Our Defense leading AFC in what stat...?

[HeadHunter]

I just don't get how the stats can rank us 30th in the red zone, yet 2nd in points allowed.

 

[ivanvamp]

only one that truly matters

you don't get points for good 3rd down percentage



now, the other stats may be tools to identify areas that need improvement, but the only measure of a defense that actually matters is points allowed



score more points than the other team.....that's the only equation that matters

It's like saying that the only stat in baseball that truly matters is runs scored.

It sounds good, but it's not really true.

To make this an absolutely absurd example, imagine a team dominating time of possession, taking forever to move the ball down field, limiting your opportunities to possess the ball so much that you only get 4 possessions - 2 in each half. And let's say the other team manages to score 17 points in those long four possessions. You look at the end of the day and say, wow, great, our team only allowed 17 points - they must have done a good job!

But of course, they didn't. They allowed 2 TD and a FG in just four enemy possessions. And your own offense, as good as it may be, only comes up with 14 points (2 td in 4 possessions), and you lose 17-14.

Obviously an extreme illustration, but it captures the point well enough - there's more to a good defense than simply reducing the number of points the other team scores. Bad defense also prevents your own offense from having more opportunities to score, and that may very well matter.

I think the second SB against the Giants was a less extreme example of this. The Pats' offense wasn't great, but the defense "only" allowed 21 points, but the Patriots only got 9 possessions, as the Giants kept the ball for 15 minutes (a full quarter) more than the Patriots, thus dominating the flow of the game. And yes, that mattered in the end.

 

[ivanvamp]

I just don't get how the stats can rank us 30th in the red zone, yet 2nd in points allowed.

The Patriots tend to stop teams before they get into the red zone. They allow a lot of yards between the 20s, but don't let them into the red zone that often, although when they do, teams usually score.

According to this, the Pats are 5th in the NFL in fewest number of opponents red zone scoring chances per game this year, at just 2.3 (14 total in 6 games).

 

[ivanvamp]

Interestingly, the Pats are #1 in the NFL in opponents' yards per point, at 22.9. In other words, the Patriots really make the other team work their way down the field to score.

One big reason the Pats' D has limited the opposition is because the Pats' offense basically never turns the ball over. Only 4 fumbles (and no interceptions) all season long. That plus a good punter (and kickoff guy) means the other team usually starts with bad field position, and they have to go a long way to score points.

 

[mgteich]

I just don't get how the stats can rank us 30th in the red zone, yet 2nd in points allowed.

"bend and don't break" has been a philosophy of Belichick for a long time (unpopular with many). We make teams work very hard for their points.

With regard to the red zone, Belichick keeps teams out of the red zone, allowing lots and lots of yards between the 20's.

 

[Uptown]

Fun fact: We're only giving up 11.5ppg over the last 4 games. Give these guys a break

 

[cmasspatsfan]

The Patriots tend to stop teams before they get into the red zone. They allow a lot of yards between the 20s, but don't let them into the red zone that often, although when they do, teams usually score.

According to this, the Pats are 5th in the NFL in fewest number of opponents red zone scoring chances per game this year, at just 2.3 (14 total in 6 games).

That's what makes me scratch my head with this myopic view of our red zone defense. Would it be better if we let teams into the red zone more but had a higher percentage in stopping teams or are they better off not letting teams get into the red zone? I'm not so sure those saying they have to get better in those two areas have the stats to back that up.

 

[deroc5050]

I don't have a lot of faith in our secondary atm, and we don't generate enough pressure in general on the QB. Speaking in terms of a Super Bowl caliber team. As most of us know though, Belichicks Defense's always improves as the NFL season moves along.

With that said my eyeballs tell me that they are not a dominate defense yet. They don't have to be though because by years end we should have a top 3 offense.

I know most opposing game plans probably want to win the time of possession and slow the game down to keep Brady and Co. off the field. I don't think to many teams want to get into a shoot out with us.

The defense has been good at not giving up the big play.

 

[PScottman]

they are not a dominate <sic> defense yet

And they won't ever be by the common game day thread alarmists desirous of "highlight" defense.

No realization either of the fact that this Patriots team also "sets up" plays for impact moments on both offense and defense. The last two safeties - specific plays for situations where they can have maximum effect putting your best players in position to impact the entire game - even while "giving up third downs".

The big seam play to Gronk, almost once per game, is set up by earlier plays and "saved" for specific moments, defenses, checks, etc.

Patriots defenses have done this since BB was named HC...yet somehow we're shocked every single year there's no emphasis on sacks and pressure D.

 

[deroc5050]

And they won't ever be by the common game day thread alarmists desirous of "highlight" defense.

