unoriginal
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2006
- Messages
- 3,584
- Reaction score
- 756
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.This is the bull**** I'm sick of. Just as you say that I say the Patriots are a Brady miss to edelman/Moss/Welker away from being 5-0. What if's don't mean ****. It's about what is. What's funny is you pretty much take all the credit from the D away in the Ravens game and pretty much say it's because the Ravens had no nuts. Wow. This board was screaming how good the defense was last week, now they're just lucky.
If a return man doesn't return a ball he shouldn't have, the Patriots lose to the pathetic Bills. If a receiver doesn't drop a very easy and open pass, the Patriots might well have lost to the Ravens. Neither of those were forced errors, and both were with under 3 minutes to go in the game. That's not nitpicking.
Do passing TDs count more than rushing TDs? I hadn't heard of this new rule change.
BionicPatriot said:It's hard not to notice you're strange obsession with Ryan, that sig is huge. But yeah, I'm stalking you alright. I'm not beating my chest. I just don't panic like you are.
You're placing the blame on the defense. The fact is, they played well enough for us to win. I understand at times Brady has been bailed out. But at times he has not been bailed out either. The fact is, he was bailed out. the defense kept the game close enough in the 4th quarter to give Brady the chance to win. He had it and he lost it. It was just one of those games. Yet the defense is the catalyst?
WTF were you watching? Oh wait Orton got 300+ yards on us, therefore we suck.
Did I say he didn't? I said he missed a wide open Moss and Welker. Those misses cost them the game, period.
The defense gave up yards. Again, you keep *****ing how they got carved up which I never said they didn't. I just said they played well enough for us to win.
The defense that "literally" let the Broncos win put the ball in Brady's hand. Was that letting the Broncos win? Or was it giving Brady a shot? If Brady completes the throw, I'm sure we hear different.
Are you capable of reading/ Do you have reading comprehension? Did I EVER say the D played good, or very good? No. I said they played well enough for us to win. They did, period.
This is the bull**** I'm sick of. Just as you say that I say the Patriots are a Brady miss to edelman/Moss/Welker away from being 5-0. What if's don't mean ****. It's about what is. What's funny is you pretty much take all the credit from the D away in the Ravens game and pretty much say it's because the Ravens had no nuts. Wow. This board was screaming how good the defense was last week, now they're just lucky.
Not quite sure where you're going with this, but the point is that the secondary is on pace to give up more yardage and almost the exact same amount of TD's as last year's 31st ranked secondary. They are doing this while on pace to give up the same lower figure of rushing TD's as last year (8). This proves that teams are continuing to pick apart our weakness, by choosing to score through the air--where it is much easier for them, that is our obvious weakness
...
Not really sure what you didn't understand, but maybe this helps. (not being sarcastic, just figured you missed something)
No one's arguing if it's better to give them up through the air or ground, just that the numbers are the same or worse in the secondary and we've played piss poor QB's so far.
They are on pace to give up half the rushing touchdowns that last year tied them for 4th in the league with the Tampa Bay Bucs. They allowed 8 rushing TDs last year, they have allowed 1 this year in 5 games.
They are on pace to give up 4 fewer passing TDs this year than they gave up last year, when they were 2nd to last. They have given up 7 passing TDs in 5 games, and 27 passing TDs last year. The only team that did worse than the Pats, the Cardinals, gave up 9 more passing TDs and went to the Super Bowl, which they lost by 4 points.
This year the Pats are tied for 2nd, 20th and 9th in rushing, passing, and total TDs, the last of which has them tied with the Jets, Vikings and Ravens, and 2 TDs ahead of the Steelers.
The passing attempts per game the Pats see are 34 per game, good for 16th in the league.
...
I see a bunch of stats where the Pats are right in the middle of the pack so far, despite not having any/a healthy Mayo, a new base and with new guys working into Seymour's old spot. I expect those stats to improve as the offense comes together, holds on to the ball longer, and starts picking up leads.
I find your data to be incorrect, and your conclusions misleading even according to that data.
I do not understand how you can believe this defense is trending worse than last year when, relative to the other NFL teams, they are doing better than last year (even in passing yardage they are currently ranked 16th) and are also doing better in absolute terms in all aspects of scoring defense.
