My Blueprint for the Defense

[Luxusdk]

The points with which I disagree are three:

1. I don't think you need a dominant QB at all to win the Superbowl. I think you need an efficient one. Brady was efficient as hell when he won three and he can still be efficient, but I think our offense is constructed around him in such a way as to make it difficult for him to be consistently efficient. We ask him to be too good for long stretches and, quite frankly, he inevitably struggles at some point. What team has won the Superbowl throwing mostly from the shotgun or going five-wide and throwing the ball fifty times?

2. I see little evidence so far that the defense is becoming dominant. It's vastly improved, and I think they have a chance to be very good, especially against the pass, but I think we are a ways from being dominant and I see few metrics (including my own eyes) that would support dominance. In fact, with as little as one more injury (to Revis, McCourty, Hightower, or Collins) I fear they would regress significantly. McCourty goes down and it's Chung and Harmon at safety?

3. I think the window is shorter than you do. I can't see Gronk available during the playoffs for four years in a row. In fact, I wouldn't bet the farm on him being available for any given year among the next four. If he's out, we're a significantly different offensive team, one that's back to being centered on a midget slot receiver getting killed over the middle. Additionally, I think four more years of Brady is a reach. Maybe two.

I'm not saying trade Brady. I'm saying we need to figure out a way for this team to become more dominant along the lines of scrimmage, especially on defense, and we need morph into a team that asks our qb to do less. If that means Brady and his consistently remains at a highly efficient level, that's great. If it's Garropollo, that's fine too. But beyond this year I don't see how we extend this era of excellence without a dominant defense.

What you see is a football team there is good and you want it to be superb, i think its to much to ask for, those teams you talking about left as the salary arrived.
1) Clearly you want Patriots to run the ball alot more, and probably also spend a fortune on a back. The offense is fine. Alot better then what you need to win it all, and you still beleave its "contructed" to much on the QB ?! You want it "contructed" around a wr or rb?
2) Sure injuries Hurts, not only Patriots, for all teams. They simply can't be 5 Deep, with dominant players, at all levels. simply aint posibel with a salary cap. But remmeber, Patriots still made it to the AFC final last year, without Revis, Browner, Wilfork, Chung, Branch, Eastley, Arees etc..
3) Nobody knows how long Brady has, pretty sure Patriots take it year by year. But aslong Brady players like this, there really isnt a reason to chance, but ride the hot hand

 

[mayoclinic]

I'd build my Team from the Trenches outward, gather Split Ends, ignore SlotBacks, gather FlexBacks while ignoring HalfBacks who aren't Receiving Threats, develop and deploy a terrifying PlayOff Defense from the Trenches outward...and begin amassing Championships.

Music to my ears.

 

[mayoclinic]

The points with which I disagree are three:

1. I don't think you need a dominant QB at all to win the Superbowl. I think you need an efficient one. Brady was efficient as hell when he won three and he can still be efficient, but I think our offense is constructed around him in such a way as to make it difficult for him to be consistently efficient. We ask him to be too good for long stretches and, quite frankly, he inevitably struggles at some point. What team has won the Superbowl throwing mostly from the shotgun or going five-wide and throwing the ball fifty times?

2. I see little evidence so far that the defense is becoming dominant. It's vastly improved, and I think they have a chance to be very good, especially against the pass, but I think we are a ways from being dominant and I see few metrics (including my own eyes) that would support dominance. In fact, with as little as one more injury (to Revis, McCourty, Hightower, or Collins) I fear they would regress significantly. McCourty goes down and it's Chung and Harmon at safety?

3. I think the window is shorter than you do. I can't see Gronk available during the playoffs for four years in a row. In fact, I wouldn't bet the farm on him being available for any given year among the next four. If he's out, we're a significantly different offensive team, one that's back to being centered on a midget slot receiver getting killed over the middle. Additionally, I think four more years of Brady is a reach. Maybe two.

I'm not saying trade Brady. I'm saying we need to figure out a way for this team to become more dominant along the lines of scrimmage, especially on defense, and we need morph into a team that asks our qb to do less. If that means Brady and his consistently remains at a highly efficient level, that's great. If it's Garropollo, that's fine too. But beyond this year I don't see how we extend this era of excellence without a dominant defense.

I think you're living in a fantasy land, personally.

I don't know what you mean by a "dominant" defense. The '85 Bears? The 2000 Ravens. 1 SB and done for both. The 2013 Seahawks?

There are tons of routes to a SB. The 2005 and 2008 Steelers and 2012 Ravens did it with a big play QB (not 'efficient' at all, BTW) and a tough, physical defense, but I wouldn't call those defenses "dominant". The 2006 Colts, 2009 Saints and 2010 Packers did it with a great QB and offensive firepower combined with an average defense that got hot in the playoffs.

