If BB is a defensive mastermind, why...?

[DaBruinz]

I'm not whining. But the D has been steadily declining since 2004. Anyone who can't see that is in denial. The lack of home-grown, young up-and-coming LBs has been a major part of that. Obviously it is not as simple as that, there are lots of moving parts, but not using high draft picks on LBs when you play a 3-4 defense just seems odd. And if part of the reason why is that it is too hard to find those types of players, perhaps you should start adapting your philosophy and scheme to be more in line with your pool of available resources.

That said, I agree the defense this season has done enough to win both games; however, when a real offense shows up (which it will the next three games straight) we'll see if those players really are good enough to win with.

Yes, you are whining. And you clearly haven't been paying attention if you think the defense has been declining since 2004. Since 2003, this defense has been a top 10 defense in points allowed in every year but one. That was 2005. And they were 11th in points allowed.

Its not a matter of denial. Its a matter of looking at the facts. Could they have been better? Sure. There is never perfection. Even in 2007, when they won 18 games in a row. There was plenty to be worked on. But the defense isn't the issue right now. The offense is. And anyone who didn't think there would be some growing pains as Brady gets back to feeling comfortable is the one in denial.

We'd all love to have the best players at ever position. But that just doesn't happen. Team priorities in the draft vary from year to year. Evaluations of the team change from year to year. Players screw the team over and force their way out. Players are forced to retire unexpectedly. Injuries happen. You can't plan for everything. All you can do is try your best. People who think that their hindsight visions mean anything are just delusional and whining and the ones in a state of denial.

 

[DaBruinz]

You're missing the point man. Fact is I don't know how Dansby would have done in our system at the time of the draft and just like no one knew how Watson would have done. It's all a gamble. BUT, since LBs are our main playmakers on defense, wouldn't have it made sense to invest higher draft picks on that position?

LOL at the bolded section! You really are THAT poster:singing:

No. I'm not missing ANYTHNG. I understand all you wankers who want to second guess everything because you are clueless and in denial about reality. The ones who think that their hindsight visions make them better than Belichick.

Again, go back and look at the roster from that year, prior to the draft. Tell me where Dansby would have fit in. If you aren't willing to do that, then you aren't willing to be a legitimate part of the conversation.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

If the defense plays like it did the last two games all year, we'll have a pretty good year.
The Jets D had a great game yesterday, maybe the best game they'll play all year,, they're healthy right now and they were super pumped. They probably wont be shutting teams down all year like they did yesterday and I bet when they come up here in Nov Brady has a much better game.

 

[Patsrock]

Here's the thing. Belichick benefited a lot from the players drafted by Parcells like bruschi, mcginest, etc. much of those super bowl teams was built by parcells with the obvious exceptions like brady. he hasn't been awful in drafting but i always thought parcells was the better talent evaluator.

No it was not built by Parcells

Players drafted/signed by Parcells. That actually played and contributed something to the Super Bowl season's

Offense
Drew Bledsoe
Troy Brown( way better player under BB)

Defense
Bruschi(flourished under BB)
Law
Milloy(only played 1 season for Parcells, who was his position coach in his rookie year)
Willie Mac
Ted Johnson

ST
AV

So that is a revisionist history on Parcells building the Super Bowl teams.

 

[klinefan]

Why indeed? The emperor appears to have no clothes! That's WHY!

He fiddles while the defense burns!!

If this continues...if we have a losing record there will be boos upon boos at the Gillette stadium! The will pummel the players into oblivion.

Blitz maybe? Get a sack sometime?

I did see TBC do a neato spin move and almost get a sack. What happened to crable? Stuck on IR with a hangnail while that turd Burgess takes up a spot AND draft picks?

Awesome post!

 

[khayos]

T-B-C at O-L-B for R-O-Y

T-Y

 

[DaBruinz]

The defense has not been the same since Romeo Crennel left and Dean Pees arrived. RC used to play more of a physical, pressure defense. Pees plays a plain vanilla prevent type of D that just doesn't work. We use to say that it was a bend / don't break defense, but more often than not it prevents us from being effective and disruptive.

Sanchez sat back in the pocket in the 2nd half with little to no pressure. If there was a time to pressure the QB it was yesterday with a rookie in the pocket. We need to become more agressive with the defense and stop playing not to lose.

