Is the Pats pass defense as bad as everybody claims?

[pherein]

Your argument is that back to back 6th seeds proves what it takes to win Championships?


Its just too simplistic.
Why would offense win games but not Championships? Are Championship games different? Why would defense win Championships but not games?

Teams win games, teams win Championships, offense is half of the equation, defense is half of the equation (well st's have a share too, but you get my point)
That cliche is from a long time ago when the game was very different than it is now.

Well, when you only cover one side of the ball, offense, like NO did until GW.
Everything depends on constant production and no problems.
2006 we just surprised teams at how fast and explosive we were, but did not have the run game needed in the cold. Funny thing is we might have beaten the Colts in that Dome.
2007-2008 Major injuries on offense with the worst defense. Lance Moore was are #1 receiver in 2008. We lost 7 games in 2008 by 3pts . Hence why SP drafted kickers, and they called him crazy.
As an example we lost more people to IR or injury ever in 2010, but our defense was ranked #7 so we squeaked into the playoffs.
I think if we had GW in 2006 we would have been much more competitive over the years. Maybe give us 2-3 games and earn a playoff spot.

I think his point is, and I might be incorrect about this, when your one dimensional its more of a crap shoot or gambling. NE or GB don't have near the bad defense we had in those years. Truthfully it was just Brees keeping the offense efficient with rookie players.

 

[sbpatfan]

This defense is 08 Lions-esque. Embarrasing to watch. Thank god for Brady.

 

[Rob0729]

If you were a betting man would you bet that the Patriots would be able to hold Rodgers and those weapons under 400 yards through the air? Taking your foot off the gas is one thing and it usually happens on the offensive side of the ball and it entails running which the pats did unsuccessfully. On the defensive side of the ball, they were simply getting burned in man coverage. There is no excuse for that and its not like it only happens in garbage time.

I agree that the three best offensives have poor defenses and part of that comes from being ahead but that didn't happen last sunday. They were beat for big plays and thats something that you want to avoid when up big and time winding down. I wouldn't be upset if the colts dinked and dunked there way up the field but they didn't, the ran a couple of go routes and scored quick. Lastly I don't know where you think the man-man stuff was experimentation because thats ludicrous. The Patriots played plenty of Man in the Steelers game, the Jets game as well as plenty of other games.

First, you really need to go back and watch the games. The Pats had a lot of man coverage against the Steelers?!? Really?!? Belichick really put his DBs in man coverage against two of the fastest WRs and one of the best QBs the Pats' faced? The reason why Heath Miller had a good game is because they exploited the soft part of the zone. And if they did, you claim the Pats constantly get burnt in man coverage although Mike Wallace only had 70 yards and his longest reception was 16 yards. In fact, the reason why Heath Miller was the leading receiver that day for the Steelers was because he exploited the holes in the zone.

Second, since the experiment with man defense failed earlier in the year, the Pats have used man coverages very sparingly. There might be a handful of plays in a game where they use man coverage. He's got a young patchwork secondary and there is no way he is going to leave players on an island like that unless he is experimenting like he did this past Sunday in the fourth quarter.

 

[Rob0729]

The Patriots weren't even close to competitive in the Steelers game.

The defense wet itself against both the Giants and the Bills.

Romo was gifting all his opponents at the time the Patriots faced the Cowboys.

Against the Giants, the Pats lost Chung, Spikes, Ihedebgo, and Barrett during the game by the last two drives (several either just before or during the second to last drive). That is probably why they fell apart in that game.

 

[Big-T]

This defense is 08 Lions-esque. Embarrasing to watch. Thank god for Brady.

Why? Were the 08 Lions in the top half of the league in points allowed?

Some people listen to ESPN too much, giving up yards does not equal bad defense. It's bend but don't break..unlike the Packers who are blitz happy and have a worse defense than the Patriots.

Sure it isn't pretty to watch but the team is 9-3, that's all that matters.

