This defense compared to years past

[supafly]

No. The point was that you said:



and I said


and for some reason you decided to disagree with me by talking about the SB teams.

Cherry picking stats over the past 3 games does not mean that our front seven has been "dominant" this year on the same plane as the SB winning years, which is what my original quote was speaking of.

Like I said, if you don't wish to compare Chris Jones and Easley, then pick some other players on this year's DL. They don't compare to the SB winning years, which is what the context of my message that you quoted was speaking of.

 

[supafly]

Absolutely, but they weren't on the level that 2003-2004 were, even if many of the stat lines were similar. I'd contend they weren't on the level that this group is playing at, either.

But I'm firmly entrenched in the "skewed stats" crowd.

Skewed stats for turnover, sacks, etc--yes.

The fact that they had the 12th ranked pass attempts, and the 5th ranked pass defense shows that their passing defense stats weren't skewed, as does the 15/19 games with under 237 yds (mostly in garbage time, when there were even more opportunities than usual).

 

[Ring 6]

Cherry picking stats over the past 3 games does not mean that our front seven has been "dominant" this year on the same plane as the SB winning years, which is what my original quote was speaking of.

Are you telling me they have not been dominant for the last 3 games?
THAT is what i said, which you seem to not be able to accept.

Like I said, if you don't wish to compare Chris Jones and Easley, then pick some other players on this year's DL. They don't compare to the SB winning years, which is what the context of my message that you quoted was speaking of.

And as I said its stupid to compare teams by how you remember the players you list. I will compare a lot of them to Booby Hamilton, Anthony Pleasant, Brandon Mitchell, and Keith Traylor, but that gets us nowhere, it comes down to what they do on the field.
I'm not sure why you insist on being so stubborn that you take a comment that they have been dominant for the last 3 games and have to move the goalposts to a different hemisphere and argue.

Have they been dominant the last 3 games? Yes or no. That is what I have been discussing.

By the way, how is using the stats fron the last 3 games to discuss the last 3 games cherry picking????????

 

[supafly]

Are you telling me they have not been dominant for the last 3 games?
THAT is what i said, which you seem to not be able to accept.


And as I said its stupid to compare teams by how you remember the players you list. I will compare a lot of them to Booby Hamilton, Anthony Pleasant, Brandon Mitchell, and Keith Traylor, but that gets us nowhere, it comes down to what they do on the field.
I'm not sure why you insist on being so stubborn that you take a comment that they have been dominant for the last 3 games and have to move the goalposts to a different hemisphere and argue.

Have they been dominant the last 3 games? Yes or no. That is what I have been discussing.

By the way, how is using the stats fron the last 3 games to discuss the last 3 games cherry picking????????

Let's try this again...

We're in a thread discussing past defenses, and someone compares our current 2014 front seven to being as good enough as the past SB winning defenses.

I make a comment PRIOR to yesterday's game that I do not believe that our current front seven has been "dominant" and you're still going with this?

I get it that you don't agree--let's move on.

What cracks me up is that I've met you halfway from my initial comment stating that "I agree with how good our current front seven has been playing, but I don't think they're on the same plane as the SB winning ones." ----and yet, here we still are?

What, exactly would you like me to say?

 

[Ring 6]

Let's try this again...

We're in a thread discussing past defenses, and someone compares our current 2014 front seven to being as good enough as the past SB winning defenses.

I make a comment PRIOR to yesterday's game that I do not believe that our current front seven has been "dominant" and you're still going with this?

I get it that you don't agree--let's move on.

What cracks me up is that I've met you halfway from my initial comment stating that "I agree with how good our current front seven has been playing, but I don't think they're on the same plane as the SB winning ones." ----and yet, here we still are?

Yes. I made a comment that they have been dominant for the last 3 games in response to you saying they are not dominant.
For some reason you want to discuss everything except that.
I have no idea why.
I'll just leave it at that, and now you can go on and make all kinds of indignant comments about why me making a statement about the last 3 games is some sort of egregious offense that caused you to argue about things I never said or wasn't even discussing. Hey, if it makes you feel better, go for it. I'm done. My point was made before you decided to start this debacle, and it remains.

