My Observations Pre Season Game 1

[Ring 6]

In yet another example of why it is so hard to really see the whole play on the TV view, after going back, I see something different in the D than I saw the first time thorugh.
They were definitely lining up in a 43 under alignment. The strongside DT was shaiding the outside of the G and the weakside DT shading the weakside of the C. The DEs were shading outside of the Ts. The SOLB was up on the line playing the TE. MLB was in the middle and the Wil was over the T area.
Watching the techniques (which by the way was made even more difficult by Jacksonville's frequency of trapping, combo blocks and misdirection) it was clear the weakside was playing 1gap technique, with the strongside showing 2gap techniques.
While the inside guys (DTs and MLB) made some plays they got abused on some big runs inside. This is still a work in progress if this is the scheme we are going to play, but Wilfork, Haynesworth and Mayo, vs anyone is a different story than the likes of Love, Richard, Weston, Cohen, Fletcher, et al, against Jvilles JV.

 

[The Scrizz]

Gimme a frigging break. Do you really....
Damn...

In my short time posting on this board, I've come to appreciate the contradicting opinions that AJ presents. I don't always agree with him, including the assessment that the run d was bad (overall). There are really better arguments to be made. And I feel a bit guilty making a comparison between your post and a valid argument, that's how weak it was.

Total rushing yards given up? No idea what the number is, but I guarantee it's a good argument for why the run d was good. No thought required.

I'm sorry, I broke down every friggin running play from drives 2 through 7 to show exactly how important and impressive the run D was in this game and all he can spit at me is 4 plays over and over again and then tries to say that Butler wasn't poor but the run D was.

Obviously passing is more prevalent than running in the NFL but if he can nit-pick on 4 run plays I can nit-pick back on pass plays.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm sorry, I broke down every friggin running play from drives 2 through 7 to show exactly how important and impressive the run D was in this game and all he can spit at me is 4 plays over and over again and then tries to say that Butler wasn't poor but the run D was.

Obviously passing is more prevalent than running in the NFL but if he can nit-pick on 4 run plays I can nit-pick back on pass plays.

No you really can't, because the pass defense was fantastic.
Look, its fine if you think allowing 4 running plays over 10 yards out of 23 qualifies as good run defense. I don't. I'm sure BB isn't signing the praises of that kind of performance today either.
4 plays were part of the 23. That is an extremely high rate of total failures by the front 7.

 

[The Scrizz]

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you think there is an equal relationship between 10 plus run plays and 10 plus pass plays? Really?
What kind of a pass defensive day do you think 11 of 26 with 7 completions of 10 or more is?
You've gone whacko on this argument.
By the way we allowed 95 net passing yards and 98 net rushing yards in a league where passing yards are typically at least double rushing yards.
Avg yards per pass att were 4.6 which is about 30% better than the best defense in the NFL last season (6.3)
The run defense allowed 4.3 per carry which would have ranked tied for 16th thru 18th last year.
Are you really trying to say the run defense was better than the pass defense?

Nope, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying you can't take 4 run plays and use it to say that they played badly any more than I can take 10 pass plays to make the same point.

I have gone whacko, because you drive me whacko. I see in your last post though that now after insisting in 20 other posts that they 2-gapped, that maybe they played some under as well. Good for you.

Instead of trying to correct 10 different posters who are saying otherwise why don't you check and then respond?

I was wrong to compare passing yards and rushing yards because it's a stupid comparison. But my point wasn't to show that they were equal it was to show that 4 plays do not make a poor run D any more than giving up a few long passes means they played poor pass D.

You act like they were getting gashed all game on the run. They weren't. They controlled the line of scrimmage for almost the entire game and had a few breakdowns on draws.

They played excellent run D all game with a few bad runs defenses. That is the truth and if that is poor in your mind, then fine, they played poor run D.

 

[The Scrizz]

No you really can't, because the pass defense was fantastic.
Look, its fine if you think allowing 4 running plays over 10 yards out of 23 qualifies as good run defense. I don't. I'm sure BB isn't signing the praises of that kind of performance today either.
4 plays were part of the 23. That is an extremely high rate of total failures by the front 7.