 

[NinjaZX6R]

Why? Were the 08 Lions in the top half of the league in points allowed?

Some people listen to ESPN too much, giving up yards does not equal bad defense. It's bend but don't break..unlike the Packers who are blitz happy and have a worse defense than the Patriots.

Sure it isn't pretty to watch but the team is 9-3, that's all that matters.

08 Lions allowed 2nd most points ever. I think it was 552 pts. Avg 34.5~ pts per game allowed.

 

[Ring 6]

I still think there is some truth to it. If not the Colts should've been the team of the decade.

And you're gonna have those games in the playoffs where you need to grind it out. Steelers are equipped for it. The 2010 Packers had that type of game in the NFC game vs the Bears...the D carried them through that game.

Some truth, sure, just as you can say offense wins championships, find some examples, and ignore the exceptions.

 

[randomk1]

Some truth, sure, just as you can say offense wins championships, find some examples, and ignore the exceptions.

What are the exceptions from the last decade? The Colts? The Packers? Definately good offense...but top ranked D to go along with it. The Saints? They couldn't make the jump without GW.

 

[IllegalContact]

Against the Giants, the Pats lost Chung, Spikes, Ihedebgo, and Barrett during the game by the last two drives (several either just before or during the second to last drive). That is probably why they fell apart in that game.

probably? did the same guys all fall out against the bills, too?

injuries are part of the game....if you can't overcome them, you're not going anywhere. sounds like personnel is an issue

 

[Kontradiction]

because there is some magical entity that causes the Patriots to become lazy and un-inspired to cover their man when leading in the 4th quater...600 may be abit much but do you honestly think that at this point the defense would be able to match up with the Packers weapons (Jermichael Finley on a backer, Greg Jennings on a struggling McCourty, Nelson on Arrington/Molden) and hold Rodgers to under 400 yards?

Garbage time would start in the first quarter. And no, we wouldn't be able to hold Green Bay under 400 yards. And, because they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot, we probably wouldn't be able to hold them under 35 points, either. Rodgers would probably have to consciously choose not to take the deep stuff in favor of the intermediate stuff to keep Brady off the field against their struggling defense. Only difference between the two D's is that their's can play man while our secondary struggles with it. So our offense would most likely have a few more three and outs as well.

As for our defense, it's banged up. But even before it was banged up, it was struggling against the likes of Chad Henne. It is what it is. The defense is in the bottom of the middle of the pack. It's definitely not the worst in the league, but it's not good at all. All potential to this point. It looks much improved because of the garbage schedule, but the real moment of truth will come in the playoffs. They'll either get their act together for the first time since 2009 and get a playoff win, or they'll fail when we need them most and we'll be one and done again.

 

[jmt57]

The Patriots' pass defense is not particularly good; I don't believe there is much denying that.

My issue (and I think that of many others) is with when someone states that the Pats' defense, or more specifically the pass defense, is the 'worst in the league', or the 'worst they have ever seen', or the 'worst in the history of the NFL'.

The claim is backed up by the one sole variable that the NFL uses to rank team defenses (and offenses): yards gained. At some point in time it was determined that this statistic would be used rather than points, because a defense can score points or set up scores on turnovers. and because these are the league's official rankings people repeat them as gospel truth for a team being good or bad with no further analysis.

The problem is that it has been shown that this (yardage) is not the most important statistic in determining how well a defense (or offense) is performing.

As robbmango pointed out, there is a greater correlation to points and winning than yardage and winning:

I don't have a problem with people pointing out that the Pats need to find a way to improve their pass defense. I just think portraying them as being the absolute worst in the league based simply on yardage allowed is a very flawed rationale.

 

[eric5280]

Yeah I think they have a lot of issues and there are stats to show this but the stat most often being used is not the right one. The alarming stats that do indicate they suck is the 63.9% completion percentage and the 8.03YPA surrendered. That shows they are not only giving up a lot of yards but are doing so at a very high rate.

 

[rabthepat]

Yes it really is bad.