 

[supafly]

Yes. I made a comment that they have been dominant for the last 3 games in response to you saying they are not dominant.
For some reason you want to discuss everything except that.
I have no idea why.
I'll just leave it at that, and now you can go on and make all kinds of indignant comments about why me making a statement about the last 3 games is some sort of egregious offense that caused you to argue about things I never said or wasn't even discussing. Hey, if it makes you feel better, go for it. I'm done. My point was made before you decided to start this debacle, and it remains.

The only points you've made are that you're willing to take someone's comment out of context, and that you like to argue, which every single person on here already knows.

My stating yesterday before the DET game even started that I don't agree that the 2014 front seven is "dominant" is fine...aside from the fact that you do not agree with it.

The fact remains that while they've played well, perhaps even very well, they haven't played "dominant" this year on the same plane as the SB winning ones.

 

[Ring 6]

The only points you've made are that you're willing to take someone's comment out of context, and that you like to argue, which every single person on here already knows.

My stating yesterday before the DET game even started that I don't agree that the 2014 front seven is "dominant" is fine...aside from the fact that you do not agree with it.

The fact remains that while they've played well, perhaps even very well, they haven't played "dominant" this year on the same plane as the SB winning ones.

LOL. I like to argue.
Dude I said the front 7 has been dominant the last 3 games. Thats all I've said.
You are the one arguing.
The only really appropraite and accurate response would be to check 'agree' and move on. Somehow you decided that you wanted to start an argument about something else. As I said, have fun with that.

 

[supafly]

LOL. I like to argue.
Dude I said the front 7 has been dominant the last 3 games. Thats all I've said.
You are the one arguing.
The only really appropraite and accurate response would be to check 'agree' and move on. Somehow you decided that you wanted to start an argument about something else. As I said, have fun with that.

I will give you said "check" to agree, and then we can move on

 

[Ring 6]

I will give you said "check" to agree, and then we can move on

See how much trouble you could have avoided

 

[supafly]

See how much trouble you could have avoided

In all seriousness, I'm guessing that part of it is that we have different opinions of the word "dominant," although I don't think I'd have made the same comment had the game vs DET been played already, because I do think that they've been dominant...lately.

Another part is that I'm still working on my homer skills, which obviously need some polishing. The fact remains that the run defense and front seven have been very good over the past month or so, and we'd all like to see that continue. Should that happen, I will kindly admit my error. In the meantime, I think I hold those SB winning fronts in such high-regard that it may skew my thinking.

 

[Ring 6]

In all seriousness, I'm guessing that part of it is that we have different opinions of the word "dominant," although I don't think I'd have made the same comment had the game vs DET been played already, because I do think that they've been dominant...lately.

Another part is that I'm still working on my homer skills, which obviously need some polishing. The fact remains that the run defense and front seven have been very good over the past month or so, and we'd all like to see that continue. Should that happen, I will kindly admit my error. In the meantime, I think I hold those SB winning fronts in such high-regard that it may skew my thinking.

Still, I was discussing the last 3 games.
Comparing it to anyone else, wondering the definition of dominant, or speaking about anything outside of those 3 games is simply a different discussion.
In other words you can't argue that the weather isn't nice today by saying it wasn't last week, or that you remember a nicer day in the past.

 

[Oswlek]

Skewed stats for turnover, sacks, etc--yes.

The fact that they had the 12th ranked pass attempts, and the 5th ranked pass defense shows that their passing defense stats weren't skewed, as does the 15/19 games with under 237 yds (mostly in garbage time, when there were even more opportunities than usual).

I personally think even those stats are skewed. But I've posted the reasons why before and you didn't find them compelling before so I doubt you do now.

 

[Coach42]

"No worse than average" just doesn't sound to me like the dominating front sevens of the SB winning years.

That said, I am very happy with our current defense and think they can make quite a run.

As noted multiple times, we don't "need" to meet any standard that has been previously set, and the secondary of 2014 is probably the best ever (IMO).

If jones is able to return at 100% or somewhere near it the front seven could take a huge step forward.