And the fact that they didn't just play good run D but dominant run D the rest of the game is meaningless? I would expect to see a few breakdowns from non-starters over the course of the 1st pre-season game. I saw them come out rusty, then dominate for the next 3 quarters. Then give up a few draws. Should they have been ready for the draw? Yep. were they? Nope? It doesn't change what I saw for the rest of the game.

And yes BB will find fault with the run D and guess what, he'll find fault with the pass D as well.

I;m sorry they didn't live up to the great Andy's standards. I'm sure they'll get over it. Maybe next week they'll play as good as Butler.

 

[Ring 6]

Nope, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying you can't take 4 run plays and use it to say that they played badly any more than I can take 10 pass plays to make the same point.

You have to judge the overall play. BB says that the 1st 10 yards belong to the front 7 and what happens after 10 is the secondary. That means 4 times in 23 plays there was a total failure by the front 7. It doesnt much matter what the rest of the plays were (and there were some bad on in there) but when better than 1 in 6 go for 10 plus, that is a serious problem.

I have gone whacko, because you drive me whacko. I see in your last post though that now after insisting in 20 other posts that they 2-gapped, that maybe they played some under as well. Good for you.

Instead of trying to correct 10 different posters who are saying otherwise why don't you check and then respond?

This makes no sense. I watched the game, saw what I saw. There were a few, not 20, posters saying they saw something else. I went back and I saw something in between. What are you expecting? That when someone sees something different than I did, I say I didn't see it?

I was wrong to compare passing yards and rushing yards because it's a stupid comparison. But my point wasn't to show that they were equal it was to show that 4 plays do not make a poor run D any more than giving up a few long passes means they played poor pass D.

But if those were 4 30 plus passes then it would. 10 yard passes are common, 10 yard runs are not. You can give up quite a few 10 yard passes while playing good pass D. Getting ripped often for 10 plus runs is a totally different story.

You act like they were getting gashed all game on the run.

How do I 'act like that'? I have stated exactly what I am thinking, I am not 'acting like' anything. Allowing that many long runs is bad run defense.
If they allowed 11 10 plus runs, and got -3 on the other 12, would that be good run D?

They weren't. They controlled the line of scrimmage for almost the entire game and had a few breakdowns on draws.

4 complete breakdowns by the front 7 is not controlling the line of scrimmage. Draws count.

They played excellent run D all game with a few bad runs defenses.

Thats like saying the QB threw the ball real well except for the 4 Ints.

That is the truth and if that is poor in your mind, then fine, they played poor run D.

Yes, overall it was a poor effort.

 

[Ring 6]

And the fact that they didn't just play good run D but dominant run D the rest of the game is meaningless?

It wasn't dominating.

I would expect to see a few breakdowns from non-starters over the course of the 1st pre-season game. I saw them come out rusty, then dominate for the next 3 quarters. Then give up a few draws. Should they have been ready for the draw? Yep. were they? Nope? It doesn't change what I saw for the rest of the game.

You can't pick and choose like that. They were awful on the first drive, we agree on that but you excuse it with 'rusty'. You state that they are not starters. SO? Are you judging them on a curve? I'm not.
Draw plays count. You keep acting like run defense doesn't include draws.

And yes BB will find fault with the run D and guess what, he'll find fault with the pass D as well.

He won't find nearly as much fault in a pass defense that play fantastic as a run defense that had issues.

I;m sorry they didn't live up to the great Andy's standards. I'm sure they'll get over it. Maybe next week they'll play as good as Butler.

See, if you had a point you wouldn't need to make stupid comments like that.
You lose all credibility when you do that.
Look, I have an opinion and you have one. I have defended mine and you have defended yours. You look like a total dlckhead to act as if I am stubborn and think I am the only one who can be right and you are not, when neither of us have budged an inch.

 

[The Scrizz]

This makes no sense. I watched the game, saw what I saw. There were a few, not 20, posters saying they saw something else. I went back and I saw something in between. What are you expecting? That when someone sees something different than I did, I say I didn't see it?

