Post Revis Myths and Spin

[Oswlek]

and DMAC was playing corner, which is not his strong suit. our linebackers this past year was world's better than the linebacking corps in 2011.

Not in that game. By the time the playoffs arrived, Devin was primarily a safety and only moved to corner in dime packages. I also object to corner not being "his strong suit." DMac was a fine corner, he's just better at the zone coverages they played in 2010.

We agree about the LBs, though. I'd add that the DL is better now as well, both of which negate any "we're back to 2011!" talk.

 

[rads2005]

Revis has lost a half step. He's definitely not as fast or quick as his peak days, but as others have mentioned he has incredible technique, is a hard worker, a fierce competitor, and a great sense for the ball. It's a little like Jordan in his later days- he could still beat you 3 ways, just not 10 ways like he could when he was younger.

That being said, it's partially true the Pats dropped out because of his age. If Revis was 25, there's a better chance the Pats match or come closer. Revis at age 32, 33 is a lot riskier than Revis at age 27, 28 because things like injury and further age-related declines in skill/speed come into play. That means a team like the Pats are much more reluctant to risk all that guaranteed money. I'm not saying the Pats sign Revis to that contract even if he's 25, I'm saying there was a better chance they would have.

Ok, listening around town to people and the media, it seems that both sides of the argument are developing these annoying little myths and spins since he has left. I just want to address some of them:

• Oh no! We are going back to 2011 all over again! I have heard this a lot in recent weeks. When did 2011 become a bad year for the Pats? That year, the Pats were in the Super Bowl and even were leading the game with a minute left in it. And even focusing on the defense, that defense wasn't nearly as bad as people give it credit for. The Pats did not give up more than 27 points on defense in any game. Yes, it was the dreaded "bend, but don't break defense" but the key point was it rarely broke. It wasn't a great defense, but it wasn't horrible either. It was good enough to get to Super Bowl with what looks to be a worse offense on paper than the Pats will have this upcoming season.

• Revis has lost a step and is already 30 and maybe the Pats were concerned about that. The Jerry Thornton argument. It is silly because he is still elite and should be elite for the next two to three years. The Pats did not drop out of the bidding because of his age or his decline in production.

• The Pats are going back to letting mediocre and bad QBs look like Peyton Manning. This never happened. Sure occasionally a mediocre or bad QB would have a really good game vs. the Patriots, but overall these QBs got a lot yards and garbage time TDs, but that was because of the "bend, but don't break" philosophy and the Pats protecting sizable leads. Sure if you looked at the stat lines, these QBs had great games. Watching the games you so a lot of yards with little points and a lot of garbage time stat padding.

• Last year the Pats were great on 3rd downs and the Pats will go back to sucking at it. The Pats were not nearly as good on third downs as people want to believe. They allowed opponents to convert 3rd downs at a 40.2% rate or 16th in the league. In 2011 (since everyone wants to bring up that year), the Pats allowed opponents to convert 43.1% which was 28th in the league. Yes, they were worse in 2011, but not worlds worse as people want to make it out to be. The Pats improved on third downs, but didn't cure the problems. Hell in 2009, the Pats allowed opponents to only convert 37.1% of their passes without an elite CB.

• Browner isn't necessary without Revis. I think this is partially true, but not 100% true. Browner would certainly have a role in this defense without Revis, BUT his role would be reduced. If the Pats use a lot more zone (which is going to happen, but we don't know how much), his value to the team drops because he is not a zone coverage CB. But they could use him on man plays and certain zone situations. The question is was his salary and cap hit worth his reduced role? Obviously, the Pats didn't think so.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Not in that game. By the time the playoffs arrived, Devin was primarily a safety and only moved to corner in dime packages. I also object to corner not being "his strong suit." DMac was a fine corner, he's just better at the zone coverages they played in 2010.

We agree about the LBs, though. I'd add that the DL is better now as well, both of which negate any "we're back to 2011!" talk.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201202050nwe.htm

This link has McCourty as the starting CB and inhedibo and Chung as the starting safeties from that super bowl. But I don't remember exactly from the game - I'm not going to re-watch it.

