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

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

I think once the playoffs begin there will be other teams offenses that will be VERY careful with the ball,not forcing throws and holding on tight to the ball and will be coached well enough to minimize mistakes and turnovers and that is where Brady has to produce big numbers on offense and the defense will have to keep the other team down on the scoreboard.

Question is...if the opposing team plays careful football on offense and plays with little error and is able on defense to keep Brady from scoring boatloads of points,is our defense good enough to keep the team in a winning position and stop the other teams offense from scoring and moving the ball down the field consistently in a crucial time in the game?

I don't think anyone can answer that with authority.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I think once the playoffs begin there will be other teams offenses that will be VERY careful with the ball,not forcing throws and holding on tight to the ball and will be coached well enough to minimize mistakes and turnovers and that is where Brady has to produce big numbers on offense and the defense will have to keep the other team down on the scoreboard.

Question is...if the opposing team plays careful football on offense and plays with little error and is able on defense to keep Brady from scoring boatloads of points,is our defense good enough to keep the team in a winning position and stop the other teams offense from scoring and moving the ball down the field consistently in a crucial time in the game?

I don't think anyone can answer that with authority.

I was digging around a bit on the subject of turnovers and was surprised to find how many there actually were in the playoffs. Maybe it's due to the sudden-death nature of the games, players wearing down, or playing against top-tier defenses, but there were a surprising number of turnovers.

Last year, there were 20 fumbles lost and 19 interceptions in 11 games. Only one team didn't throw a pick (Super Bowl Champion New Orleans), and only 3 teams finished with a plus turnover rating (Saints, Jets, Colts).

In 2008, there were 17 fumbles lost and 28 interceptions in 11 games. Only one team didn't turn the ball over once. That was Indy, who lost their first game despite forcing two turnovers. Only 4 teams finished with a plus turnover rating, the two highest meeting in the Super Bowl (Arizona +8, Pittsburgh +6).

Obviously teams that turned the ball over a bunch of times tended to lose, but I wasn't expecting to find such high turnover totals. The high interception totals were from teams trying to come back and forcing the issue. But there were a lot of lost fumbles as well, perhaps from players wearing down over the long season. And it certainly suggests that teams aren't as careful with the ball as I first thought. Bear in mind these are all play-off teams too, but there are on average 4 turnovers per game over the past two seasons.

 

[Ring 6]

I think once the playoffs begin there will be other teams offenses that will be VERY careful with the ball,not forcing throws and holding on tight to the ball and will be coached well enough to minimize mistakes and turnovers and that is where Brady has to produce big numbers on offense and the defense will have to keep the other team down on the scoreboard.

Question is...if the opposing team plays careful football on offense and plays with little error and is able on defense to keep Brady from scoring boatloads of points,is our defense good enough to keep the team in a winning position and stop the other teams offense from scoring and moving the ball down the field consistently in a crucial time in the game?

I don't think anyone can answer that with authority.

Well you cant say with authority that the ability to take the ball away will disappear.
Also, stopping teams from scoring in a crucial time in the game has been the best part of this defense, and it has been as good as any at doing that.
Why would yards allowed and statistics with no accounting for game situation make you doubt the defenses ability to stop a team at a crucial time in the game, when you can simply look at whether they have stopped teams at crucial times in the game and see they have been outstanding at that?

 

[The Dynasty]

Well you cant say with authority that the ability to take the ball away will disappear.
Also, stopping teams from scoring in a crucial time in the game has been the best part of this defense, and it has been as good as any at doing that.
Why would yards allowed and statistics with no accounting for game situation make you doubt the defenses ability to stop a team at a crucial time in the game, when you can simply look at whether they have stopped teams at crucial times in the game and see they have been outstanding at that?

They have been doing this with turnovers. The probability of forcing turnovers in the playoffs goes down. When you are facing the some of the best QBs in the league, and have such a young defense with no playoff experience it is pretty risky counting on that to win playoff games. I am not saying it cannot happen, its just pretty risky.

 

[ausbacker]

They have been doing this with turnovers. The probability of forcing turnovers in the playoffs goes down. When you are facing the some of the best QBs in the league, and have such a young defense with no playoff experience it is pretty risky counting on that to win playoff games. I am not saying it cannot happen, its just pretty risky.

Given you can't support your argument that the probability of turnovers goes down during the playoffs I suggest you dismiss this line of thought and attempt to offer something else.

Unsubstantiated opinion really is boring and tiresome The Dynasty.

 

[The Dynasty]

Given you can't support your argument that the probability of turnovers goes down during the playoffs I suggest you dismiss this line of thought and attempt to offer something else.

Unsubstantiated opinion really is boring and tiresome The Dynasty.