No, I expect you to say, hmmm, I didn't see that, let me check, as opposed to "I'm right they 2 gapped the whole game". But you've been claiming since camp started that Belichick will never change from the 3-4 2-gap and treating it as folly whenever anyone mentions they might.

Thats like saying the QB threw the ball real well except for the 4 Ints.

Now who's making asinine analogies? Are you saying an interception is the same as a 10 yard run? Because that's the semantics game you've been playing with me. You have now gone whacko if you think those are equal. See how that works?

But if those were 4 30 plus passes then it would. 10 yard passes are common, 10 yard runs are not. You can give up quite a few 10 yard passes while playing good pass D. Getting ripped often for 10 plus runs is a totally different story.

So anything less than 30 yards is a successful pass defense? Whatever. You saw what you saw and I saw what I saw. I hope we get to argue about stupid crap like this every week after a 30 point win.

 

[The Scrizz]

See, if you had a point you wouldn't need to make stupid comments like that.
You lose all credibility when you do that.
Look, I have an opinion and you have one. I have defended mine and you have defended yours. You look like a total dlckhead to act as if I am stubborn and think I am the only one who can be right and you are not, when neither of us have budged an inch.

Condescending ******** quote #1 "I just think my standard is higher. Nothing wrong with that."

Condescending ******** quote #2 "Look, its fine if you think allowing 4 running plays over 10 yards out of 23 qualifies as good run defense. I don't. "

You may not realize when you're tone is condescending, but it doesn't help your credibility any either.

 

[The Scrizz]

And for the record, not to be a dlckhead, but you've claimed at least once that the Jags didn't have their starters in. They in fact started the game with their starting LT,C, and RG that I could identify for sure.

 

[The Scrizz]

There is a lot of area between great and poor. He is somewhere in there.
Btw, who ever said it was intended as a complement?

Here's one thing we agree on. Lot of area between great and poor.

 

[BlueThunder]

This is a two tubs o' popcorn discussion :rocker:

 

[Sivy]

I think we are going to have a heck of a running game.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

If they allowed 11 10 plus runs, and got -3 on the other 12, would that be good run D?

Absolutely! Consider this:
Team A gives up exactly 4 yards on every single rush.
Team B gives up 10 yards 50% of the time and -2 yards 50% of the time.

Team A does not get off the field on third down and does not stop drives.
Team B has a 37% chance of a 3 and out.

I'll take Team B.

In the game, 17% of the run plays against the Pats went for 10+ yards, and the other 83% averaged 2 yards. You absolutely consistently stop drives with defense like that. As seen by the times Jacksonville reached the end zone (zero).

Besides the number of 10+ yard runs (4), do you have anything else to base an argument on that the run defense is bad? They only gave up 98 rushing yards the entire game, allowed exactly zero third down conversions on the ground, and consistently stopped drives. The fact that there are a few 10 yard gains mixed in is completely irrelevant.

 

[Synovia]

My assumption is, whatever coverage they put him in, they would prefer he either cover a receiver well enough as to prevent to the QB from throwing to him or if the ball is thrown to his receiver, he should break up or dare I say, intercept the pass.

The way he is playing seems to be allow the catch but minimize the damage. 5 yards per catch is still damage.

No, in a lot of cases, 5 yards per catch is not damage. People seem completely oblivious of context here.

A 5 yard completion on a 2nd and 10 is a POSITIVE event for the defense, as is a 5 yard completion on 3rd and >5.


The Average nfl offense completes ~65% of its passes for 7 yards per attempt. Anything less than that is GOOD.

 

[Synovia]

They only gave up 98 rushing yards the entire game, allowed exactly zero third down conversions on the ground, and consistently stopped drives. The fact that there are a few 10 yard gains mixed in is completely irrelevant.

98 yards rushing isn't really an "only" when you win the game by 35 points.
That being said, its hard to be too critical of the defense when the other team only scored 12 points, and most of them were on short fields.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

98 yards rushing isn't really an "only" when you win the game by 35 points.
That being said, its hard to be too critical of the defense when the other team only scored 12 points, and most of them were on short fields.

