Run defense is key

[TomPatriot]

The truth of the matter is that they got the ball run down their throats on a short 4 day week after losing their best run stopping tackler and defensive leader.

This.

No prep and the loss of Mayo. They will play much better against the Bears. I think the entire team was happy to escape with a win.

 

[oldrover]

The Pats were giving up big run games before they lost Mayo. I have no idea what the problem is... D-line, LB's, coaching... but there IS a problem.

 

[KA-]

Except this D has been getting ran on ALL season so far

The teams they have beat, just look at their run games, they're not very good.

 

[Gronkowski123]

This run D scares the hell out of me

what really scares me is how the jets ( worst offense in the league ) dominated possession for 40 minutes. took them 3 minutes before the end of the 3rd quarter to PUNT. lol

 

[KA-]

what really scares me is how the jets ( worst offense in the league ) dominated possession for 40 minutes. took them 3 minutes before the end of the 3rd quarter to PUNT. lol

Well our Run offense can take some of that blame. With Ridley gone, someone needs to step up, move the chains, and become consistent. I can see the short week effecting that TBH, I think they will improve but someone is seriously going to need to emerge here because if we can't control the clock @ the crib then we're going to have issues late season into playoffs.

Both are glaring weak points

 

[borg]

[QUOTE="mgteich, post: 3952248, member: 1930"

The PROBLEM is the loss of Mayo. [/QUOTE]
Mayo played vs KC and Miami.
From my comfy sofa, I'm seeing DEs that are getting abused by tackles. I'm seeing gassed DTs and DEs....which speaks to the lack of quality depth. Verses the NYJ, I saw alot of confusion which definitely can be attributed to a Mayo-less defense. But I have to ask why no other LB has been prepared adequately to fill in....very un Belichickian.
As I wrote in another thread, Denver and SD are pass happy/run inept offenses as well, so NE's run deficiencies may not be as significant....but it is scary to see a NE D get dominated. Reminded me of the 2006 team that couldn't stop Manning passing....now its the run.

 

[RayClay]

Of course good run D is always important, but the Jets have two running quarterbacks, a very good pounder in Ivory and a good line...and not much else. We lost our MLB and were forced to play on short notice. Tackling was sloppy.

What I'm saying is, we escaped a strength vs weakness game, Walker and wilfork make our run D at least decent and with our offense rounding into shape, teams will have to pass which should play into our strength.

With Siliga back, I like our heavy D line better than in a while and we'll just have to patch at LB for many reasons we miss mayo, including the run. Most downs, we won't play 3 lbs anyway.

 

[RayClay]

Though I'm a defense guy, Peyton got away with no run defense for a while with Indy, because he put up scores and Brady can easily negate a running game too.

 

[Joey007]

The Pats were giving up big run games before they lost Mayo. I have no idea what the problem is... D-line, LB's, coaching... but there IS a problem.

? Buffalo has one of the most effective rushing attacks in the NFL and we shut it down pretty well. Cincy has a pretty nice running game with Bernard and Hill running the ball and we kept it contained as well.

I think we've shown we can stop the run, it's just about finding consistency.

 

[Joey007]

I personally think that if this run defense can get up to about somewhere around the average mark in the league ranks, that it will be good enough. It doesn't have to be great as long as we're not allowing performances like KC, Miami, and the Jets on Thursday Night to continue happening.

 

[MassPats38]

Except this D has been getting ran on ALL season so far

The teams they have beat, just look at their run games, they're not very good.

What is your standard for "not very good"?

Unless pro football reference is off the mark, the Pats have 4 games in which they gave up less than 80 yards on the ground. The low is 54 against the Vikings. That inept Vikings team put up 241 yards on the Falcons, 185 against the Rams and 111 against the Packers (no AP in those games either).

Look at the yards per game rankings: KC (4), Miami (6), Jets (8), Cincy (12) and Vikings (13). While the bad run games against the Jets, the Phins and the Chiefs help those stats, those teams have put up high numbers in other games as well.

The Pats run D had bad showings in the 1st, the 4th and the 7th games of the season. Less than 80 yards does not qualify as getting run on all season. The best run defenses in the NFL give up about 75 ypg.

 

[mgteich]

I don't think that is was a "pretty decent" idea to have ZERO linebackers as backups other than UDFA's who have never played for the team.
================
We lost Spikes and Fletcher in the offseason. We added Skinner and Fleming to the Practice Squad to be used when needed. And yes, we had other UDFA's during the offseason.

