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

[Ring 6]

No I am not arguing that at all. I'm saying you can't look at "points" in a vacuum. This is a team sport and you can't look at any kind of stat that way.

Do you think that the 2011 Steelers had a great defense because they were "#1 in yards and points"? If so then there's no point arguing any further and I'll just say I completely disagree with you and leave it at that.

Who ever said look at points in a vaccuum?
I said points allowed are far and away the most important stat in judging a defense.

Pittsburgh was the best defense that year. You are saying they can't be because they lost a game when they were decimated with injuries.
Again, what defense didn't have a poor game, and which defense that let the other team score more played better defense?

 

[Ring 6]

Ok I was thinking of 2010 not 11. The pats were were dead last in the league in third down defense in 2010, 47% which was dead last by a comfortable margin. They were 43% in 2011 which is less lousy but still lousy.

Either way, they weren't a very good defense.

And like I said they played 4 winning teams all year and should have went 0-4. Their defensive shortcomings was a big reason why.

The offense had as much or more to do with those losses than the defense.
Allowing an extra 3rd down conversion per game THEN getting the stop and keeping points of the board is better than allowing more points. Its not even debatable.

Yeah and how did that philosophy work out against the Giants in the Super Bowls? Hey they didn't "give up points" right? I guess it doesn't matter that they weren't good enough to get the Giants off the field and let our all world QB try and likely succeed to score points. I know I trust our QB to get points a lot more than that defense to prevent them. But that's just me.

They defense clearly played well enough to win that game if the offense did its part. Our all world QB didn't score points when he had the chances, if he had we would have won.

Letting the likes of Dan Orlovsky put up a 113 passer rating = terrible. Embarrassing actually. And don't gimme that garbage time stuff, that might have applied to 1 of the JAG QB's that they played that year plus the 0-10 or whatever they were colts were one onside kick recovery away from completing a comeback.

OK, well we probably shouldn't discuss football. You root for stats. I care about winning.

Yeah and #12 had a lot to do with that.

And so did the defense, which was just above average in allowing points, and excellent in takeaways.

Put a Dan Orlovsky on that team and they don't win 4 games.

You could say that about any team.

Ok so you DO think the defense did a wonderful job "stopping" the Ravens on that last drive. Yeah. Then I will just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

There is no point in having a discussion if you purposely misrepresent what I say in order to make your weak argument look stronger.
The proof your argument sucks? You have to exaggerate what I said so you can make an argument.

 

[sb1]

Who ever said look at points in a vaccuum?
I said points allowed are far and away the most important stat in judging a defense.

Pittsburgh was the best defense that year. You are saying they can't be because they lost a game when they were decimated with injuries.
Again, what defense didn't have a poor game, and which defense that let the other team score more played better defense?

No I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying they had fundamental issues on D that made their playoff exit inevitable. That is not "the best defense". Couldn't get turnovers, and couldn't make big stops. Their "points allowed" was a product of their schedule, and their yardage allowed rankings was a product of playing 8 games against bottom 10 passing teams and 1 game against a top 10 passing team.

If it wasn't Tebow, then the Pats would have annihilated that team.

Saying the Steelers had best D that year is looking only at the result and not the big picture. That's the heart of this argument. It's no different than saying the 2001 Pats were the best team in football. No they were not, and even a die hard homer would have a hard time agreeing with that.

 

[Ring 6]

No I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying they had fundamental issues on D that made their playoff exit inevitable. That is not "the best defense". Couldn't get turnovers, and couldn't make big stops. Their "points allowed" was a product of their schedule, and their yardage allowed rankings was a product of playing 8 games against bottom 10 passing teams and 1 game against a top 10 passing team.

If it wasn't Tebow, then the Pats would have annihilated that team.

Saying the Steelers had best D that year is looking only at the result and not the big picture. That's the heart of this argument. It's no different than saying the 2001 Pats were the best team in football. No they were not, and even a die hard homer would have a hard time agreeing with that.

See the diference here is that you wish to judge 'best' by some criteria you create, and I choose to judge 'best' by the rules of the game and the objectives of the team.
Of course the 2001 Patriots were the best team, because the true criteria of best is that 32 teams start the season with the goal of winning the SB. Only one achieves that. We can list 100,000 criteria to judge a team on, and there were some that were better in a lot of those that the 2001 Patriots, but the Patriots were the best at whatever it is that is required to achieve the singular goal.
If you want to decide there are better criteria for best than accomplishments thats up to you, but it is just not correct in my view.

 

[sb1]

The offense had as much or more to do with those losses than the defense.
Allowing an extra 3rd down conversion per game THEN getting the stop and keeping points of the board is better than allowing more points. Its not even debatable.

Correct, but NOT allowing all those third down conversions and getting our all world QB back on the field to give him chances to score is the mark of a defense that is an asset instead of a liability. It's pretty clear which category our D was in.