You need a playoff caliber defense to win in the playoffs. We have one, I firmly believe. We have a defense that can match up with anyone, and make great offenses seem ordinary. I believe that it is becoming close to "dominant" defense, and that will happen with the return of a few players and the development of a few others. I certainly think the defense is more than good enough, and that you don't need a high priced FA to make it better.

Our offense right now is the most diversified it's ever been. Gronk is irreplaceable, but by definition that means that there aren't other guys out there like him. The offense is doing a fine job of relying on him less to carry them. The team has already morphed into one that asks Brady to do less - they've won in a dominant fashion against Indy and Detroit with only average play from Brady, and with solid performances from the running game and defense.

There will be tons of challenges for the next several years, on both sides of the LOS. I don't see any reason to think we won't be one of the 2-3 most competitive teams out there.

 

[mosi's man]

I think you're living in a fantasy land, personally.

I don't know what you mean by a "dominant" defense. The '85 Bears? The 2000 Ravens. 1 SB and done for both. The 2013 Seahawks?

There are tons of routes to a SB. The 2005 and 2008 Steelers and 2012 Ravens did it with a big play QB (not 'efficient' at all, BTW) and a tough, physical defense, but I wouldn't call those defenses "dominant". The 2006 Colts, 2009 Saints and 2010 Packers did it with a great QB and offensive firepower combined with an average defense that got hot in the playoffs.

You need a playoff caliber defense to win in the playoffs. We have one, I firmly believe. We have a defense that can match up with anyone, and make great offenses seem ordinary. I believe that it is becoming close to "dominant" defense, and that will happen with the return of a few players and the development of a few others. I certainly think the defense is more than good enough, and that you don't need a high priced FA to make it better.

Our offense right now is the most diversified it's ever been. Gronk is irreplaceable, but by definition that means that there aren't other guys out there like him. The offense is doing a fine job of relying on him less to carry them. The team has already morphed into one that asks Brady to do less - they've won in a dominant fashion against Indy and Detroit with only average play from Brady, and with solid performances from the running game and defense.

There will be tons of challenges for the next several years, on both sides of the LOS. I don't see any reason to think we won't be one of the 2-3 most competitive teams out there.

You may be right. I sure hope so. I hope the Pats have a defense that is becoming close to dominant. Right now they are about tenth in the league in points allowed, DVOA, etc., for the season and I think those stats accurately reflect where they stand. Is their defense as good as Arizona's, Seattle's San Francisco's, or even Miami's? Maybe they'll continue to progress. If so you'll be correct. If not I fear we'll see more of the same. I don't expect them to be the '85 Bears but how about top five in the NFL this year or next? They haven't been a top five defense in the better part of a decade, and despite being truly excellent elsewhere, have come up short. I too agree with "build from the Trenches outward". Do you feel that this team is constructed that way on either side of the ball?

 

[mayoclinic]

You may be right. I sure hope so. I hope the Pats have a defense that is becoming close to dominant. Right now they are about tenth in the league in points allowed, DVOA, etc., for the season and I think those stats accurately reflect where they stand. Is their defense as good as Arizona's, Seattle's San Francisco's, or even Miami's? Maybe they'll continue to progress. If so you'll be correct. If not I fear we'll see more of the same. I don't expect them to be the '85 Bears but how about top five in the NFL this year or next? They haven't been a top five defense in the better part of a decade, and despite being truly excellent elsewhere, have come up short. I too agree with "build from the Trenches outward". Do you feel that this team is constructed that way on either side of the ball?

I already feel they are a top 5 defense this year. I don't pay attention to the stats. There isn't another defense in the NFL I would take over this one, much less 5 of them.

Their defense is much better than SF's. It's not even close, IMO - and it was something that I predicted would eventually happen back in 2012 after the Pats traded for Talib. Seattle has been erratic this season. Our defense is deeper, and more versatile. I think Detroit and Miami are overhyped - our defense was clearly a better unit than Detroit's last week. Time will tell.

I'm all for building around the lines, and I hope we invest in both in the upcoming draft. I've been consistently vocal that I'd like 2 players on each line in the draft. Both lines have been playing reasonably well (especially given Chandler Jones' injury), but there is definitely room for improvement.

 

[mosi's man]

I already feel they are a top 5 defense this year. I don't pay attention to the stats. There isn't another defense in the NFL I would take over this one, much less 5 of them.

