Reminder: We are 4-0 despite an all-time awful offseason and key injuries.

[Oswlek]

This is this team's weakness in my opinion currently. Most LB's can't cover Sproles out of the backfield. but i think especially ours. I personally think if offenses are patient enough and are willing to use their RB's as targets we sometimes struggle especially when the RB responsibility moves over to Hightower.

I think we will have Mayo on Graham as much as possible with Gregory help. Talib will take Colston 1 on 1 and McCourty will help in the middle. But that usually leaves Hightower on a RB. Which is a good matchup in the running game but not so much in the passing game.

Sproles will have 200 total yards if NE keeps the same defensive plan as they've been doing, but something tells me that they'll make an adjustment in two weeks.

 

[Deus Irae]

None of that actually addresses what I said. I acknowledged that a team could win (or go to) a Super Bowl with a bad defense.

I think what I asked was a legit question. Not sure why you view it as a "gotcha" moment.

The "gotcha" moment comment was directed towards Shmessy, and your question was

But how does a bad defense only give up 13 ppg come playoff time?

which is a question that pretty much answers itself. The answer is "Even bad teams/defenses can have good games, and even bad games can have good outcomes."

 

[chicowalker]

The "gotcha" moment comment was directed towards Shmessy, and your question was



which is a question that pretty much answers itself. The answer is "Even bad teams/defenses can have good games, and even bad games can have good outcomes."

I don't think a bad defense can luck its way into 13 ppg in the playoffs.

 

[shmessy]

which is a question that pretty much answers itself. The answer is "Even bad teams/defenses can have good games, and even bad games can have good outcomes."

How much salt do you put on that twisty pretzel?

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't think a bad defense can luck its way into 13 ppg in the playoffs.

They faced an 8-8 Denver team that was 25th in the league in scoring. That's the game the defense held.

They gave up 20 points and 21 points to the Ravens and Giants, respectively, gave up 794 yards in the process, and were a shanked field goal attempt away from blowing the lead in the Ravens game (and a poor job of shielding the defender and putting the ball away on a TD pass from losing it). Let's not pretend that they were kicking ass and taking names.

 

[Deus Irae]

How much salt do you put on that twisty pretzel?

Keep looking for that 'gotcha'. One day you'll find one.

 

[sb1]

I'd rather have a defense that creates a lot of turnovers but allows a lot of yardage, than one that is near the top of the league in yardage but creates no turnovers.

Case in point would be the Steelers. Last year they they led the league in yardage but couldn't force any turnovers. This year they're still well above average in yardage but don't have a single takeaway. Though the team has other problems as well, their defense is overrated because so many people pay so much attention to yardage rankings and so little to turnovers.

Agreed.

Sacks, turnovers and 3rd down D are what it's all about for a defense.

 

[JoeSixPat]

The Patriots defense sucked in 2011 and 2012.

Statistically - but if memory serves the statistics hide the fact that the defense improved over the course of the season - they may have even been a Top 10 defense based on just the final games

That's the fallacy of statistics - they show the entire season when all that really matters is how they are playing (hopefully) when deep in the playoffs

Of course that actually supports your other point that there's some Super Bowl winning teams that have been pretty mediocre... I guess they simply peaked at the right time.

I think we can all agree though that there are 3-1 teams out there that are probably better than the Patriots right now. That's ok - we don't expect this young, inexperienced, injury riddled team to be peaking right now - nor do we really want them to.

 

[chicowalker]

They faced an 8-8 Denver team that was 25th in the league in scoring. That's the game the defense held.

They gave up 20 points and 21 points to the Ravens and Giants, respectively, gave up 794 yards in the process, and were a shanked field goal attempt away from blowing the lead in the Ravens game (and a poor job of shielding the defender and putting the ball away on a TD pass from losing it). Let's not pretend that they were kicking ass and taking names.

I didn't say they were kicking ass, just don't think they sucked.

 

[Oswlek]

Statistically - but if memory serves the statistics hide the fact that the defense improved over the course of the season - they may have even been a Top 10 defense based on just the final games

That's the fallacy of statistics - they show the entire season when all that really matters is how they are playing (hopefully) when deep in the playoffs

Of course that actually supports your other point that there's some Super Bowl winning teams that have been pretty mediocre... I guess they simply peaked at the right time.

I think we can all agree though that there are 3-1 teams out there that are probably better than the Patriots right now. That's ok - we don't expect this young, inexperienced, injury riddled team to be peaking right now - nor do we really want them to.

They allowed 17 and 21 first half points the last two games, so they weren't exactly peaking down the stretch either.

I have no problem with anyone saying that the defense was decent in the playoffs, I've made that case many time myself. What I vehemently disagree with is the contention that the 2011 defense was actually quite good - even 2nd best in the entire NFL! - and the playoffs prove it.

That isn't what happened at all.

 

[ivanvamp]

It needs to be cemented with one or 2 more rings.
If they win the SB this season without Vince, it will be BB and Brady plus 52 different players since they won the first 3. That is legendary.

Agreed. The 2007 loss stings soooo much for so many reasons. Ugh.

After the 2004 season, if you were told that the Patriots would win the AFCE every year after that (except 2008), and would set all kinds of NFL records in the process, would you ever have imagined that they would NOT have won another Super Bowl over the next 9 years?

As hard as it is to believe that they won 3 in a 4 year span, it's just as hard to believe they haven't won one since.

 

[Ring 6]

You can win and do something poorly. I wouldn't say the offense covered itself in glory against the Jets a few weeks ago. :confused2:

We aren't talking about a game, we are talking about a season with a 13-3 record, a 1 seed, 2 playoff wins and a trip to the SB.

