Pats Rebuild Intermittent View of Progress

[Zuma]

I think it would be interesting to see a chart that shows the last 20 years of drafted players by the Patriots with round drafted and number of games played for the Patriots and all teams. I pick games played because it's not subjective. Presuming they played a lot of games..then it's not a horrible draft pick. Comparing that to other teams would be helpful too.

 

[sb1]

The problem with the bend don’t break philosophy is when you’ve had the GOAT QB on your team, that kind of defense keeps him off the field and that’s not a good thing. In a way you’re probably giving up points you would have scored if the defense got a stop…

A defense that gets a 3 and out vs a defense that bends not breaks and the other team misses a FG are not equal even if they both allowed 0 points…

 

[Bill Lee]

A defense that gets a 3 and out vs a defense that bends not breaks and the other team misses a FG are not equal even if they both allowed 0 points…

The assets you have to dedicate to defense to get a "3 and out" defense are more than a "bend but not break" defense, so you won't get the same offensive weapons to go along with the "3 and out" defense. Rule changes favor the offense, so getting a "3 and out" defense is harder than ever.

 

[patsfanfromoversea]

So, the players picked in later rounds and start for us multiple years don't count?

I think they do count, so I think your statement is pretty much null and void.

they do count but my issue is the lack of contributors from early rounds 2019 and 2020 bc late rounds are far more gamble imo. You can't really expect anything out of 6 or 7th round.

 

[Bill Lee]

they do count but my issue is the lack of contributors from early rounds 2019 and 2020 bc late rounds are far more gamble imo. You can't really expect anything out of 6 or 7th round.

By saying "more of a gamble" you are conceding that they are all gambles.

I get it, we've gambled a lot more than other teams in early rounds, and these gambles often did not pay off.

Yet I think the team has confidence in their ability to find talent in all rounds and in FA as well.

They are willing to trade away picks to get veterans, and are willing to trade down to get more picks because more picks usually means more success.

They also have had bad draft position over the years.

We won the SB in 2018 so our draft position was the worst in 2019, and we made the playoffs in 2019 so we still were in a bad spot in 2020.

I think when you're picking late in rounds you're more willing to take gambles or to trade down.

Bottom line, I think it's wrong to focus so much on success rate with early round draft picks, for the reasons I give above.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

i tend to agree but at some point you need to finish it and create negative yardage instead of a pressure leading to maybe a throw out of bounce

Sure. When you can. Best to suffocate them or even better cause a turnover every down. People should all do this on very long contracts for league mimimum money, but this is an unlikely outcome. So yeah per others' comments, "bend but don't break" is a more robust compromise between dominance and expense than "Not. One. Yard." PS it's "out of bounds." And welcome to American football. It is an exciting, engaging game that you can follow for life.

Agreed. The fact is, if all posters who ever engaged in a bit of name-calling (whether provoked, due to a bad day at the office, a Patriots loss, a couple of beers, or whatever) were to leave this site, it would be a much, much emptier place.

I'm not sure there'd be anybody left without the forktards, wankers, sheepshaggers, spoons, live action roleplayers, skunkjunkies, and MRI dark spots we so euphemistically call our regulars. The machines wouldn't even hook this place into the matrix, as just being exposed to us decreases the brainpower of anybody adjacent. I could go on but the feckin morons also don't have the attention span for it.

Respectfully.

EXCELLENT - 7 ALL-PROs (two of which must be a WR) + a trade of two JAGs for the Jets #1 pick in the next two years

GREAT - 6 ALL PROs (two of which must be a WR) + one starter who would start for every team in the league

GOOD - 4 ALL PROS (one of which must be a WR) + two starters who would start for every team in the league + one guy taken in the 7th they are able to trade for a #3 in a future draft

OKAY - 2 ALL PROS (one of which must be a WR) + three starters who would start for every team in the league

FAIR - 1 ALL PRO (which must be a WR) + three starters who would start for every team in the league

POOR - Five starters (two of which must be a WR) who would start for every team in the league

PATHETIC - every Patriots draft ever

Am I close?

Spot on but in the spirit of animosity I should add wtf do you know, you grew up watching the Scottish Claymores and telephone pole-throwing contests.

But seriously you know a lot about football and probably more about bagpipes than anybody here. Not that everybody in a kilt plays a bagpipe, how stereotypical. Sorry not to imply you must wear a kilt just because you are a Scottsman, which might or might not mean anything in relation to your consumption of haggis.

Hey seriouslly, what is Scotland's national beer? No punchline I just realized I ddon't know. Okay, fine, punchline, Now that you're a nation again?

The problem with the bend don’t break philosophy is when you’ve had the GOAT QB on your team, that kind of defense keeps him off the field and that’s not a good thing. In a way you’re probably giving up points you would have scored if the defense got a stop…

A defense that gets a 3 and out vs a defense that bends not breaks and the other team misses a FG are not equal even if they both allowed 0 points…

Bill Lee did great on this...