They defense clearly played well enough to win that game if the offense did its part. Our all world QB didn't score points when he had the chances, if he had we would have won.

Agreed about the offense, couldnt' disagree more about the defense. The defense had fundamental flaws and the end result was gagging on the two drives (3 if you count 2007) where the team needed them to stop the other team the most. Yes they didn't "suck" in those games (unlike the numerous games in 2011 when they allowed the likes of Dan Orlovsky to look like Peyton Manning in his prime) but I am not going to say they were good when it was clear they were not and their flaws would inevitably do them in.

OK, well we probably shouldn't discuss football. You root for stats. I care about winning.

LOL. And you accuse *me* of exaggerating....

And so did the defense, which was just above average in allowing points, and excellent in takeaways.

Where was this "above average in allowing points and excellent in takeaways" defense on the last drive of that AFC CHampionship game and the Super Bowls? Where was this defense against Mark Sanchez and the Jets the year before?

You could say that about any team.

Nope, not every team. Definitely this one and it's lousy defenses in 2009-2011 though.

There is no point in having a discussion if you purposely misrepresent what I say in order to make your weak argument look stronger.
The proof your argument sucks? You have to exaggerate what I said so you can make an argument.

I'm not exaggerating your response, I took your non answer to my question as the affirmitive. Happens quite a bit when one doesn't want to admit that's what they think and they try to dodge the question.

 

[sb1]

See the diference here is that you wish to judge 'best' by some criteria you create, and I choose to judge 'best' by the rules of the game and the objectives of the team.
Of course the 2001 Patriots were the best team, because the true criteria of best is that 32 teams start the season with the goal of winning the SB. Only one achieves that. We can list 100,000 criteria to judge a team on, and there were some that were better in a lot of those that the 2001 Patriots, but the Patriots were the best at whatever it is that is required to achieve the singular goal.
If you want to decide there are better criteria for best than accomplishments thats up to you, but it is just not correct in my view.

No the 2001 Patriots were not the best team in football. Come on now, let's be serious.

The trophy goes to the Super BOwl winner, not the best team. In a one game loser goes home format, the better team can and does lose.... many times.

 

[Ring 6]

No the 2001 Patriots were not the best team in football. Come on now, let's be serious.

The trophy goes to the Super BOwl winner, not the best team.

The goal of every team is winning the SB. They were the best at achieving that goal, and therefore the best.
What team failed to reach their goal that reached a different one that is more important?
This is the problem with fantasy football, everyone loses sight that you play to win and nothing else matters.
The concept of determining who you think is best really only applies before you know who proved it on the field.

 

[Ring 6]

Correct, but NOT allowing all those third down conversions and getting our all world QB back on the field to give him chances to score is the mark of a defense that is an asset instead of a liability. It's pretty clear which category our D was in.

It is one piece of all of the responsibilities of a defense, and when you recognize that the LARGER goal of not allowing conversions to equal point was achieved its not an important one.

Agreed about the offense, couldnt' disagree more about the defense. The defense had fundamental flaws and the end result was gagging on the two drives (3 if you count 2007) where the team needed them to stop the other team the most.

Why would 2007 have anything to do with 2011? Again you are counting a drive that resulted in no points allowed and a SB trip as failure, that is simply wrong.
You are ignoring that the offense failed on its drives as well, which would have made those irrelevant if the offense scored a good amount of points.

Yes they didn't "suck" in those games (unlike the numerous games in 2011 when they allowed the likes of Dan Orlovsky to look like Peyton Manning in his prime) but I am not going to say they were good when it was clear they were not and their flaws would inevitably do them in.

They allowed 19 points. That is good enough to win. The offense scored 17 that is not.

LOL. And you accuse *me* of exaggerating....

Sorry, but that is what you are doing. Dan Orlovsky threw a ton of short passes against a defense playing deep and leaving underneath stuff open because there was no way the Pariots could lose if he did that. That is one reason bad QBs look good vs the Patriots, they are allowed to do things that will not allow them to win the game. How many bad QBs beat us? You are just too interested in rooting for stats and ignoring the big picture.

Where was this "above average in allowing points and excellent in takeaways" defense on the last drive of that AFC CHampionship game and the Super Bowls? Where was this defense against Mark Sanchez and the Jets the year before?

The Ravens did not score, and the Patriots went to the SB.
The standard of failed once equals suck is stupid.
What does 2010 have to do with 2011?

Nope, not every team. Definitely this one and it's lousy defenses in 2009-2011 though.

Like the one that was 11-5 with Matt Cassell?
Orlvosky sucks, any team would suck with him, your point was foolish.

I'm not exaggerating your response, I took your non answer to my question as the affirmitive. Happens quite a bit when one doesn't want to admit that's what they think and they try to dodge the question.

I answered every serious question you posted.
If you didn't exaggerate my point, the please show me the post where I said this:

Ok so you DO think the defense did a wonderful job "stopping" the Ravens on that last drive. .