Well just look back at the Super Bowl winning teams. 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2014 all had really good defence's regardless of what the stats say. The game has changed since 2004, its harder to play good to great defense like the Broncos did last year and win. 2014 was probably their weakest super bowl winning defense but we had a healthy Gronk.

The game day thread is kind of funny, everyone over reacts to the moment and its still early in the season we don't really know how good we are yet.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

The Pats are 2nd in the conference and 5th in the league in least number of red zone opportunities allowed per game at 2.3. Balt leads the league at 1.8 .....(Minn 2.2 , Arizona 2.0 , Seattle 2.2)
NFL Football Stats - NFL Team Opponent Red Zone Scoring Attempts per Game on TeamRankings.com
While the red zone percent could go down it helps if you limit the number of times the opponent gets into the red zone, hence the low number of points allowed....


Last year they were 2.9 or prorated, 10 less opponent opportunities over the course of this season...than last.

 

[SEA_Pat]

I just don't get how the stats can rank us 30th in the red zone, yet 2nd in points allowed.

This is confusing to me also. But thinking about it...

Bad defenses allow big chunks of yards, often giving up first downs before they even reach a third down. Hence if you just look at third down efficiency, you're missing out on the difference between a team that makes you earn every first down the hard way (like the Patriots) and a soft defense that gives up first downs before they even reach third down, and long TDs where the scoring team doesn't even enter the Red Zone (other than running through it on their way to the goalline).

What's needed to make sense of this is statistics on how many 3rd downs the Defenses face, and how many trips to the Red Zone per game each team allows.

An additional aspect is our superb Special Teams. We're almost always pinning teams deep in their end. When you combine that with making teams earn first downs by not giving up what Lombardi calls "Canadian Football League First Downs", in other words a first down on the first or second play of each series, then the Patriots D will be facing a LOT more 3rd downs than the other teams, and even if they're not as efficient, they'll get the other team's Offense off the field before they ever get to the Red Zone.

EDIT: Okay, I guess I should read other guys' posts before I respond, as several have provided the very useful stat on us being #2 in the league in fewest trips to the Red Zone allowed. I guess the other stat we need then is "# of 3rd downs per 1st down gained" as that would demonstrate what I wrote more correctly.

 

[moejr]

IMHO as long as our D keeps the opponents O from scoring more points than our O I am ok with it

 

[PScottman]

we don't really know how good we are yet

Exactly right - the common saying - you usually know what kind of team you are by mid-November? Winter is coming. The Patriots look pretty primed to weather it well, but that may, or may not, be an accurate prediction.

 

[Wheelman]

Plays over 40+ yards: 1st (zero)

Didn't David Johnson run for 40+ on us?

 

[ashley]

I think our defense is going to improve as the year goes on, I would like to see us be able to get off the field a little more on third down though. Again, we should improve in this category as well going forward.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Didn't David Johnson run for 40+ on us?

I pulled the stat from NFL.com but you are correct. I think it must have been passing plays

 

[PatriotsPimp136]

I am hopeful they will make a move in the trading deadline for a defensive player. Doesn't have to be a big time player.

 

[TinhWoodhead]

Allowing the second fewest (or even being in the top 5 or top 10) PPG is good enough when you've got a top offense that's quarterbacked by the GOAT (as long as that offense stays healthy.)

the D needs to get off the field on 3rd down at some point to allow a top offense to score points.

 

[Ring 6]

It's like saying that the only stat in baseball that truly matters is runs scored.

It sounds good, but it's not really true.

To make this an absolutely absurd example, imagine a team dominating time of possession, taking forever to move the ball down field, limiting your opportunities to possess the ball so much that you only get 4 possessions - 2 in each half. And let's say the other team manages to score 17 points in those long four possessions. You look at the end of the day and say, wow, great, our team only allowed 17 points - they must have done a good job!

But of course, they didn't. They allowed 2 TD and a FG in just four enemy possessions. And your own offense, as good as it may be, only comes up with 14 points (2 td in 4 possessions), and you lose 17-14.

Obviously an extreme illustration, but it captures the point well enough - there's more to a good defense than simply reducing the number of points the other team scores. Bad defense also prevents your own offense from having more opportunities to score, and that may very well matter.

I think the second SB against the Giants was a less extreme example of this. The Pats' offense wasn't great, but the defense "only" allowed 21 points, but the Patriots only got 9 possessions, as the Giants kept the ball for 15 minutes (a full quarter) more than the Patriots, thus dominating the flow of the game. And yes, that mattered in the end.

You might as well say every analysis is useless because you could invent something that never happened and never will to refute it.

And yes with regard to the offensive part of baseball runs scored literally is all that matters. When you can show me a game where the team that scored the most runs didn't matter than and only them can this not be a fact.