

Our only real achilles heel is when the other team is able to collapse our pocket while rushing only four.

That's by no means an aggressive defense.

Exactly. Which is how you beat the best teams. As I said. The teams that can rush 4 win. The pats in the early 2000s. The Giants, Seahawks, Green Bay, the steelers

 

[Ring 6]

Pass rush doesn't need to show up in the stat sheet

That doesn't change the point.

 

[fightingirish595]

That doesn't change the point.

So what teams have won without getting after the quarterback

 

[Ring 6]

Exactly. Which is how you beat the best teams. As I said. The teams that can rush 4 win. The pats in the early 2000s. The Giants, Seahawks, Green Bay, the steelers

Blitzburgh rushes 4? Green Bay?
Succrssful pass rushing is a good quality so if course you will find some teams who leveraged that strength to win.
So is stopping the run, throwing the ball, running the ball, turnover advantage and special teams play.
You will find teams with all kinds of strengths winning. Mostly you will find teams that score many points and allow few win.