Their defense is much better than SF's. It's not even close, IMO - and it was something that I predicted would eventually happen back in 2012 after the Pats traded for Talib. Seattle has been erratic this season. Our defense is deeper, and more versatile. I think Detroit and Miami are overhyped - our defense was clearly a better unit than Detroit's last week. Time will tell.

I'm all for building around the lines, and I hope we invest in both in the upcoming draft. I've been consistently vocal that I'd like 2 players on each line in the draft. Both lines have been playing reasonably well (especially given Chandler Jones' injury), but there is definitely room for improvement.

So is it your opinion that, at present, the Pats have the best defense in the NFL?

 

[patsfaninpa]

Zackly Mayo. It's not fair to judge the Pats defense vs other defenses by yardage. Because BB doesn't focus on stop you between the 20's. Focuses on taking the big play away and stopping you in the Red Zone. I like to go by points allowed. It's not too scientific. Helps that we don't turn the ball over. But, it's also hurt by not having a clock-draining run game. We're 11th in points allowed. But, only 8 from being 6th. Just behind quite a few teams. I think we'll finish Top 5 in points allowed.

 

[patsfaninpa]

So is it your opinion that, at present, the Pats have the best defense in the NFL?

I'd rather have the 5th best defense and a top 2-3 offense. Than, the best defense and an offense out of the Top 10. You can point all you want to Seattle. But, that's not how championships are usually won. How good were the defenses of; Baltimore, Giants and Packers statistically??

 

[mayoclinic]

So is it your opinion that, at present, the Pats have the best defense in the NFL?

I don't think there's a clearly "dominant" defense right now. But given how we've been playing, I wouldn't take any other defense over what we have. I think we have the most depth, versatility, and matchup flexibility, and the best secondary. We clearly don't have the best run D (though it is improving dramatically) or the best front line. I also expect the defense to get better with the integration of Ayers, Casillas and Branch and the return of Jones and Siliga.

My "blueprint" for 2015 is very simple at this point: bring back the 2014 squad, and add a DE/OLB and a DT through the draft, and possibly a LB/S hybrid for more depth and competition. My defensive roster looks something like this:

DT: Wilfork, Easley (also plays DE), Branch, Siliga, Chr. Jones, rookie
DE: Cha. Jones, Ninkovich, Ayers, rookie, Moore, Buchanan
LB: Mayo, Hightower, Collins, Casillas, Morris/rookie/other pickup, White
S: McCourty, Chung, rookie, Ebner, Wilson, Harmon
CB: Revis, Browner, Arrington, Ryan, Dennard, Butler

That's 30 players (6 on each unit). Injuries and competition will whittle it down to 25 or so.

 

[mosi's man]

I don't think there's a clearly "dominant" defense right now. But given how we've been playing, I wouldn't take any other defense over what we have. I think we have the most depth, versatility, and matchup flexibility, and the best secondary. We clearly don't have the best run D (though it is improving dramatically) or the best front line. I also expect the defense to get better with the integration of Ayers, Casillas and Branch and the return of Jones and Siliga.

My "blueprint" for 2015 is very simple at this point: bring back the 2014 squad, and add a DE/OLB and a DT through the draft, and possibly a LB/S hybrid for more depth and competition. My defensive roster looks something like this:

DT: Wilfork, Easley (also plays DE), Branch, Siliga, Chr. Jones, rookie
DE: Cha. Jones, Ninkovich, Ayers, rookie, Moore, Buchanan
LB: Mayo, Hightower, Collins, Casillas, Morris/rookie/other pickup, White
S: McCourty, Chung, rookie, Ebner, Wilson, Harmon
CB: Revis, Browner, Arrington, Ryan, Dennard, Butler

That's 30 players (6 on each unit). Injuries and competition will whittle it down to 25 or so.

I'll take Seattle, or for that matter, Arizona. I very much like our defense, but to put them up with the best units in the league is, imo, premature. To pick two, Seattle has had a fantastic defense for a couple years. Arizona, despite injuries and absent an offense that provides much "complimentary" football, has been excellent for two seasons. The Pats have been playing at a high level for four or five games. I'd love to see the Pats at that level but I haven't seen it yet. What I see right now is a lot of projection, which may come true, but not a lot of proof to date. For the record, I agree with BB (and pats fan in pa) that points allowed are the most important stat. And since playing Cincinatti we have given up fewer than twenty points once. Good but not elite. We should improve with Saliga and Jones's return, but if you count those future "inputs" do you factor in likely future injuries as well? Again, I hope you are correct and my assessment is off-base. For now, enough with the "fantasy" comments.

I'm done. I've made my points, foolish or otherwise. I really do hate to type and will leave this discussion to others better suited. I was just sayin....