Has there ever been such a young team in the playoffs that depends on turnovers? There have been teams that depend on the turnover and continue to succeed, but those teams were build around veterans, this 2010 team is built around young guys. As a whole rookies and younger players tend to not play like they did in the regular season, while there will be some exceptions as a whole this is true and when you have the majority of a defense being young its risky to expect forced turnovers.

 

[ausbacker]

Has there ever been such a young team in the playoffs that depends on turnovers? There have been teams that depend on the turnover and continue to succeed, but those teams were build around veterans, this 2010 team is built around young guys. As a whole rookies and younger players tend to not play like they did in the regular season, while there will be some exceptions as a whole this is true and when you have the majority of a defense being young its risky to expect forced turnovers.

Show me the statistical correlation where turnovers decrease dramatically in the post-season compared to the regular season and I might begin to take your point seriously.

You also cannot make the point that rookies do not play the same in the post-season compared to the regular season. You simply cannot make that point.

It doesn't matter what the team does in the post-season as of right now. I'm interested in watching what the side is doing and tracking that. All the signs point to the evolution of a defense which has gone from downright average at the beginning of the season to a side capable of forcing turnovers.

Nothing the Patriots defense has done suggests anything that you're implying.

 

[D-Money]

Nobody in the media believes this defense is any good.I just hope they keep improving in these big games.It would be nice to get a pass rush but they are creating turnovers.

 

[The Dynasty]

Show me the statistical correlation where turnovers decrease dramatically in the post-season compared to the regular season and I might begin to take your point seriously.

You also cannot make the point that rookies do not play the same in the post-season compared to the regular season. You simply cannot make that point.

It doesn't matter what the team does in the post-season as of right now. I'm interested in watching what the side is doing and tracking that. All the signs point to the evolution of a defense which has gone from downright average at the beginning of the season to a side capable of forcing turnovers.

Nothing the Patriots defense has done suggests anything that you're implying.

Why cannot I make the point that rookies dont play the same in the playoffs as the regular season?

2009 Regular season interceptions
Green Bay 30 (1st)
Philadelphia 28 (4th)

Each had 0 in the playoffs, although they both lost in the first round, still shows that the dependency of turnovers can prove costly. There are more too in previous years as well. It does happen, and the chances of it happening with a young defense increase because of the inexperience.

 

[RayClay]

The probability of forcing turnovers in the playoffs goes down.

Link?.......

Why do you ignore all the Patriots successes in the playoffs with turnovers in games we had less yards, 3rd down conversions, first downs?

We have the same coach, running the same system.

Why look for random instances among 32 teams when we have proven success with the same coach?

 

[ausbacker]

Why cannot I make the point that rookies dont play the same in the playoffs as the regular season?

2009 Regular season interceptions
Green Bay 30 (1st)
Philadelphia 28 (4th)

Each had 0 in the playoffs, although they both lost in the first round, still shows that the dependency of turnovers can prove costly. There are more too in previous years as well. It does happen, and the chances of it happening with a young defense increase because of the inexperience.

You're joking right? The entire history of the NFL playoffs and that's what you offer?

Geebus.

 

[Ring 6]

They have been doing this with turnovers. The probability of forcing turnovers in the playoffs goes down. When you are facing the some of the best QBs in the league, and have such a young defense with no playoff experience it is pretty risky counting on that to win playoff games. I am not saying it cannot happen, its just pretty risky.

1) No, they have been stopping teams with and without turnovers in critical times.
2) Why do you say turnovers go down in the playoffs? Is that a fact?
3) Citing experience is grasping at straws. You think inexperience means nothing in the regular season but all of a sudden means everything in the playoffs?
4) All of the teams that arent as good as the 10-2 Patriots who have beaten every legitmate contender already have more risky flaws.

 

[The Dynasty]

You're joking right? The entire history of the NFL playoffs and that's what you offer?

Geebus.

I have better things to do than to go back in the entire history of the NFL playoffs to prove to you that it happens. Judging by your response I think you are aware that it does happen.

 

[Ring 6]

Has there ever been such a young team in the playoffs that depends on turnovers? There have been teams that depend on the turnover and continue to succeed, but those teams were build around veterans, this 2010 team is built around young guys. As a whole rookies and younger players tend to not play like they did in the regular season, while there will be some exceptions as a whole this is true and when you have the majority of a defense being young its risky to expect forced turnovers.

"Depending on turnovers" is not a fact, no matter how many times you say it.
Has there ever been a team that won a SB with a 1st yr QB, 2nd yr HC, dozens of low level FAs, a 1-3 start and a 20-spme ranked defense?
Other than the 2001 Patriots?
Was there ever a last ranked run D SB Winner before the Colts?
You can go on and on and on.
The fact is you make up a statement then ask if anyone ever did it before.
As I showed you before this 'depend on turnover' issue only comes close to being a factor in 2 games.
Where is your evidence that young players dont play well in the postseason?
The 01,03 and 04 Patriots all by themselves prove that foolish

 

[Ring 6]

Why cannot I make the point that rookies dont play the same in the playoffs as the regular season?