The only conclusion I can come to is that people believe passing TDs count for more points than rushing TDs, which is how they can look at the TDs allowed so far and find the tally so woeful.
Our defense has given up a high of 21 points so far. What is there, really, to complain about?
What is there, really, to complain about?
Not too much I don't agree with in your post Kontradiction. What is apparent is if we can make mediocre Quarterbacks looks great, what are Manning and Brees going to do to the defense.
You are acting like I woke up and decided to pick on them for absolutely no reason.
Something I posted about the Baltimore game:
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/279279-cummulative-thoughts-game-bal-ne-page2.html#post1535792
It should be noted that the post of mine that I just quoted was answering one of your own posts, so the part of your post that I quoted here is likely the product of a faulty memory on your part.
Stating that you are picking on them because others are as well is absolutely no reason.
As for your sheer numbers, metrics where the Pats are doing better become "just about the same" as "last year's horrid ... performance." Your analysis is laughable, all exaggerated claims instead of numbers.
The best example is how you have consistently used the fact that the pass defense is allowing more yards this year than last to describe them as being worse than 31st. Yet the stat they were 31st in last year was passing TDs.
They are trending to 23 TDs this year, 4 less, with an equal drop in rushing TDs. This does not take into account that passing offense, and offense in general, tends to decrease towards years' end across the NFL. What we are looking at so far is an across-the-board improvement in scoring defense.
(Earlier you said 25 TDs for a trend, but 7 TDs in 5 games = 22.4 in 16. I thought I was being generous by rounding up to 23. Are you stretching the truth there or just bad at math?)
They ranked 11th last year in passing yardage, which per game was 201 yards. This year they are 13th, with 218 yards per game. A totally separate stat which does not suggest they are doing worse than 31st.
What these stats and the play style suggest is that the Pats run a defense predicated on stopping the run that currently is not suffering from conservative pass coverage.
The cardinal sin is that you didn't even discuss these stats in this or my other post in any kind of depth or detail, you just started throwing out the assertion, then sat back and waited for someone to call you on it. Do you do that often in your other posts on this board?
Only by mixing and matching your stats could you possibly arrive at such gloomy forebodings about this defense.
It's not an obsession with Ryan. The guy is fat. He should be called on it. And yes you are beating your chest. Perhaps you don't know what that means, but I do. You curse like a sailor in half of your post and attempt to call me a Chicken Little for not believing in the greatness of this team. You are beating your chest. Enough said on that, though...
The ROFLcopters are flying around this post. Brady was bailed out, eh? No he wasn't. In the past, when Brady has stunk up the stadium, the defense made key stops up to and INCLUDING overtime. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the defense didn't make one KEY stop in overtime did they? Nope. Instead, they sat back all day and allowed Orton to pick them apart up and down the field. Yes, Brady didn't have the best game either. But was Brady out there on defense letting Eddie Royal constantly play pitch and catch with Orton? Was Brady out there letting Knowshon Moreno run free on a screen or draw play? Nope. Brady did throw 2 TDs in the first half though to put us up. And, when the #1 defense in the league clamped down on him, the defense shat the bed and allowed 10 straight points including a game winning field goal in overtime.
I was watching a terrible defensive performance while, apparently, you were watching a 2000 Baltimore Ravens performance out of this unit. Look at the stats and tell me who is right on this one...
Those misses didn't COST us the game. They were costly in the short run, but the fact of the matter is that the defense came out of halftime with a 17-7 lead. What did they do? Allowed a couple of VERY long drives to the Broncos who proceeded to put up 10 unanswered points a 250+ yards of total offense. When given a second chance to correct some of the mistakes that cost that score differential in overtime, what did they do? The same crap that they had been doing, which was allow Denver to march down the field again and kick the game winner. Yes, Tom Brady didn't have the best game, but his defense didn't bail them out either. Brady didn't give 13 points to the Broncos, but the defense did. Therefore, and let me put this in bold so you can understand it, the defense was the main catalyst for the loss.
