The Worst Defense in the History of the World...

[captain stone]

I didn't get either reference, but I'm an old fart anyway.

Back to topic: maybe the thread's title should be re-named The Worst Pass-Rush in the History of the World, because except for one beautiful night in PitsDirt, that's what we have. I still have no fu#%ing idea why Shawn Crable was waived less than a week after playing over 40 snaps vs. the Squealers. After 2 years of waiting for his chicken legs to finally get healthy, then he gets sh!tcanned? And just for a fortnight of Putrid Woods, and now the never-was Eric Moore? WTF? Pass-Rusher MUST be a major, major priority during the off-season.

And Dynasty's point is correct: allowing 400 yds of offense, incl. 130 on the ground, then expecting (hoping) to be bailed-out by an INT or two, at the same time expecting (hoping) that your offense doesn't turn the ball over AT ALL, is a fool's errand in the POs.

What we should all be hoping for instead is that the current trend of allowing only 10 points in the last 90 mins. of football continues. This might be the last tough road game of the season, so we should have a better idea of the current state of the defense, and of its prospects going forward, at around 8pm Sunday night.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I didn't get either reference, but I'm an old fart anyway.

Back to topic: maybe the thread's title should be re-named The Worst Pass-Rush in the History of the World, because except for one beautiful night in PitsDirt, that's what we have. I still have no fu#%ing idea why Shawn Crable was waived less than a week after playing over 40 snaps vs. the Squealers. After 2 years of waiting for his chicken legs to finally get healthy, then he gets sh!tcanned? And just for a fortnight of Putrid Woods, and now the never-was Eric Moore? WTF? Pass-Rusher MUST be a major, major priority during the off-season.

And Dynasty's point is correct: allowing 400 yds of offense, incl. 130 on the ground, then expecting (hoping) to be bailed-out by an INT or two, at the same time expecting (hoping) that your offense doesn't turn the ball over AT ALL, is a fool's errand in the POs.

What we should all be hoping for instead is that the current trend of allowing only 10 points in the last 90 mins. of football continues. This might be the last tough road game of the season, so we should have a better idea of the current state of the defense, and of its prospects going forward, at around 8pm Sunday night.

Yup

Look at those unbeatable Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Jets, Colts, Chargers teams. Who could beat them?

How about just admitting you have zero idea of what you speak and only show up here because you are miserable about the cluelessness?

 

[Ring 6]

Wrong. The Saints only had 7 INTs and 11 fumble recoveries all of the regular season last year. The Pats have 17 INTs and 5 fumble recoveries, and there are still 4 games left. So the Saints had a total of 18 turnovers, the Pats already have 23. In the postseason the Saints forced 8 turnovers. Clearly the Pats depend more on the turnover than the Saints did.

NO was 25th in total defense last year, the Pats are 31 right now. I know stats dont mean much but I am just trying to show that the Saints defense was better than the Pats defense is right now, and they did not depend on forcing turnovers as much as the Pats are now.

Umm, the Saints has 26 ints and 13 fumble recoveries. Thats more than double the number you are stating.

 

[Ring 6]

So, come playoff time you feel fine with giving up tons of yards and then hoping the Pats force a turnover to bail them out? Playoff QB's don't throw many INT's, its tough to rely solely on forcing turnovers, defenses need to learn to be successful without them. If you can force them obviously they can help.

I'm not sure if I'm fine with your incorrect version of what the defense has done, but I am fine with a defense that hasn't allowed a tying or go ahead score in the 4th quarter all season, a defense that is statistically superb when in a close game and statistically questionable with a large lead, and a defense that does a great job taking the ball away, regardless of how many yards it adds up to, because everything that isn't called yards adds up to wins.

The defense is getting better and better each week, so I have confidence that they will continue to improve and start relying less and less on the turnovers.

Again a comment suggesting that taking the ball away from the other team is somehow a ****ified way to stop them. I dont get it. Are you saying you would rather have a defense that didnt take the ball away?

This past week vs. the Jets was a good start, with the Pats having one of their least amount of defensive snaps all season. It would be nice to see more 3 and outs from the team and rely less and less on turnovers, because in the playoffs opposing QB's are more likely to make the Pats pay for their poor 3rd down as well as the Patriots D being gassed from being on the field too long.

