zoostation
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,550
- Reaction score
- 2,222
drunk? Maybe you should try reading my quote again...
lmao!......
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.drunk? Maybe you should try reading my quote again...
No what are YOU talking about.
With all the talk about how bad the Pats defense was last season, all the mediots NEVER mention that they had the 5th best scoring defense in the LEAGUE. That's 5th best in the only real defensive stat that counts.
It sort of like selective accounting, wall street style.
That's kind of like what Kontradiction said. You misread him.
Don't know what your talking about but the 2003 defense were ranked #7 in overall defense, 1st in INT's, 1st in passes defensed, 1st in defensive TD's, 6th in sacks, 7th in 3rd down percentage and 1st in points allowed.
No, anybody that compares the 2009 defense and points allowed with the 2003 defense needs to get their head checked. This is the exact reason why many people like myself can see how overrated of a stat points allowed is. The points allowed for their defense was inflated because of the season opener where the offense scored points for the Bills, Tennessee and Indy. Aside from those games and the super bowl, their defense was dominant and the best in Patriots history.
I seriously hope you are not talking about this season.
Not to mitigate my own point about scoring, what HAS been missing from the Pats defense in recent years are the big plays. Those defenses back in the day, had tons of forced fumbles, recoveries and picks.
Just eyeballing it, but while the Saints had very pedestrian stats by their overall defense, they took the ball away a lot. I'm guessing that the turnover ratio is a great indicator of success in the NFL
the only real defensive stat that counts.
I don't say this very often because I don't like to get personal, but you are an idiot.Sigh
A good thread that goes down hill.
Just got done reviewing previous years stats. I didn't realize we won that week 5 game 4 sacks to 1 or that week 13 game 3 int to 2.
Uhhhh look at a scoreboard sometime. The game is tracked in like points.
Points are what matters because like that's the way a game winner is like determined.
Here is the evaluation process:
Points allowed- Only Bro can't grasp why that's important
Situational football- Here we had a problem last year vs previous years.
Stats compared to other opponents- Look at the Miami game. For all the complaining about that game compare it to the other seven defenses that went to South Florida- especially the Jets.
League wise stats within the year and perevious years- Does rule changes/Polian/Ty Law mean anything?
I think scoring defense is overrated as a stat, particularly by the fans of teams that do well in that stat but not in the others. Getting 3 and out's, pushing teams backwards and establishing better field position for your offense, and getting off the field quickly are all very helpful, particularly by the time the fourth quarter comes around.
It would be reasonable to partially ascribe the Pats' problems closing out teams in the fourth quarter to a defense that has been on the field too long and has allowed the other team's offense to find a rhythm.
If by "scoring defense" you mean Points Allowed, I don't know how you can say it's overrated. It's what's on the scoreboard at the end of the game.
I am optimistic, though, that the influx of new young talent will start to provide us with the right personnel to get back to that suffocating type of defense. There are several key pieces in place (Wilfork, Mayo, Bodden, etc) and a lot of potential in Butler, Chung, Spikes, McCourty, etc. And in the meantime, finishing 5th in points allowed isn't all that bad.
There's nothing wrong with the scheme. Give us the horses to run it and our pass rush is just as effective as a one gapping team.
Not to mitigate my own point about scoring, what HAS been missing from the Pats defense in recent years are the big plays. Those defenses back in the day, had tons of forced fumbles, recoveries and picks.
Just eyeballing it, but while the Saints had very pedestrian stats by their overall defense, they took the ball away a lot. I'm guessing that the turnover ratio is a great indicator of success in the NFL
LOL @ all the posts that suggests we had an elite defense last year and uses 'stats' to defend their argument.
No I would disagree. We had a very flawed defense in many areas, but in the end the sum seemed to be greater than the individual parts, and in the area that counts the most, points allowed, the team ended up doing quite well.
The original question basically asked that would the defense do better if we were more aggressive like the Jets, Bears, Steelers etc. Some think it would. I wonder if the current philosophy, while a lot less satisfying for us fans and the stats, ultimately works better than we think because of how well we do in the area of scoring D.
That being said, I think our philosophy often covers for some lack of talent and/or experience on the D, and the difference of the Pats merely competing for a playoff spot and actually making a legitimate run at a championship will be how improved we are not so much in sack, but in take aways.
Springs was right in a way, no defense whose scheme relies on Shawn Springs to cover a WR is going to be dominant.
(boom boom - ching)
Until this team finds 3 down players the defense will continue to be mediocre. In the old days the opposition didn't know who was rushing the passer or who would drop back in coverage, they could disguise their defense. As long as the team has to constantly use sub packages they will not be an elite defense.