 

[mayoclinic]

I'll take Seattle, or for that matter, Arizona. I very much like our defense, but to put them up with the best units in the league is, imo, premature. To pick two, Seattle has had a fantastic defense for a couple years. Arizona, despite injuries and absent an offense that provides much "complimentary" football, has been excellent for two seasons. The Pats have been playing at a high level for four or five games. I'd love to see the Pats at that level but I haven't seen it yet. What I see right now is a lot of projection, which may come true, but not a lot of proof to date. For the record, I agree with BB (and pats fan in pa) that points allowed are the most important stat. And since playing Cincinatti we have given up fewer than twenty points once. Good but not elite. We should improve with Saliga and Jones's return, but if you count those future "inputs" do you factor in likely future injuries as well? Again, I hope you are correct and my assessment is off-base. For now, enough with the "fantasy" comments.

I'm done. I've made my points, foolish or otherwise. I really do hate to type and will leave this discussion to others better suited. I was just sayin....

Again, to avoid "cherry picking", consider taking our offense (and STs, which is the best in the league and includes several key defensive players) and swapping our defensive unit for one of the following:

- Seattle
- Arizona
- Miami
- Detroit
- Kansas City
- Cincinnati
- San Francisco (since you listed them)
- Buffalo
- Baltimore
- Denver

Does any of those defensive significantly improve our playoff chances? I'd say no. They all have significant flaws. Seattle's defense this year is NOT the same as last year - they've lost critical depth, both on the DL and in the secondary, which we have. I'd take last year's Seattle D over ours, FWIW, but that's a different argument.

I would suggest that you ignore the stats and the PFF/FO analysis and take a look at those teams' defensive depth charts, and think about it in the context of what BB asks his defense to do, and of being capable of stopping other playoff teams. For example, would you really want to go into the playoffs with Detroit's secondary (Darius Slay and Rashean Mathis at CB, James Ihedigbo and Glover Quin at safety, and terrible depth)? Baltimore's secondary? What about Seattle's DL depth? It isn't the 2013 squad by a long shot.

As Grid noted, the goal is to have a Playoff Defense. I'll take our squad over any of those, especially given what BB asks his defenses to do.

 

[everlong]

Seattle is interesting in that they seem like a different unit since they got back Wagner and Chancellor. However they've also played Arizona and SF who are pretty bad defensive players. It's great timing in that we play GB this weekend as a common opponent. Two differences are that Seattle opened at home in a title defense so they were pretty amped up and they had Mebane at that point which made their run defense a lot better. If the Pats can go into GB and hold the Packers to 24 or less I think that's equal to Seattle holding them to 16 in Seattle. I know it's all about matchups and that the comparison really means squat in real world football however if our defense is a push with the Hawks I don't think there's any doubt our offense is vastly superior. Seattle and GB currently look like the most viable candidates to come out of the NFC so this game will be really telling.

 

[manxman2601]

Aside from an injury epidemic, the two biggest determinants for a successful run through the playoffs will be the OL and whether they can continue their current level of play and Gronk's health. As I see it, those are the biggest variables.

 

[manxman2601]

Seattle is interesting in that they seem like a different unit since they got back Wagner and Chancellor. However they've also played Arizona and SF who are pretty bad defensive players. It's great timing in that we play GB this weekend as a common opponent. Two differences are that Seattle opened at home in a title defense so they were pretty amped up and they had Mebane at that point which made their run defense a lot better. If the Pats can go into GB and hold the Packers to 24 or less I think that's equal to Seattle holding them to 16 in Seattle. I know it's all about matchups and that the comparison really means squat in real world football however if our defense is a push with the Hawks I don't think there's any doubt our offense is vastly superior. Seattle and GB currently look like the most viable candidates to come out of the NFC so this game will be really telling.

It doesn't really matter whether we are better or worse compared to the Seahawks and Cardinals, the fact that we are in the conversation is good enough. Mayo makes a good point, this team isn't significantly improved by swapping out our defence with that of the Seahawks.


As you point out, tomorrow is a huge test. I can't wait.

 

[everlong]

It doesn't really matter whether we are better or worse compared to the Seahawks and Cardinals, the fact that we are in the conversation is good enough. Mayo makes a good point, this team isn't significantly improved by swapping out our defence with that of the Seahawks.


As you point out, tomorrow is a huge test. I can't wait.

Agreed. I started to write up a comparison of the different defenses and thought this is fruitless. Bruschi has a great quote this week that championship teams it doesn't matter where the game is they find a way to win. I think that's true and that the Pats will answer the bell on both sides of the ball. Funny but the slow start seemed to solidify that old us vs the world underdog role. I love that a major portion of the national media is picking against them this week.