Because your only reason to back it up is you say so.

2009 Regular season interceptions
Green Bay 30 (1st)
Philadelphia 28 (4th
Each had 0 in the playoffs, although they both lost in the first round, still shows that the dependency of turnovers can prove costly. )

Thats a joke right?

There are more too in previous years as well. It does happen, and the chances of it happening with a young defense increase because of the inexperience.

Your burden in your argument isnt that it ever happened it is that it is heavily likely to happen, because that is your argument.

 

[RayClay]

When you are facing the some of the best QBs in the league, and have such a young defense with no playoff experience it is pretty risky counting on that to win playoff games. I am not saying it cannot happen, its just pretty risky.

So switching the defense that has worked successfully for Belichick for 15-20 years to a tight aggressive defense intended to stop 3rd down conversions is safe?

The PATS held Peyton to a long pass of 28 yards including YAC. Had we played tight on every third down, what's stopping him from throwing 40-50 yard touchdown passes like he does on every other team?
Playing the defense we know, that's had success, that prevents the big play, that's caused turnovers, is risky?

Playing tight coverage without deep safeties and relying on three green cornerbacks against manning and hoping he never hits on a touchdown pass (or a dozen) is safe?

Simply bizarre logic.

 

[The Dynasty]

1) No, they have been stopping teams with and without turnovers in critical times.
2) Why do you say turnovers go down in the playoffs? Is that a fact?
3) Citing experience is grasping at straws. You think inexperience means nothing in the regular season but all of a sudden means everything in the playoffs?
4) All of the teams that arent as good as the 10-2 Patriots who have beaten every legitmate contender already have more risky flaws.

1. The Pats have not been in many critical situations all season. They have had a lot of convincing wins. In the close games that they have had they stopped teams with turnovers in the Colts and SD game. Only in the Ravens game did they stop the offense without forcing a turnover. In all reality the defense hasnt really been put in many critical situations this year.

2. Yes, its happened before and will happen again.

3. The playoffs are entirely different than the regular season, especially when you have never experienced them and have only been in the league one or two years.

4. Don't understand what you are trying to say

 

[The Dynasty]

So switching the defense that has worked successfully for Belichick for 15-20 years to a tight aggressive defense intended to stop 3rd down conversions is safe?

The PATS held Peyton to a long pass of 28 yards including YAC. Had we played tight on every third down, what's stopping him from throwing 40-50 yard touchdown passes like he does on every other team?
Playing the defense we know, that's had success, that prevents the big play, that's caused turnovers, is risky?

Playing tight coverage without deep safeties and relying on three green cornerbacks against manning and hoping he never hits on a touchdown pass (or a dozen) is safe?

Simply bizarre logic.

Your whole argument is based upon one game where without Sanders' INT the Pats were looking at blowing a 17 point 4th quarter lead.

 

[Ring 6]

1. The Pats have not been in many critical situations all season. They have had a lot of convincing wins. In the close games that they have had they stopped teams with turnovers in the Colts and SD game. Only in the Ravens game did they stop the offense without forcing a turnover. In all reality the defense hasnt really been put in many critical situations this year.

Again flawed logic. If the defense isnt put in critical situaitons then it played well enough to not be in them.
Or are you now saying the statistics you are so concerned about were built against a defense coasting with a lead?

2. Yes, its happened before and will happen again.

Again "I say so" isnt good proof.

3. The playoffs are entirely different than the regular season, especially when you have never experienced them and have only been in the league one or two years.

Again "I say so" isnt good proof. I could counter this with Belichick teams are better prepared for the playoffs than any other so, the play will improve compared to opponents in the post-season. You also ignore the fact that Patriots young players have done very well in the post season.

4. Don't understand what you are trying to say

You keep harping on the 'flaw' that the Patriots have of forcing a lot of turnovers will make it risky for them to win in the playoffs. I am saying the flaws the other teams that arent as good as the Patriots have are even more risky to win in the playoffs.
If you are saying the Patriots will shrink in the post-season, what team do you think has all the qualities to rise up that the Patriots are lacking?

 

[Ring 6]

Your whole argument is based upon one game where without Sanders' INT the Pats were looking at blowing a 17 point 4th quarter lead.

You talk like that is worse than losing.
If that pass had been a TD the Patriots would still currently be the #1 seed.
But guess what. That was a STOP. I guess if they had stopped the 4th down play a little earlier the win would mean more to you? I still dont get this idea that turnovers are a wimpy way to stop a team.
Do you think if it was a playoff game Sanders chokes or Manning doesnt?