Are you implying that 98 yards is a lot because Jacksonville was passing instead of running since they were playing from behind? Because if you are, you're wrong.

So again, they only gave up 98 rushing yards.

 

[Ring 6]

Absolutely! Consider this:
Team A gives up exactly 4 yards on every single rush.
Team B gives up 10 yards 50% of the time and -2 yards 50% of the time.

Team A does not get off the field on third down and does not stop drives.
Team B has a 37% chance of a 3 and out.

I'll take Team B.

You are joking right?

In the game, 17% of the run plays against the Pats went for 10+ yards, and the other 83% averaged 2 yards. You absolutely consistently stop drives with defense like that. As seen by the times Jacksonville reached the end zone (zero).

They got in the end zone zero times primarily because of the pass defense.

Besides the number of 10+ yard runs (4), do you have anything else to base an argument on that the run defense is bad? They only gave up 98 rushing yards the entire game, allowed exactly zero third down conversions on the ground, and consistently stopped drives. The fact that there are a few 10 yard gains mixed in is completely irrelevant.

Let me understand this. We are talking about how well the Patriots played run defense and you are saying how often the front 7 totally failed is irrelevant?
98 rushing yards is not solely a factor of the quality of the run defense. It is a factor of the pass defense getting off the field, the offense dominating and staying on the field, and the number of running plays.
Lets say Jacksonville ran every single play, and the quality of the run defense was exactly the same. The by your rudimentary yardstick allowing 226 yards on 53 rushes would mean, playing at exactly the same level of quality as you said is good, they were pathetic.

 

[Ring 6]

Are you implying that 98 yards is a lot because Jacksonville was passing instead of running since they were playing from behind? Because if you are, you're wrong.

So again, they only gave up 98 rushing yards.

There are way too many factors in assessing how well a team defended the run to reduce it to the simplistic method of counting the total yards.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

You are joking right?

I am certainly not joking. I thought it was pretty easy to see which is better. What specifically there do you disagree with? Would you prefer team A?

They got in the end zone zero times primarily because of the pass defense.

Really? Lets look at how Jacksonville's last plays on each of their drives, in order, and see exactly how the drives ended:

First quarter:
1) Sack, 3 yard run, incomplete, FG.
2) 3 yard run, incomplete, incomplete, FG.
3) run for 6 yard loss, 10 yard pass, sack, punt
4) 7 yard pass, 0 yard run, incomplete, punt.

Second quarter:
1) 7 yard run, 0 yard run, 0 yard run, FG.
2) (1st and 15) 10 yard pass, 0 yard run, incomplete, punt.

Third quarter:
1) incomplete, 2 yard run, incomplete, punt.

4th quarter
1) 1 yard run, incomplete, incomplete, FG.
2) interception
3) 3 yard run, incomplete, incomplete, punt

The run D was awesome. Jacksonville could not sustain drives because they could not run the ball or complete passes. See all the 3rd and longs there that are set up by negative or short run plays? See the lack of sustained drives, and how none of them end in "TD"?

Let me understand this. We are talking about how well the Patriots played run defense and you are saying how often the front 7 totally failed is irrelevant?

Giving up a 15 yard play (or even 4 of them) is not a total failure. Because on the other 19 plays, they gave up squat and consistently got off the field and kept the other team out of the end zone.

98 rushing yards is not solely a factor of the quality of the run defense. It is a factor of the pass defense getting off the field, the offense dominating and staying on the field, and the number of running plays.

Lets say Jacksonville ran every single play, and the quality of the run defense was exactly the same. The by your rudimentary yardstick allowing 226 yards on 53 rushes would mean, playing at exactly the same level of quality as you said is good, they were pathetic.

No **** the total rushing yards isn't the only factor. It's insulting to me that you attempt to portray that as the argument I'm making rather than address the topic. So again, I ask you, besides the number of 10+ yard runs (4), do you have anything else to base an argument on that the run defense is bad? Your avoidance of the question causes me to think that you don't.

So again, the run D was consistently good enough to get off the field, and they only gave up 98 yards. The fact that there were 4 10+ yard run plays mixed in there is completely irrelevant.