This is false. You forget that there was a DC in between. Eric Mangini. And the defensive philosophy has been the same since Belichick took over. Stop the big play and be willing to give up the underneath stuff. Rely on the LBers to get pressure on the QB with the D-line stopping the inside runs.

The problem is that the linebackers have been thinned out by injury each year without the Patriots being able to bring in people to take their place. They finally got 3 last year in Mayo, Crable and Guyton. They thought they had a 4th in McKenzie, but he suffered the ACL injury in the OTAs and Crable, but he can't seem to stay healthy, unfortunately. When you lose 3 LBers to injury with whom you were counting on, its puts a lot of stress on the defense. And its not like ACL and MCL injuries can be planned for (McKenzie/Mayo). And no one has come up with the Multi-Million dollar answer on how to prevent knee injuries to begin with.

In 2003 and 2004, what made the Patriots defense so good was that they were able to bring LBers on the rush from any of the 4 LBer positions. They looked like they'd be able to do that this year, but the Patriots decided to forego the 3-4 in favor of the 4-3 and get the rush from the D-line and allow the LBers to make plays behind them.. Still in a 2 gap system, but one that put a lot more pressure on Mayo.

 

[italia44]

This is false. You forget that there was a DC in between. Eric Mangini. And the defensive philosophy has been the same since Belichick took over. Stop the big play and be willing to give up the underneath stuff. Rely on the LBers to get pressure on the QB with the D-line stopping the inside runs.

The problem is that the linebackers have been thinned out by injury each year without the Patriots being able to bring in people to take their place. They finally got 3 last year in Mayo, Crable and Guyton. They thought they had a 4th in McKenzie, but he suffered the ACL injury in the OTAs and Crable, but he can't seem to stay healthy, unfortunately. When you lose 3 LBers to injury with whom you were counting on, its puts a lot of stress on the defense. And its not like ACL and MCL injuries can be planned for (McKenzie/Mayo). And no one has come up with the Multi-Million dollar answer on how to prevent knee injuries to begin with.

In 2003 and 2004, what made the Patriots defense so good was that they were able to bring LBers on the rush from any of the 4 LBer positions. They looked like they'd be able to do that this year, but the Patriots decided to forego the 3-4 in favor of the 4-3 and get the rush from the D-line and allow the LBers to make plays behind them.. Still in a 2 gap system, but one that put a lot more pressure on Mayo.

Exactly...........Everyone forgets the injuries and expects that we should have drafted 5 more LB's in anticipation.Tyrone Mckenzie is getting paid big money,despite his IR status,for a reason........BB thinks he's going to be really good.

Injuries suck,but this is going to turn out to be the draft class of the century,imo.

 

[condon84]

No. I'm not missing ANYTHNG. I understand all you wankers who want to second guess everything because you are clueless and in denial about reality. The ones who think that their hindsight visions make them better than Belichick.

Again, go back and look at the roster from that year, prior to the draft. Tell me where Dansby would have fit in. If you aren't willing to do that, then you aren't willing to be a legitimate part of the conversation.

No one is here thinking that they're better than Belichick. We're just having a discussion on where our defense could have been helped as far as draft picks. Isn't this a discussion board? Don't get offended if someone has ideas that differ from you or ideas that question our FO.

As far as the Dansby, if BB deemed that he was worthy of a roster spot, he would have created a spot for him. Frankly, BB hasn't deemed any LB coming out of college worthy of a high draft pick until only recently.

As someone pointed out, in nine years, BB's used a draft pick on a LB higher than a 5th round only once. It seems odd especially since our defense relies on LBs to make plays and suggests that LBs are high priority needs. Yet we haven't drafted like it.

 

[slash83]

The defense is soft and basic, they were lucky to hold s rookie qb and average receivers to 16 points. When you can't rush the qb, and are scared to blitz your a soft basic vanilla defense.

 

[DarrylS]

Haven't read all 7 pages of this thread, but to say this D is mediocre is seriously shortchanging them.. the reality of BB and his view is that his major assett is TB, so he builds complimentary players to insure his success and the team's ability to win.. if he had an Lawrence Taylor, he would build the team around him and focus less on the assets of the O..

The D does not have to be a NY type, Baltimore type or Jets type, it has to keep the opposition from scoring more than our offense, it is not all that hard.. to judge this D based on two games without their D ROY is wrong.. it takes a while for all these pieces to fit.. there are something like 6 new starters on the D... it will take a while for them to mesh..