The assets you have to dedicate to defense to get a "3 and out" defense are more than a "bend but not break" defense, so you won't get the same offensive weapons to go along with the "3 and out" defense. Rule changes favor the offense, so getting a "3 and out" defense is harder than ever.

Both these things are true. It really comes down to that old line "Can't have everything. Where would you put it?"

I mean, we have to argue everything, that's why we're fans, but by necessity it always ends up an argument about whether soup is better than playing cards or something.

Okay that is all. Stay in school kids. Don't use drugs.

 

[PScottman]

Spot on but in the spirit of animosity I should add wtf do you know, you grew up watching the Scottish Claymores and telephone pole-throwing contests.

The sum of my knowledge is in the box with Schrödinger's cat. Interestingly, as much of a spaghetti chart my genealogy happens to be, Scottish is one of the more minuscule strands.

But seriously you know a lot about football and probably more about bagpipes than anybody here. Not that everybody in a kilt plays a bagpipe, how stereotypical. Sorry not to imply you must wear a kilt just because you are a Scottsman, which might or might not mean anything in relation to your consumption of haggis.

American football or football football? Does it really matter? Were you really asking? Probably not. Kilts and Haggis. Sounds vaguely like an 80s cop show maybe a spin-off of Cagney and Lacey?

Hey seriouslly, what is Scotland's national beer? No punchline I just realized I ddon't know. Okay, fine, punchline, Now that you're a nation again?

Tennant's scores the highest based on limited research...other contenders: Carling, Caledonia Best, and the oh so Scottish Stella Artois. I'm a nation? What the Hell is my GDP? Why am I not charging you posting tariffs? How the *&^%$ do I declare war????????

 

[Ring 6]

The problem with the bend don’t break philosophy is when you’ve had the GOAT QB on your team, that kind of defense keeps him off the field and that’s not a good thing. In a way you’re probably giving up points you would have scored if the defense got a stop…

A defense that gets a 3 and out vs a defense that bends not breaks and the other team misses a FG are not equal even if they both allowed 0 points…

Defenses don’t get 3 and outs because they decide to.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

The sum of my knowledge is in the box with Schrödinger's cat. Interestingly, as much of a spaghetti chart my genealogy happens to be, Scottish is one of the more minuscule strands.

American football or football football? Does it really matter? Were you really asking? Probably not. Kilts and Haggis. Sounds vaguely like an 80s cop show maybe a spin-off of Cagney and Lacey?

Tennant's scores the highest based on limited research...other contenders: Carling, Caledonia Best, and the oh so Scottish Stella Artois. I'm a nation? What the Hell is my GDP? Why am I not charging you posting tariffs? How the *&^%$ do I declare war????????

random riffing and mild dyslexia, my friend. What a difference an "s" makes, or would make, were it there. And American football is football football, to the 4% of the world that freaking matters. I'm once again being a self-parodying ugly American and whether you're Scottish or not glad to have you around. I think. I dunno were we pissed at each other for anything before?

 

[PScottman]

I dunno were we pissed at each other for anything before?

My tracker for such things as "po'd at people" is perpetually broken. So no, I don't think so.

 

[sb1]

The assets you have to dedicate to defense to get a "3 and out" defense are more than a "bend but not break" defense, so you won't get the same offensive weapons to go along with the "3 and out" defense. Rule changes favor the offense, so getting a "3 and out" defense is harder than ever.

Interesting. Never thought of it from that angle before.

Just feels to me like a bend but don’t break defense creates an opportunity cost when you have someone like the GOAT on the sidelines having to watch the defense give up plays instead of have his offense out there. I would think the opportunity cost really isn’t much different than thr opponent scoring a TD anyway on the defense.

I’d be interested in seeing a study done Moneyball style of what this opportunity cost would be for teams with elite QBs that are bend but don’t break defense and teams with great defenses that get stops to see if it’s worth investing in the elite defense more or vice versa.

 

[Ring 6]

The assets you have to dedicate to defense to get a "3 and out" defense are more than a "bend but not break" defense, so you won't get the same offensive weapons to go along with the "3 and out" defense. Rule changes favor the offense, so getting a "3 and out" defense is harder than ever.

It’s also a dumb statement to begin with.
You don’t have the choice between getting a 3 and out and letting the team drive to FG and having them miss.
“Bend but don’t break” defenses get almost as many 3 and outs as aggressive defenses. Aggressive defenses give up more big plays. BDB defenses play more conservative. They don’t say we aren’t going to stop you, they say we are going to take less risk and allow fewer big plays.