I dont think good started this week. If you look at the defense in terms of doing what is necessary to win football games, rather than deciding what statistics you think should win football games, you will see many more good games than bad ones. Aside from 2 losses, the defense accomplished what it needed to. If the defense has to play a style that allows yards along the way to not allowing enough points to lose, and along the way to stopping teams consistently when the game is close, I could care less.
Until someone shows me the correlation to yards equalling wins or losses, I will continue to believe that the combination of ALL statistics add up to wins and losses, and as much as someone wants to tell me that the one they would like to focus on is all-telling, that is wrong.
Make plays when the game hangs in the balance. THAT is what really matters, and that is what this team, and defense has done better than any in the NFL. Feel free to refute that.

 

[ausbacker]

Yup

Look at those unbeatable Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Jets, Colts, Chargers teams. Who could beat them?

How about just admitting you have zero idea of what you speak and only show up here because you are miserable about the cluelessness?

Generally seems the way with captain stone. Just gloss over the comment and onto the next one . I have this mental picture of him looking like Nucky Thompson's old man in Boardwalk Empire.

Umm, the Saints has 26 ints and 13 fumble recoveries. Thats more than double the number you are stating.

I couldn't be bothered drawing The Dynasty's attention to the fact that he was citing made up numbers and the Saints continued to force errors or capitalize on them. Hell even in the post-season the Saints had 4 interceptions, 5 forced fumbles (4 recovered) and touchdown.

Sounds like a defense you know?

 

[karran_s]

Even with the worst ranked defense, we're 10-2. This team finds ways to win. But I honestly think a lot of the opponent's scores are late when the game is away so it makes the numbers lie. Wasn't it the 2006 colts that had the worst defense entering the playoffs or something like that? Yeah, they ended up winning the superbowl.

This defense is ranked number 1 in interceptions. I think they are getting way better as the season comes along.

You hit the nail on the head... a lot of the points were scored when the pats were sitting on a lead and yes.. the stats are completely misleading. Those ESPN analysts are clueless...

 

[pherein]

I couldn't be bothered drawing The Dynasty's attention to the fact that he was citing made up numbers and the Saints continued to force errors or capitalize on them. Hell even in the post-season the Saints had 4 interceptions, 5 forced fumbles (4 recovered) and touchdown.

Sounds like a defense you know?

I admit that when talk started here about the Pats having a similar defense to the Saints last year, I was pretty skeptical, but Ive started to warm up to the idea, the more I see them play.
The T.O.'s were big, but how about the coverage play?
How are McCourty,Arrington, and Chung doing coverage wise, compared to our tandem last year of Porter,Greer, and Sharper? Id be interested in knowing that.

 

[The Dynasty]

Umm, the Saints has 26 ints and 13 fumble recoveries. Thats more than double the number you are stating.

I apologize, I dont know what year I was looking at with those numbers

 

[The Dynasty]

I'm not sure if I'm fine with your incorrect version of what the defense has done, but I am fine with a defense that hasn't allowed a tying or go ahead score in the 4th quarter all season, a defense that is statistically superb when in a close game and statistically questionable with a large lead, and a defense that does a great job taking the ball away, regardless of how many yards it adds up to, because everything that isn't called yards adds up to wins.


Again a comment suggesting that taking the ball away from the other team is somehow a ****ified way to stop them. I dont get it. Are you saying you would rather have a defense that didnt take the ball away?



I dont think good started this week. If you look at the defense in terms of doing what is necessary to win football games, rather than deciding what statistics you think should win football games, you will see many more good games than bad ones. Aside from 2 losses, the defense accomplished what it needed to. If the defense has to play a style that allows yards along the way to not allowing enough points to lose, and along the way to stopping teams consistently when the game is close, I could care less.
Until someone shows me the correlation to yards equalling wins or losses, I will continue to believe that the combination of ALL statistics add up to wins and losses, and as much as someone wants to tell me that the one they would like to focus on is all-telling, that is wrong.
Make plays when the game hangs in the balance. THAT is what really matters, and that is what this team, and defense has done better than any in the NFL. Feel free to refute that.