 

[Froob]

People love to throw out the "skewed stats" fact, but when you look and see that 15/19 games were held to 237 passing yds or less that year (even less than yesterday's dominant performance) with a ton of garbage time, it really puts things in perspective.

They were pretty good.

True that. Also as much as people bag on AD, he was actually a really good player that year. I liked him up until he got hurt in 08. I'm a firm believer in the offense lost us the past two super bowls. You aren't winning many sbs scoring 14&17 pts.

 

[KA-]

All I know is WRs are definitely losing sleep Saturday night knowing they have to play vs big bad Browner and shut down Revis

 

[supafly]

I personally think even those stats are skewed. But I've posted the reasons why before and you didn't find them compelling before so I doubt you do now.

I'd be interested in hearing them again, Oswlek, assuming they relate to the passing defense in a direct manner--if you have time at some point in the coming days.

I honestly don't remember, but I'm sure it was a fair argument. Like I said before, I understand the debate about the 2007 defense, but I think that they were better than many give credit for. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

The thing about the run defense in the last 3 games is that the front 7 have only had to dominate for short stretches of the game. The offense has been putting up points in bunches, and thus, the opposition couldn't afford to have drives stall while trying to establish teh run and waiting for the defense to tire. Teams with defenses that can match-up with the Patriots (let's say the Seahawks - although that's anything but a sure thing) and keep the Pats out of the end zone, can spend a few drives pounding the rock against the Pats, potentially wearing them down and becoming more effective running the ball as the game wears on.

The Pats have been truly impressive in stopping the run in the nickel, something that they have struggled with through week 4 of this season for better part of the past several years. Where they would routinely give-up big plays (notably on inside zone runs) against their light box, they are dropping runners for short gains on most plays. That's as dominant as they need to be. They can't stop running plays that aren't called.

Wilfork and Branch/Jones are doing a remarkable job of holding their ground and letting the LBs, DEs, and Chung make plays, and those guys are making the plays. I think Siliga is coming back at just the right time to add the heft needed for the winter game plan, where points are harder to come by and running plays are more prevalent. That will give the front 4 a little extra rest, which they will need when offensive linemen are hitting them every other play, rather than once every 3 or 4 plays.

 

[MassPats38]

It is always tough to compare defenses from different generations. And yes, 2003 was a different era without the same emphasis rules designed to increase scoring. For example, Browner would fit in well with the 2003 defense with his physical play, but now he is getting hammered with penalties. Those first downs wear a defense down with extended reps, which affects the statistical result.

In terms of talent, I believe this defense has the most talent of any defense I can recall. Prior defenses rose and fell based on the pieces in the system. Bruschi was not physically talented in comparison to the elites (he was a worker who was a perfect fit for BB's system). Nor was Vrabel (cut by Steelers). Harrison was a castoff from San Diego. Nor were the fill-ins in the secondary all that impressive. Those were very physical defenses that would not work well under the current pass defense rules. How many of those linebacking greats would you want to see in pass coverage? Awesome defense for the age, had great pieces for the system, but it did not have to play under these rules. I don't tend to rank 2007 as a great defense because opposing teams had to put points up fast to keep up, which typically limited the opposition to passing. Anytime a team is one-dimensional it is easier to defend. 2003 and 2004 defenses did not have that benefit, so had to be a complete defense for the results.

Even if you want to compare all defenses, I would do it on points rather than yardage. Every defense, 2001 and on, had games in which it surrendered 200+ on the ground. No defense has been better than 4th in the NFL in yards allowed. 2003 was the only team 1st in points allowed. As for stats for this season, and I am too lazy to crunch the numbers, take out the 1st and 4th games in which this team was historically bad on defense (74 points and inferior offenses) and calculate the result and where does this defense stand with the rest of the NFL in terms of points allowed, certainly considering the Pats have played a series of high scoring playoff-caliber teams that likely represent the best of the NFL right now?

 

[Off The Grid]

Syntax Error: "The Patriots have an exceptional Secondary."

My God...It's true.

 

[Off The Grid]

Even if you want to compare all defenses, I would do it on points rather than yardage.

Bingo.

I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would do otherwise.