Defense A allows three drives, two for 75 yards that lead to field goals and a 60 yard that ends in a turnover

Defense B allows three drives, one for 3 yards, one for 17 and a 40 yarder that results in a field goal.

Which is better?

Did that happen?
What is your point?

 

[Ring 6]

They allowed 17 and 21 first half points the last two games, so they weren't exactly peaking down the stretch either.

I have no problem with anyone saying that the defense was decent in the playoffs, I've made that case many time myself. What I vehemently disagree with is the contention that the 2011 defense was actually quite good - even 2nd best in the entire NFL! - and the playoffs prove it.

That isn't what happened at all.

The discussion was the defense sucked. It did not.

 

[Ring 6]

They faced an 8-8 Denver team that was 25th in the league in scoring. That's the game the defense held.

They gave up 20 points and 21 points to the Ravens and Giants, respectively, gave up 794 yards in the process, and were a shanked field goal attempt away from blowing the lead in the Ravens game (and a poor job of shielding the defender and putting the ball away on a TD pass from losing it). Let's not pretend that they were kicking ass and taking names.

That isnt sucking. The worst you could call it is a little better than average, providing we accept all of your excuses.

 

[Oswlek]

We aren't talking about a game, we are talking about a season with a 13-3 record, a 1 seed, 2 playoff wins and a trip to the SB.

As long as you have strengths that offset those weakness, you can absolutely do that. And I've said numerous times that the defense did well in the playoffs.

The discussion was the defense sucked. It did not.

Yes, it did. They were 31st in yards, 32nd in 3rd down defense, 24th in rushing ypc, 17th in rushing ypg (which is awful considering how much teams passed), 29th in passing ypa, 20th in defensive passer rating, 23rd in defensive comp%, 32nd in first downs allowed...

How in God's name does that no equate to a bad defense? I'm all for defending their playoff performance - an argument I was actually predicting at the time due to returning several injured players - but they were really bad in the regular season. It doesn't make anyone a bad fan for saying so.

 

[Ring 6]

As long as you have strengths that offset those weakness, you can absolutely do that. And I've said numerous times that the defense did well in the playoffs.

No you really can't. If you suck on defense you don't make plays that allow you to beat good teams. You can be mediocre on defense and overcome that but yuo cant suck.

Yes, it did. They were 31st in yards, 32nd in 3rd down defense, 24th in rushing ypc, 17th in rushing ypg (which is awful considering how much teams passed), 29th in passing ypa, 20th in defensive passer rating, 23rd in defensive comp%, 32nd in first downs allowed...

How in God's name does that no equate to a bad defense? I'm all for defending their playoff performance - an argument I was actually predicting at the time due to returning several injured players - but they were really bad in the regular season. It doesn't make anyone a bad fan for saying so.

They were 15th in points allowed, which is above average.
They were 3rd in takeaways.

Your 'analysis' of adding up stats without regard for when and how they occured and how they impacted football games leads to your incorrect conclusion.

 

[SB39]

Then you, evidently, do not own a television or radio or newspaper subscription.

Holy cow!!! We must be your only portal to the outside world!!!!!

Local mediots talking obsessively about the guy does not equate to "drama." There was no drama with Tebow. He came, he did his best, he got cut.

 

[Oswlek]

No you really can't. If you suck on defense you don't make plays that allow you to beat good teams. You can be mediocre on defense and overcome that but yuo cant suck.

They were 15th in points allowed, which is above average.
They were 3rd in takeaways.

Your 'analysis' of adding up stats without regard for when and how they occured and how they impacted football games leads to your incorrect conclusion.

Yes, you can. Green Bay won 15 regular season games despite having an equally poor defense that same year. Indy won 12 games a year for a decade with lousy defenses.

My "analysis" is just fine, TYVM. I do enjoy the unnecessary quotation marks, though!

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, you can. Green Bay won 15 regular season games despite having an equally poor defense that same year. Indy won 12 games a year for a decade with lousy defenses.

Green Bay was 19th in points allowed and 1st in takeaways, so your own example refutes your claim.
Indy did not have a lousy defense, they had an undersized defense that did not worry about not stopping the run. There average ranking in points allowed in their 7 year run of 12+ wins was 11.43, inlcuding a 1,2, 7 and 8. Please explain to me how the #1 and #2 defenses in allowing points were lousy.

My "analysis" is just fine, TYVM. I do enjoy the unnecessary quotation marks, though!

No its not, which is why its in quotes, because you aren't analyzing at all you are looking at metrics that are not a good way to judge the effectiveness of a defense and ignoring the ones that are.
The examples above prove that.
Unless the NFL has changed the rules to where the game is decided by yardage stats your argument fails.

 

[Oswlek]

Green Bay was 19th in points allowed and 1st in takeaways, so your own example refutes your claim.
Indy did not have a lousy defense, they had an undersized defense that did not worry about not stopping the run. There average ranking in points allowed in their 7 year run of 12+ wins was 11.43, inlcuding a 1,2, 7 and 8. Please explain to me how the #1 and #2 defenses in allowing points were lousy.

No its not, which is why its in quotes, because you aren't analyzing at all you are looking at metrics that are not a good way to judge the effectiveness of a defense and ignoring the ones that are.
The examples above prove that.
Unless the NFL has changed the rules to where the game is decided by yardage stats your argument fails.

Andy, your posts don't prove what you think they do. Obviously we aren't going to agree.