 

[mayoclinic]

Mayo makes a good point, this team isn't significantly improved by swapping out our defence with that of the Seahawks.

This is the first time since probably 2003-2004 that I wouldn't swap out our defensive personnel for someone else's. A huge step forward, IMO.

 

[patsfaninpa]

Karen Guregian from the Herald chimes in on a Revis extension. She thinks 3/45 does it. That's an absolute no-brainer for Pats to do. I'd guarantee 30 of it too. She mentions Peterson's contract 5/70 with 48m guaranteed. I'd probably do that too. Because almost all of the guaranteed money could be put in first 3 years.

How bout this? 5/70 with 48m guaranteed. 30M signing bonus. Pro-rated over 5 years the cap hit is 6m plus his salary. The other 18m guaranteed would be 6m per year salary over the first 3 years. Making those cap hits a very reasonable 12m per. Last 2 years would be 11m salary. But, not guaranteed. If he's still good, we'll want to keep him. He gets 48m over first 3 years. Can make 22m more if we retain him.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/...pats_edict_retain_darrelle_revis_at_all_costs

 

[manxman2601]

Karen Guregian from the Herald chimes in on a Revis extension. She thinks 3/45 does it. That's an absolute no-brainer for Pats to do. I'd guarantee 30 of it too. She mentions Peterson's contract 5/70 with 48m guaranteed. I'd probably do that too. Because almost all of the guaranteed money could be put in first 3 years.

How bout this? 5/70 with 48m guaranteed. 30M signing bonus. Pro-rated over 5 years the cap hit is 6m plus his salary. The other 18m guaranteed would be 6m per year salary over the first 3 years. Making those cap hits a very reasonable 12m per. Last 2 years would be 11m salary. But, not guaranteed. If he's still good, we'll want to keep him. He gets 48m over first 3 years. Can make 22m more if we retain him.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/...pats_edict_retain_darrelle_revis_at_all_costs

Is there a reason that we can't do a similar deal to what he had in TB, in effect a rolling 1 yr 16m contract with no guaranteed money beyond the league year he's currently playing in? Obviously it would be nice to reduce that 16m cap hit but in this instance, the Patriots are paying for what they get and don't risk getting lumbered with dead money problems later in Revis' career.

 

[patsfaninpa]

I'd like a little lower cap hit on those first 3 years. I feel that's our window to win the Super Bowl. This year and the next three. That 4m could get BB 2-3 useful players.

Projecting long term, if TB retires after this contract. 2017 season. 2018 would be Jimmy G's first year on a new deal. Cap hit is usually reasonable there. If Revis is still good, his cap hit is 17m. With the rising cap and a reasonable contract for a qb. That's affordable.

 

[mayoclinic]

Karen Guregian from the Herald chimes in on a Revis extension. She thinks 3/45 does it. That's an absolute no-brainer for Pats to do. I'd guarantee 30 of it too. She mentions Peterson's contract 5/70 with 48m guaranteed. I'd probably do that too. Because almost all of the guaranteed money could be put in first 3 years.

How bout this? 5/70 with 48m guaranteed. 30M signing bonus. Pro-rated over 5 years the cap hit is 6m plus his salary. The other 18m guaranteed would be 6m per year salary over the first 3 years. Making those cap hits a very reasonable 12m per. Last 2 years would be 11m salary. But, not guaranteed. If he's still good, we'll want to keep him. He gets 48m over first 3 years. Can make 22m more if we retain him.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/...pats_edict_retain_darrelle_revis_at_all_costs

Is there a reason that we can't do a similar deal to what he had in TB, in effect a rolling 1 yr 16m contract with no guaranteed money beyond the league year he's currently playing in? Obviously it would be nice to reduce that 16m cap hit but in this instance, the Patriots are paying for what they get and don't risk getting lumbered with dead money problems later in Revis' career.

Darrelle Revis' current $25M 2015 cap hit includes a $5M prorated signing bonus that will count against the 2015 cap regardless. So in the 5/70 proposal that lowers his cap hit to $12M/year, he would have a $17M cap hit for 2015, for an $8M savings. That might be enough, but I'm guessing the Pats would try and structure things to free up a bit more money in 2015.

The rest of Revis' contract consists of a $12M 2015 roster bonus, $7.5M base salary, and $500K of game day bonuses. I can't imagine why he would accept a series of $16M 1 year non-guaranteed contracts when that would essentially mean taking a $4M pay cut for 2015. With the $5M pro-rated signing bonus hit added in, it would also give him a $21M cap hit for 2015, for only a $4M savings, so I'm not sure that would work for either side.