There are several area's that are more important than YPG. First there is scoring, then red zone, then turnover ratio, next is my eyballs, and last is YPG.
Combine all those things and the Patriots defense is impoving, no doubt about it. But I think it's middle of the pack defense from what my eyes tell me. As long as they keep improving and play better as a unit when the injured players come back, then I'll feel even better about that.
Now a couple have mentioned that the Packers would cave them up. I hope that we get the chance to find out if that is right. That will mean that the Patriots will be meetng them in the Super Bowl. Until then, that is a very meaningless statement that cannot be proven.
I agree w/you, it's an improving D
I disagree w/saying w/certainty that it's middle-of-the-pack, but it's a quibble. You are
most likely correct.
We want solid facts, solid rankings, we're better than these guys, not as good as those guys, etc.
What it comes down to is likelihood of making the right play at the right time, likelihood you'll be in a position to win, etc.
Your ranking of categories is pretty good, but think about it. Someone has to pull a Brady on us and go 60 yards in 1 minute then kick a field goal. Let's say you've got a great red zone D and you give up yards in bunches. You are likely to lose.
Similarly if they need a touchdown to beat us, the above profile is perfect. They can't get the TD, you feel secure.
Or if they're up on us and trying to run out the clock, but you have enough TOs/there's enough time where they will HAVE to move the chains -- well then a combination of a "don't bend" defense plus the ability to force negative plays/turnovers becomes huge.
I know this is all stating the obvious, but it all goes to thinking of these "rankings" as sort of useless, except when you're bad at everything or good at everything, see what I mean? Each game is a series of moments where you can excel, do okay, or suck. "Rankings" of teams involve unstated simulations -- how often will X occur, how often will Y occur, how often will Z occur. And then despite all our simulations, an actual game may come down to things that are
not what you're good at.
Then you have great "rankings" at several categories, and, say, don't have pass rush pressure (which we now do have, at least against piss-poor opponents.) You watch the game, and you blame the outcome on lack of a pass rush. Just an example that we saw a lot of here over the years.
Same goes for just about every aspect of the D.
The only definitive statement I can make is that this unit has exceeded some very low expectations, based on the idea that the starters should be better than their backups... it's a pleasant surprise, but it would be even better if the starters had been playing at a really high level.
The team's obviously making really good use of recently installed strengths -- Anderson & Carter come to mind -- but give teams 8 weeks of knowledge of these new toys, and up the level of play, and well, you do the math (no pun intended.)