Again, 424 yards of total offense, ten straight points in the second half, and a near- 40 minute time of possession disagrees with you. They did not play well enough to win. If they HAD played well enough to win, we would have won. I don't think I can make it any more cut-and-dry than that.
And Brady was going up against the #1 defense in the league that was shutting him out. You'd think our defense would respond accordingly, right? Just like they had in the past, right? Wrong. The fact of the matter is that Brady and our offense were on the sidelines for the vast majority of the second half because the defense couldn't get off the field.
Playing badly and not playing good are the same thing. So basically, you're saying that the defense played badly (which agrees with my point) and still played well enough to win? I believe that is a direct contradiction.
The only thing that I said good about the defense was that the secondary was playing extremely physical and I loved it. That's true. However, that doesn't take away from the point that the defense, as a whole, was bailed out by Leigh Bodden at the end of the first half, and by Mark Clayton in the second half. If the latter doesn't happen, the Pats lose the game despite Brady going through the Ravens defense like a hot knife through butter. And I didn't say the Ravens had no nuts... just Clayton. Wow, you whine and complain about my lack of reading comprehension and then make the same mistake. I know it isn't about "What If's" when the team you're playing against isn't good enough to make you pay for your mistakes. But, when the team IS good enough to make you pay for your mistakes (like the Broncos were this past weekend, I guess), those "What if's" become relevant. The only difference is that you fail to understand that point while I do.
Bionic, you made some decent points too.
I know you aren't responding to me but FWIW, I am not at all saying that the defense did not play well enough for us to win. Not at all. I very much agree with that statement, and it is correct.
I am however, saying that the defense is indeed accountable too. All facets of the game are involved in a loss of course. What I am disagreeing with are those who are JUST calling out the offense, and not the defense too. The defense has improved, I believe that to a degree. What I don't agree with, is that they have made huge strides since last yr, and that the general poor play should be blamed on the offense alone. There were some who were acting that way.
Bottom line is that even if we only scored 17 pts, the defense could have done better in many areas too. Look at Denver, they are only scoring an average of 19.8 pts a game, but are 5-0, mainly because of their strong defense.
I think you made some good pts.
What these stats and the play style suggest is that the Pats run a defense predicated on stopping the run that currently is not suffering from conservative pass coverage.
Only by mixing and matching your stats could you possibly arrive at such gloomy forebodings about this defense.
Actually, many are complaining about the 'conservative' pass coverage. And what you're doing is mixing and matching stats too. The general discussion that you are trying hard to turn into an argument was that teams are attacking our weakness, which is through the air not the ground.
Those numbers coincide with last yr's good rush TD's allowed v. poor passing TD's allowed--they are almost totally identical. That was the whole premise. That and that the passing yards allowed will be even more, although we have faced totally sub-par QB's. You then jumped into the discussion and started spewing out other types of stats such as where they currently lie in rankings etc, to move the discussion in your favor.
You are the one who is mixing and matching stats, because you cannot simply comment on the total TD's allowed through the air, or passing yards allowed v. crappy QB's.
There were a lot much more respected posters who simply stated "that it was a work in progress," etc. All you did was avoid what we were even talking about by way of sarcasm via your "must be more points given for passing TD's" comment. All you really did was totally avoid the whole issue.
Talk about TD passes given up, talk about passing yards given up, explain why those numbers are what they are when we haven't even faced elite QB's. All you really did was claim that "the numbers tend to go down towards the end of the yr" (???) Just in case you forgot, we are facing Manning and Brees in the 2nd half of the yr. Just how will the numbers tend to go down?
Cold or adverse weather, also affects the kicking game.
The issue is you in particular mixing and misrepresenting stats to present the pass defense as worse than it is, and people in general regarding the pass defense as the whole defense, the run defense only being important if the pass defense is up to snuff.
In any discussion of a component part, a picture of the unit and team as a whole is always warranted to keep the analysis trenchant, otherwise this board ends up with 16 hobbyists starting 2 threads a week on their pet negative stat, and though the defense may be giving up fewer than 20 points a game and the team has a winning record, an impartial observer might think this team to be in the midst of multiple losing seasons due to some tragic flaw.