Okay, I am not saying that I would rather have a defense that doesnt create turnovers, what I am saying is that you cannot continue to depend on them to keep creating these turnovers. Sooner or later, like in the playoffs where there are very good QB's it will catch up to them.

The defense has done its job this season, I am not denying that by any stretch of the imagination. The offense has played outstanding the past few weeks and have given them double digit leads to hold which has allowed them to play a style of defense that gives up yards, but also takes tons of time off the clock and enables the Pats to win games. There is nothing wrong with that, but you cannot count on the offense continuing to get double digit leads, and you cannot count of the defense to keep forcing turnovers, like Sanders' pick in the Colts game. It was a big time play, I am not taking anything away from Sanders and the defense, it is just the Pats need to start being able to contain offenses and not give up yards and then count on forcing a turnover. It will catch up to them in the playoffs.

Come playoff time the defense is going to need to tighten up and have to play in tight games then entire way. You cannot keep depending on the offense to get double digit leads week in and week out. I am not saying this is the defenses fault at all, and they really havent given a chance to prove themselves in a game that was tight throughout and have to play an aggressive style the whole game and not be able to sit back and play prevent. But, from the games that the Pats have played they havent really proven that they can stop a team consistently without giving up yards and then forcing a turnover. I guess what I would like to see is more 3 and outs forced by our defense, and less dependency on the turnovers to prepare them for what is to come.

 

[ausbacker]

Okay, I am not saying that I would rather have a defense that doesnt create turnovers, what I am saying is that you cannot continue to depend on them to keep creating these turnovers. Sooner or later, like in the playoffs where there are very good QB's it will catch up to them.

The defense has done its job this season, I am not denying that by any stretch of the imagination. The offense has played outstanding the past few weeks and have given them double digit leads to hold which has allowed them to play a style of defense that gives up yards, but also takes tons of time off the clock and enables the Pats to win games. There is nothing wrong with that, but you cannot count on the offense continuing to get double digit leads, and you cannot count of the defense to keep forcing turnovers, like Sanders' pick in the Colts game. It was a big time play, I am not taking anything away from Sanders and the defense, it is just the Pats need to start being able to contain offenses and not give up yards and then count on forcing a turnover. It will catch up to them in the playoffs.

Come playoff time the defense is going to need to tighten up and have to play in tight games then entire way. You cannot keep depending on the offense to get double digit leads week in and week out. I am not saying this is the defenses fault at all, and they really havent given a chance to prove themselves in a game that was tight throughout and have to play an aggressive style the whole game and not be able to sit back and play prevent. But, from the games that the Pats have played they havent really proven that they can stop a team consistently without giving up yards and then forcing a turnover. I guess what I would like to see is more 3 and outs forced by our defense, and less dependency on the turnovers to prepare them for what is to come.

Steelers (9-3) - 3rd down 5/12 = 41% 1 interception 5 sacks 39-26 loss
Ravens (8-4) - 3rd down 5/16 = 31% 3 sacks 1 forced fumble 23-20 loss
Colts (6-6) - 3rd down 11/14 = 78% 3 interceptions 31-28 loss
Jets (9-3) - 3rd down 3/12 = 25% 3 interceptions 1 sack 1 forced fumble 45-3 loss

Truthfully I'm becoming tiresome of your argument that you can't be dependent on turnovers. The Patriots are making the plays on defense where needed too. Nobody complains when the offense make plays.

If the Patriots played like you wanted to then 3 Superbowls wouldn't be in the cabinet. The whole team is playing well at the moment. The whole predication that it wont last in the post-season is a ridiculous notion. That's where forcing turnovers becomes even more important. This D is beginning to play like the celebrated defenses of the early 2000's. They're not as good but the style is similar.. and the ability to make that play.

I am beginning to have real faith in the D. Recognize it.