It was clear to almost everyone that were at least one linebacker short when the 53 was announced. Even if one considers that we play 2 1/2 LB's, we still need backups. We needed (and need), at least ONE linebacker capable of starting to backup all three, plus a 5th LB who was primarily a special teams player, but who has experience and could contribute as needed.
============================
Last year our starters were Mayo, Hightower and Spikes. Our backups were Collins and Fletcher. We also had our UDFA's on the Practice Squad. Fletcher was there only in case of two injuries. THAT was a "pretty decent" plan. Even then, it was somewhat questionable that a rookie was our primary backup.
====
This year, Belichick decided that we didn't need TWO backup linebackers who were ready to start. Belichick decided that we didn't need ONE backup linebacker who was ready to start. Belichick thought that ZERO was enough.
=========
So here we are. We have 12 defensive backs on the team. We have 2 STO linebackers. We have only one DE backup who is a 6th rounder and has been inactive (sometimes another source of linebacker help).
=====================
Forgive me if I don't think that this is a "decent plan".

Some of us have thought that having ONLY ten defensive backs is a decent plan. The positions were needed, are needed, and will be needed for the defensive front seven. At very least, one of the STO linebackers could be replaced by a position linebacker.

The idea of improving upon Spikes by deploying a trio of Mayo, Collins, and Hightower seemed like a pretty decent idea before Mayo tore his knee to shreds.

 

[mgteich]

1) Playing the nickel all night will not make a run defense look its best.

2) The lack of a playcaller to replace Mayo in that role is strange at best. (Hightower indicated that a major issue was miscommunication).

3) The lack of backup linebackers is planned.

4) Playing 4 games in 17 days was tough on Wilfork.

5) I am a bit amused at how, all of a sudden, Siliga is a star. Wilfork, Jones and Walker are fine in the middle. Siliga will be a welcome addition when he is healthy and can come back at 100%.

 

[RayClay]

2) The lack of a playcaller to replace Mayo in that role is strange at best. (Hightower indicated that a major issue was miscommunication).

Hightower and Collins have assumed that. Don't see how they could keep someone good enough to start and call the signals on the bench given the salary cap, and investments in the DBs and the line. It would be nice if experienced backups like Fletcher would stick around forever, but why would they when they can get opportunities elsewhere.

We'll see if they pick up a veteran, developmental, special teams type or star linebacker this year. they had a good lookimg starting group "if healthy" but that phrase doesn't mean much in the NFL anymore.

 

[KA-]

What is your standard for "not very good"?

Unless pro football reference is off the mark, the Pats have 4 games in which they gave up less than 80 yards on the ground. The low is 54 against the Vikings. That inept Vikings team put up 241 yards on the Falcons, 185 against the Rams and 111 against the Packers (no AP in those games either).

Look at the yards per game rankings: KC (4), Miami (6), Jets (8), Cincy (12) and Vikings (13). While the bad run games against the Jets, the Phins and the Chiefs help those stats, those teams have put up high numbers in other games as well.

The Pats run D had bad showings in the 1st, the 4th and the 7th games of the season. Less than 80 yards does not qualify as getting run on all season. The best run defenses in the NFL give up about 75 ypg.

Because against above average backs, this defense has been torched.

Vikings - AP deactivation was pretty shocking, how could they possibly make that up with Asiata on the fly like that? Also, I just want to point out Atlanta is one of the worst teams vs the rush this season and the Packers are currently ranked in last place when it comes to rush D.

Raiders - Since when is McFadden even an average back in the NFL? Maybe at the start of his career he looked pretty good when he was healthy, but lately not so much. They are the last ranked rushing offense in the NFL as well.

Bengals - They got behind pretty early and had no choice but to abandon the run, I'm not sure if Bernard is even an every down back. Have you watched the last 2 Bengal seasons? A huge reason why they couldn't win home playoff games was because they had no consistency in their run game, Andy Dalton was forced to throw a lot and threw some baffling picks in both games.

Bills - What's so good about their run game? They are ranked 21st in the league and have only 2 rushing TD's on the season.


All I'm saying is it's not hard to shut down these run games, I think this defense can make it through the regular season and win games with this current run D because Brady will score points, but come playoff time where most teams do have a run game I'm not too sure this D can hold up. I need to see how they play in this upcoming schedule grind, Forte and Lacy will be HUGE test's for them.

 

[MassPats38]

All I'm saying is it's not hard to shut down these run games, I think this defense can make it through the regular season and win games with this current run D because Brady will score points, but come playoff time where most teams do have a run game I'm not too sure this D can hold up. I need to see how they play in this upcoming schedule grind, Forte and Lacy will be HUGE test's for them.

I left the Bills and Raiders out because their overall performance has not been impressive against other teams. I never claimed they were impressive. The balance of the other teams, as the yards per game ranking show, are not bad running teams by the numbers this season. If the Pats stopped them when other teams could not, then it stands to reason the Pats are not entirely inept in their run defense. 3 stinkers all season, and no consecutive stinkers.

The point I was making is if these teams are all scrubs with high per game averages, then who are the running juggernauts you fear represent the real deal in the NFL right now? If you dismiss the good showings by the Pats D but not the bad, then the defense always sucks. The 2004 Pats defense, playing under similar pass defense emphasis rules, would apparently suck big time because they gave up about the same rushing yards by the time they reached 6-1, with two games of 200+ yards.