 

[RIpats88]

the defense we are putting out there next year is better than 2011. Front 7 is better, Cornerbacks are better and Safety play is better.

I have to imagine too we will pick up Cornerback help early in the Draft. and we have been successful there recently with rookie corners contributing. Mccourty, ryan, dennard, butler

unless the Colts suddenly revamp their run defense(or gore/Johnson allow them to score 40+ it would take to beat the pats in Foxboro) or peyton manning finds the fountain of youth with a lesser receiving core. I like our chances to be in the AFCCG next year.

 

[neuronet]

Overall great post, but one nit to pick:

In 2011 (since everyone wants to bring up that year), the Pats allowed opponents to convert 43.1% which was 28th in the league. Yes, they were worse in 2011, but not worlds worse as people want to make it out to be.

I think when they say we were the "worst" they may literally be wrong, but let's not split hairs here. Being 28th sucks and is unacceptable on that key statistic.

 

[Rob0729]

Overall great post, but one nit to pick:


I think when they say we were the "worst" they may literally be wrong, but let's not split hairs here. Being 28th sucks and is unacceptable on that key statistic.

28th sucks. My point was it wasn't a hell of a lot worse percentage wise than last year. That is my only point. I am pointing out more that people overrate how the Pats did on third downs last year than underrate how they did on third downs in 2011.

 

[neuronet]

28th sucks. My point was it wasn't a hell of a lot worse percentage wise than last year. That is my only point. I am pointing out more that people overrate how the Pats did on third downs last year than underrate how they did on third downs in 2011.

Fair enough, but going from 28th to 16th is a pretty big change, even if the percentage wasn't numerically that large. It is actually an interesting statistical question what is more meaningful to compare from year-to-year: percentage or numerical ranking.

I suggest it is ranking is more meaningful than %. For instance, if there were rule changes so they were allowing 60% conversions, but because of the rule changes they were actually ranked first (best), then that would be a huge improvement.

Because the rules have trended to favor the offense the last few seasons since 2011, we should probably compare rank, rather than percentage.

 

[Rob0729]

Fair enough, but going from 28th to 16th is a pretty big change, even if the percentage wasn't numerically that large. It is actually an interesting statistical question what is more meaningful to compare from year-to-year: percentage or numerical ranking.

I suggest it is ranking is more meaningful than %. For instance, if there were rule changes so they were allowing 60% conversions, but because of the rule changes they were actually ranked first (best), then that would be a huge improvement.

Because the rules have trended to favor the offense the last few seasons since 2011, we should probably compare rank, rather than percentage.

Jumping that much may or may not be a big change. If the Pats had the same percentage this year as 2011, they would have been 26th. A percentage point lower they would have been in the teens. It is a sliding scale.

 

[patfanken]

What we have here is a perfect example of 2 wrongs NOT making a right.

We have some people who are over estimating the impact of Revis' loss, and we have others who want to diminish Revis now that he's gone, as someone who is past his prime. Both opinions have whispers of the truth, but are BOTH essentially wrong.

Revis might have lost a smidge off his elite quickness and speed. That should be no surprise. But on the other hand he's added to what he can bring to the game with his experience and smarts. Revis not only works hard to sturdy the game, but he knows WHAT to study to keep his game elite. So even if over the next couple of years he continues to loss a bit offf his fastball, the knowledge and experience he brings to the game can easily make up for it. I would guess that over the next 2 years, Revis will continue to be one of the top 4 CB's in the league. Maybe, just maybe we will start to see a visible drop off in his play in year 3, but even then he'll still be a slightly overpaid top 15 CB.

The fact is that top CB's in this league get $14MMyr. Revis got slightly over paid because the team trying to get him HAD to get him. For the next 3 years, they are every likely to get their money's worth. One could argue that they already got their money's worth in PR and weakening a rival. His was a special case.