 

[The Dynasty]

Steelers (9-3) - 3rd down 5/12 = 41% 1 interception 5 sacks 39-26 loss
Ravens (8-4) - 3rd down 5/16 = 31% 3 sacks 1 forced fumble 23-20 loss
Colts (6-6) - 3rd down 11/14 = 78% 3 interceptions 31-28 loss
Jets (9-3) - 3rd down 3/12 = 25% 3 interceptions 1 sack 1 forced fumble 45-3 loss

Truthfully I'm becoming tiresome of your argument that you can't be dependent on turnovers. The Patriots are making the plays on defense where needed too. Nobody complains when the offense make plays.

If the Patriots played like you wanted to then 3 Superbowls wouldn't be in the cabinet. The whole team is playing well at the moment. The whole predication that it wont last in the post-season is a ridiculous notion. That's where forcing turnovers becomes even more important. This D is beginning to play like the celebrated defenses of the early 2000's. They're not as good but the style is similar.. and the ability to make that play.

I am beginning to have real faith in the D. Recognize it.

Dont even try to say that this defense is like the defenses of the Super Bowl years. The '03 defense was 7th overall, and 1st in PPG. The '04 defense was 9th in total defense and 2nd in PPG. The '10 defense is 31st overall and 18th in PPG. All 3 defenses create turnovers, but the difference between this and the SB defenses they limit yards and points, and dont just depend of the turnovers.

I like this years defense and have loved watching them develop, I am just still not completely convinced that they can win with the way they are playing in the playoffs. I hope that you are right, and I am wrong, but that isnt how I see things working out.

 

[ausbacker]

Dont even try to say that this defense is like the defenses of the Super Bowl years. The '03 defense was 7th overall, and 1st in PPG. The '04 defense was 9th in total defense and 2nd in PPG. The '10 defense is 31st overall and 18th in PPG. All 3 defenses create turnovers, but the difference between this and the SB defenses they limit yards and points, and dont just depend of the turnovers.

I like this years defense and have loved watching them develop, I am just still not completely convinced that they can win with the way they are playing in the playoffs. I hope that you are right, and I am wrong, but that isnt how I see things working out.

Seeing as though you don't bother to read replies properly you'll be treated accordingly in this discussion.

 

[The Dynasty]

Seeing as though you don't bother to read replies properly you'll be treated accordingly in this discussion.

I've had enough with the argument anyway

 

[RayClay]

I don't recall stopping the Rams in the 2001 super bowl, they were driving at the very end to tie the game.

The big play was Mike Vrabel lining up as an extra lineman, unaccounted for, forcing a bad throw right into the arms of Ty Law.

Then we caused a fumble and scored another TD.

Later, Otis had an interception.

Those plays count and i believe the Rams gained quite a few yards in the second half.

 

[deroc5050]

well Tom and the pats win the bowl this year all the Manning apologists will lose one of there major arguments concerning the pats rings.. "Manning had to carry the team and win with bad defences"

Well if the pats win thats going to be more ammo for are arsenal. Not that I really care what the haters think.

The D has been inconsistent this year but overall I think are team is good enough to win the bowl..

 

[The Dynasty]

I don't recall stopping the Rams in the 2001 super bowl, they were driving at the very end to tie the game.

The big play was Mike Vrabel lining up as an extra lineman, unaccounted for, forcing a bad throw right into the arms of Ty Law.

Then we caused a fumble and scored another TD.

Later, Otis had an interception.

Those plays count and i believe the Rams gained quite a few yards in the second half.

One game cannot make an argument, what about the whole body of work?

 

[RayClay]

One game cannot make an argument, what about the whole body of work?

A Super Bowl win doesn't count as a playoff game?

Okeee Dokeee

 

[The Dynasty]

A Super Bowl win doesn't count as a playoff game?

Okeee Dokeee

Takes more than one playoff win to win a Super Bowl...

 

[RayClay]

Takes more than one playoff win to win a Super Bowl...

McNabb went for 357 yards and three touch downs against us in XXXIX . That doesn't count either, I guess.

They were 9/16 on third down, we were 4/12.

You really have to discount a lot of important Patriots games to maintain your inflexible view, but I'm sure you will.

 

[ausbacker]

A Super Bowl win doesn't count as a playoff game?

Okeee Dokeee

He's attempting to argue for the sake of it.