Yesterday we effectively took away the run game from the Jets, they averaged 3.8 and really did not control the ball all that much.. and as a consequence gave up some passes.. the D played pretty well overall.. the O did not.

BB is a defensive mastermind, and by the time we play in London will see it.. this is a top 10 D... this year 4 of the first 5 picks were D players.. and suspect that this trend will continue, in reality we are younger and faster.. so far have not seen the back of any CB's chasing WR's down the sideline, that is a good thing.

 

[apple strudel]

As someone pointed out, in nine years, BB's used a draft pick on a LB higher than a 5th round only once.

This one's a real head-scratcher. In the first 9 drafts, he drafted 2 (both in the 9th draft). In the 10th draft, he drafted 1. Either way, 2 > 1 and 3 > 1.

 

[wilfork is beastin']

i wish that BB/Pees would blitz more often but the D did a good job yesterday, especially considering mayo was out. thomas jones was held in check pretty much the whole game and the defense gave the offense several chances in the final minutes to get something going.

 

[DaBruinz]

No one is here thinking that they're better than Belichick. We're just having a discussion on where our defense could have been helped as far as draft picks. Isn't this a discussion board? Don't get offended if someone has ideas that differ from you or ideas that question our FO.

Guess you haven't actually read the thread because it was clear that the OP and several others were taking clear shots at BB and acting like they know better than BB. BTW, people can have all the different ideas they want. Its the lying about reality that I take issue with. Sorry that you don't understand the difference. But, then, we've had that discussion previously as well..

As far as the Dansby, if BB deemed that he was worthy of a roster spot, he would have created a spot for him. Frankly, BB hasn't deemed any LB coming out of college worthy of a high draft pick until only recently.

I know this. And I said it in my posts. Both during the drafts back then and recently..

As someone pointed out, in nine years, BB's used a draft pick on a LB higher than a 5th round only once. It seems odd especially since our defense relies on LBs to make plays and suggests that LBs are high priority needs. Yet we haven't drafted like it.

BB tried to use a 3rd rounder on Stewart Bradley in 2007. Its well documented the Pats did their best to trade up but couldn't find a trading partner so they could take him. Prior to 2005, the Pats had done well bringing in veterans to help with their depth at LB. In 2005, the Bruschi stroke, the Phifer injury, and the Ted Johnson retirement right before TC did a number on the team. Phifer's slow injury recovery and Johnson's retirement hurt the Pats the most because they happened well after the draft and free agency being over. Not that the Pats had a ton of money to spend in 2005. The 2005 draft wasn't exactly a deep one at LB either.

2006, a lot of people were hoping for Manny Lawson, but the Pats took Maroney. And then there was a run on LBs/DEs that saw Kiwanuka, Ryans, D'qwell Jackson, and McIntosh come off the board. And the Pats surprised people by taking Chad Jackson.

BB's drafting philosophy is to take the best value available in the draft. And, since WR was a priority in 2006 because of the loss of Givens and Branch's rumblings, they thought that adding Jackson would help off-set that. Especially since they'd added Thomas. But BB has also said that he's not going to add a player based on need alone. Otherwise, you end up hurting the team in the long run because you really over-spend on players...

I know we all would have liked BB to have drafted a LBer or 3 prior to 2008, but the reality is that he they either weren't able to or decided that the players available wouldn't fit the system or the player wasn't worth what they'd have to pay to get them. (this next is to everyone) Whining about that won't change it. Complaining about it won't change it. Acting like you knew better than Belichick just makes you look foolish because there are so many factors that we, as fans, have no access to knowing (interviews, film breakdowns with coaches).

 

[jmt57]

Awesome post!

Wow, that's something you don't see everyday (comment #65.)

Somebody congratulating themself for having an 'awesome post'. Hope you didn't hurt your shoulder while patting yourself on your back!

 

[condon84]

Guess you haven't actually read the thread because it was clear that the OP and several others were taking clear shots at BB and acting like they know better than BB. BTW, people can have all the different ideas they want. Its the lying about reality that I take issue with. Sorry that you don't understand the difference. But, then, we've had that discussion previously as well..



I know this. And I said it in my posts. Both during the drafts back then and recently..