Here are #s to put it in perspective.
Miami was ranked 8 in yards allowed per drive (which has to be the best gauge of BDB vs sell out defense) at 29.7 The Chargers were 25 at 35.2 8th and 25 th represent the edge of the top/bottom 1/4.
The difference is 5.5 yards per drive.


Also the difference on plays is 6.4 and 5.8 per drive and time of possession is 19 seconds.

 

[Ring 6]

Interesting. Never thought of it from that angle before.

Just feels to me like a bend but don’t break defense creates an opportunity cost when you have someone like the GOAT on the sidelines having to watch the defense give up plays instead of have his offense out there. I would think the opportunity cost really isn’t much different than thr opponent scoring a TD anyway on the defense.

I’d be interested in seeing a study done Moneyball style of what this opportunity cost would be for teams with elite QBs that are bend but don’t break defense and teams with great defenses that get stops to see if it’s worth investing in the elite defense more or vice versa.

The style of defense you play has negligible impact on top.
You are presuming a BDB defense hand over the first 40 yards and an aggressive defense gets a 3and out every drive. Neither is close to true.

 

[sb1]

The style of defense you play has negligible impact on top.
You are presuming a BDB defense hand over the first 40 yards and an aggressive defense gets a 3and out every drive. Neither is close to true.

Yea but the BDB label is usually used as a compliment. I don’t think it should be.

 

[Ring 6]

Yea but the BDB label is usually used as a compliment. I don’t think it should be.

If you allow fewer points it should be. The key is the don’t break part, bending is irrelevant.

 

[Stu Pidassle]

Bend but don't break is a misleading term. The Pats defensive mantra is to limit the number of big plays and force a team to be patient and not make drive killing mistakes. If a team is successful getting to the red zone, force FG's by exploiting the advantages of a short field. This strategy helps with clock management when the team has a lead and makes it more difficult to come from behind late in games.

 

[PScottman]

Yea but the BDB label is usually used as a compliment. I don’t think it should be.

How is "...dont break" a negative instead of a positive? Shouldn't the definition revolve around the outcome (meaning less points per contest)?

Have the Patriots defenses over the course of a season devolved into a bend and break defense (usually due to injury, but also due to better competition and other less controllable variables)?

Absolutely, last year being a great example, but that doesn't mean when they WERE successfully implementing the traditional Patriot "make the other team execute successfully 10-12 times in a row to score in a given possession" approach that it's a negative as a defensive philosophy - which is what I think you're arguing.

 

[Bill Lee]

Just feels to me like a bend but don’t break defense creates an opportunity cost when you have someone like the GOAT on the sidelines having to watch the defense give up plays instead of have his offense out there. I would think the opportunity cost really isn’t much different than thr opponent scoring a TD anyway on the defense.

I’d be interested in seeing a study done Moneyball style of what this opportunity cost would be for teams with elite QBs that are bend but don’t break defense and teams with great defenses that get stops to see if it’s worth investing in the elite defense more or vice versa.

A few opinion-based thoughts, nothing scientific...

Keeping the other team's offense on the field gives them more opportunities for them to fumble, throw INTs, etc. Classic Patriots defenses were quite good at getting turnovers and even a bunch of YAC to put the offense in favorable positions. BDB means putting the opponent's offense into shorter/tighter fields with more opportunities for them to make mistakes. BDB means not letting in cheap/easy scores, making the other team earn their points, keeping the pressure on them.

Love the GOAT, but I think it's fair to say most of his years here he did not have a "greatest show on turf (tm)" weapons based offense that rang up points like crazy. We sadly know how the Moss era ended up, enjoyable but in the end not satisfying. Teams that did go with the GSOT approach like the aforementioned Rams, or the Manning-era Colts, did not have as much success overall as we did. I guess we'll see if that style does become the way to get prolonged success, but people here often mention that Rogers, Mahomes, et al have only gotten one SB instead of multiple, so the evidence isn't clear to me at least. Would need to see like three SB appearances in four years with two wins to consider the team to have prolonged success. Don't think the current Rams have that in them, IMO.

The GOAT has had a weapons-oriented offense the last two seasons. First season the team had good health and won the SB. Second year, not as healthy, and in the big game against the Rams Stafford outplayed the GOAT statistically and TB's defense broke instead of bent in the clutch. Rams moved down the field when it mattered. Not sure if they've addressed that very well or not.

I would like to see the Moneyball style analysis you describe, but would think people like Ernie Adams were being paid to look at such things from a high level and decide if we were on the right track or not. I think they've aimed for an overall higher level of talent across the team, and tried to avoid a "stars and scrubs" approach that some other teams have ended up with.

 

[captain stone]

If you allow fewer points it should be. The key is the don’t break part, bending is irrelevant.

Not giving your offense more opportunities is not irrelevant.

 

[Ring 6]

Not giving your offense more opportunities is not irrelevant.

But it doesn’t give your offense fewer opportunities so it is irrelevant.