In a similar way it was easy for the media and some fans to exaggerate Revis' value in the aftermath of the superbowl win. But he WAS important and impactful because he literally changed the way the Pats played defense last season, and his loss will necessitate another change this season. Now some people have posted stats that would question just how much of an impact Revis actually had. We didn't win any more games in the regular season. We were only 3% better in 3rd down situations (which was surprising because it seemed better than that) But the fact is WITH Revis the Pats were 8th in scoring and gave up 313 points. Last season they were 10th in scoring they gave up 336. So it would be fair to say the addition of Revis improved the scoring D only 23 points over the course of a 16 games season. (it should also be noted that the HORRIBLE 2011 D that had far less talent that we have now, only allowed 29 more points than the 2014 D WITH Revis

Given some of those stats you could make a good argument that the Gronk had much more of an impact on the Pats than Revis.

BOTTOM LINE, the secondary will not be as good as last season, but it will be different. This season it will be a safety-centric defense ass opposed to a CB driven one. IMHO it will be a very solid secondary where the sum of the group will be better than the individual parts. Why anyone wouldn't expect the 2015 D isn't going to be in the top of the league in TO's, and scoring hasn't been watching this team much.

 

[Gronkandez]

I like how the OP pointed out the lunacy on both sides of the issue instead of railing on people making claims on just one side of the issue.
I personally think the team may be ok with a patch work secondary if the offense can be dominant. The addition of Chandler helps but they still need an OG or two and an upside RB. That said nothing gives more nightmares than the sight of D. Butler or any of those guys not playing the ball but instead just trying to face guard out of desperation.

 

[PatsDeb]

3rd down conversions allowed

2014- 84 of 209
2011- 87 of 202

There's no way that the same amount of 3rd & longs were converted against the 2014 defense that were converted against the 2011 defense. I would be curious to know how many of these were 3rd & 5 or more. Conversion on 3rd & 1 or 2 is a bummer, but not unexpected. Repeated conversion of 3rd & 5 or more is maddening!

Edit - I also wonder how conversion of only 3 more 3rd downs could drop us from 16th to 28th place. Something doesn't add up with these numbers.

 

[JMC00]

Edit - I also wonder how conversion of only 3 more 3rd downs could drop us from 16th to 28th place. Something doesn't add up with these numbers.

The numbers add up.

2011 there were 19 teams that were under 40% in 3rd down conversions allowed.
2014 there were 15 teams under 40% in 3rd down conversions allowed (Pats were not one of them at 40%)

The difference between 16th an 28th this year was 4%
The difference between 16th and 28th in 2011 was 6%

 

[patsfanincleveland]

Weren't the 2011 Pats 8 yards shy of being the WORST NFL PASS DEFENSE in LEAGUE HISTORY? Hard to take your other points seriously when your bias/homersim comes through so glaringly in your very first paragraph...

This is a classic example of why Ian needs to implement some sort of IQ threshold for the honor of posting. Throw in the "homerism" line and you have full clown car on display.

Actually, the Patriots were 8 yards shy........that honor for "worst" pass defense went to the 2011 Green Bay Packers.

What seems to get never comprehended on these discussions is that the two teams had a combined record of 28-4 and both teams earned the #1 seed in their respective conference.

and no......the Giants didn't prove that idiotic concept that "defense wins championchips". What was proved is that whether it's Welker on a game sealing throw or the Packers their entire game......you have to make the plays when they are there to be made.

What would be great at some point is to start realizing that teams play to win the game vs this nonsensical self identification thing that so many posters here seem to have.

 

[luuked]

There's no way that the same amount of 3rd & longs were converted against the 2014 defense that were converted against the 2011 defense. I would be curious to know how many of these were 3rd & 5 or more. Conversion on 3rd & 1 or 2 is a bummer, but not unexpected. Repeated conversion of 3rd & 5 or more is maddening!

Edit - I also wonder how conversion of only 3 more 3rd downs could drop us from 16th to 28th place. Something doesn't add up with these numbers.

The numbers are totally sound. The mistake that you make is actually paying attention to the rank of the pass defense even if it is ultimately almost meaningless. Stopping a handful more 3rd downs suddenly makes you jump from 28th to the early 20ths in the same year.

The other thing to keep in mind is that even looking at percentages doesn't give you a fair picture to compare teams because everyone has a different schedule. So if you play a lot of good passing teams like we did last year then being at 42% is obviously a better value than playing crap teams and ending up slightly below.

As everything in football you have to take a more holistic view than just single statistics.