BB tried to use a 3rd rounder on Stewart Bradley in 2007. Its well documented the Pats did their best to trade up but couldn't find a trading partner so they could take him. Prior to 2005, the Pats had done well bringing in veterans to help with their depth at LB. In 2005, the Bruschi stroke, the Phifer injury, and the Ted Johnson retirement right before TC did a number on the team. Phifer's slow injury recovery and Johnson's retirement hurt the Pats the most because they happened well after the draft and free agency being over. Not that the Pats had a ton of money to spend in 2005. The 2005 draft wasn't exactly a deep one at LB either.

2006, a lot of people were hoping for Manny Lawson, but the Pats took Maroney. And then there was a run on LBs/DEs that saw Kiwanuka, Ryans, D'qwell Jackson, and McIntosh come off the board. And the Pats surprised people by taking Chad Jackson.

BB's drafting philosophy is to take the best value available in the draft. And, since WR was a priority in 2006 because of the loss of Givens and Branch's rumblings, they thought that adding Jackson would help off-set that. Especially since they'd added Thomas. But BB has also said that he's not going to add a player based on need alone. Otherwise, you end up hurting the team in the long run because you really over-spend on players...

I know we all would have liked BB to have drafted a LBer or 3 prior to 2008, but the reality is that he they either weren't able to or decided that the players available wouldn't fit the system or the player wasn't worth what they'd have to pay to get them. (this next is to everyone) Whining about that won't change it. Complaining about it won't change it. Acting like you knew better than Belichick just makes you look foolish because there are so many factors that we, as fans, have no access to knowing (interviews, film breakdowns with coaches).

The irony of this sentence

Getting back to the discussion. I believe we now have the athletes to play a more pressure style defense. Once upon a time, we were known as a confusing defense that even the great Peyton Manning couldn't decipher. Here's hoping that we'll get back there sooner than later.

 

[BlitzFritz]

BTW, I find it friggin absurd that you people are whining about a defense that allowed 17 and 16 points in 2 games and that is clearly in transition.
QUOTE]

the point of this thread is NOT to complain about a D in transition. it IS to ask why our defensive system is not more aggressive, since that seems to work.

fundamentally, i am asking if Rex Ryan has changed defensive football. and if so, shouldnt we be doing some of this

-- FRITZ

 

[Patsrock]

BTW, I find it friggin absurd that you people are whining about a defense that allowed 17 and 16 points in 2 games and that is clearly in transition.
QUOTE]

the point of this thread is NOT to complain about a D in transition. it IS to ask why our defensive system is not more aggressive, since that seems to work.

fundamentally, i am asking if Rex Ryan has changed defensive football. and if so, shouldnt we be doing some of this

-- FRITZ

I will say this it is week 2.

 

[Shrekk]

...has our defense been so average for the past few years.

Not only average, but unimaginative.

I couldnt help admiring the RexRyan attacking D with multiple confusing looks, and pressure. IF that is such a successful D, why arent we doing some of that? (and dont say its because of injuries cause we havent even tried it in the past 2 seasons or last week)

PS I was happy enough with our D yesterday. Could have been MORE destructive with a rookie QB.

-- FRITZ

You need to have the right personnel to run that defense. Only the Jets, Ravens, and Steelers have the personnel to run a defense like that. If it was as easy as just running the blitzes every team would be amazing on defense. The patriots right now do not have the personnel to run that attack/ blitz 30 times a game defense. The jets great secondary allows the blitz to be successful, as shown by Brady's completion percentage. The blitzers know that the secondary has their back so there is no reservations about going all out after the QB.

 

[apple strudel]

BTW, I find it friggin absurd that you people are whining about a defense that allowed 17 and 16 points in 2 games and that is clearly in transition.

the point of this thread is NOT to complain about a D in transition. it IS to ask why our defensive system is not more aggressive, since that seems to work.

fundamentally, i am asking if Rex Ryan has changed defensive football. and if so, shouldnt we be doing some of this

-- FRITZ

I'm reading your signature and experiencing some major problems reconciling the this thread with this quote.

"If you counted out the Patriots, you just don't get it." Adam Schein, September 2008

In any event, I think BB believes more in situation based aggressiveness rather than aggression throughout the game. Why? Because it takes a lot out of a team to be continually aggressive and can create opportunities for the offense, wither through mismatches or guys being open on the blitz. And what happens when you play a team that picks up the blitz well? It's game over. You don't want to be one-dimensional.