Mayo has his critics here, but he sniffs out the ball well. He is a loss, regardless of whether some here want to believe he is not all that impressive. The Pats lost him in a short week, and as pointed out had to play a desperate team that also happens to be its biggest rival. The Jets got plenty of yards between the 20s but could not seal the deal with TDs.

I would agree the Bears will be a bigger indicator of where the defense is, if only for those reasons. The Pats are currently 12th in the NFL in defensive PPG. If the defense were really that lousy against the run, I submit teams would simply run on the defense and the PPG ranking would be substantially worse because yards mean squat if they don't end in points. Much like the transitional offensive line, the defense has to adjust to the loss of Mayo again. Hopefully last year's experience and the presence of Wilfork will make that easier and more effective.

 

[mgteich]

Hightower and Collins have assumed that. Don't see how they could keep someone good enough to start and call the signals on the bench given the salary cap, and investments in the DBs and the line. It would be nice if experienced backups like Fletcher would stick around forever, but why would they when they can get opportunities elsewhere.

We'll see if they pick up a veteran, developmental, special teams type or star linebacker this year. they had a good lookimg starting group "if healthy" but that phrase doesn't mean much in the NFL anymore.

In times past, Belichick was able to sign backup veterans in the offseason who were near the end of their careers (or even those a bit past their primes). We've even signed one year rent-a-players.

I understand that we could not keep Fletcher or Spikes since other teams wanted them as starters.

It does not follow that there was NO market for backups capable of starting in case of an injury. On this board, we use the derisive term JAG for such a player. I think of JAG's as average NFL players who will be backups, other than being injury replacements. However, IMHO, we need a few of these players as backups. There are four kinds of backups: good players waiting for their chance to start, young developing players who we hope will be starters in the future, over the hill JAG's and UDFA's who we hope can be reasonable backups.

I understand that cap money must be used wisely and that we were unwilling to pay big bucks for a backup LB (or for a backup DE).

Maybe no one better than the UDFA's was available, even at a couple of million year (very affordable for a key backup). It seems that having UDFA's as the primary backup at LB is a large risk that Belichick was willing to take.

 

[mgteich]

We have a backup QB ready to call signals. We have a backup OL ready to call signals.

IMHO, we should have had a backup LB ready to call signals. Obviously, your signal caller can go down in any game at any time. We need to be ready for this obvious possibility. Skinner could have been that player (or Hightower or Collins). The backup needn't be a star.

I don't know who calls signals for the defensive backfield (I presume McCourty). However, I am reasonably sure that if the signal caller is out, even for a series, someone else is ready to call defensive signals.
======
Hightower and Collins weren't ready to call defensive signals, causing communications problems.

Hightower and Collins have assumed that. Don't see how they could keep someone good enough to start and call the signals on the bench given the salary cap, and investments in the DBs and the line. It would be nice if experienced backups like Fletcher would stick around forever, but why would they when they can get opportunities elsewhere.

We'll see if they pick up a veteran, developmental, special teams type or star linebacker this year. they had a good lookimg starting group "if healthy" but that phrase doesn't mean much in the NFL anymore.

 

[Hael]

I still think a lot of this is coaching. I mean the Oline has mostly gotten it together even though they started about as bad as any unit that i've ever seen. Yet the run defense is still in preseason form, and that has to be a worry even though the talent is there.

Yes, the loss of Siliga is an issue, but as far as I could see the problem (when there was one) was usually in the contain off the edges. Usually reliable Ninkovich/C Jones did a terrible job in run D. Also, V Wilfork was systematically going to the wrong gap it seemed.

That isn't a talent issue. That is either communication, or playcalling.

 

[RayClay]

In times past, Belichick was able to sign backup veterans in the offseason who were near the end of their careers (or even those a bit past their primes). We've even signed one year rent-a-players.

I understand that we could not keep Fletcher or Spikes since other teams wanted them as starters.

It does not follow that there was NO market for backups capable of starting in case of an injury. On this board, we use the derisive term JAG for such a player. I think of JAG's as average NFL players who will be backups, other than being injury replacements. However, IMHO, we need a few of these players as backups. There are four kinds of backups: good players waiting for their chance to start, young developing players who we hope will be starters in the future, over the hill JAG's and UDFA's who we hope can be reasonable backups.

I understand that cap money must be used wisely and that we were unwilling to pay big bucks for a backup LB (or for a backup DE).

Maybe no one better than the UDFA's was available, even at a couple of million year (very affordable for a key backup). It seems that having UDFA's as the primary backup at LB is a large risk that Belichick was willing to take.

I think, because of the preponderance of sub defense due to more passing, he didn't want veteran backups at linebacker. With this injury, that could change. Seems we have a lot of defensive backs (didn't count, I could be wrong). Seems he wants backups that play special teams because of roster restraints. Just my observations, I don't decide roster weighting.