What About the Defense?

[Hercules Rockefeller]

We straight?

Not sure you realize what a jerk you sound like when ending your arguments like. You basically are saying, "Get it?" or "NOW do you understand?" It's as if only your opinion can be right, and you cannot fathom how someone could disagree. This is not a becoming trait.

Now, if you are going to do this, which you probably should not, it is important to be sure you are absolutely hammering the other person in the argument, lest your condescension make you seem someone who is insecure and overly aggressive when challenged. As you are not winning this argument, at all, you'll probably want to avoid using that absurd wording.

We straight?

 

[supafly]

Giants shortest drive was 9 plays. Our defense didn't force a single 3 and out. We had the lead with the game on the line and the Giants went down the length of the field for the win. This defense needs serious help.

Before the 2nd NYG touchdown with under a minute left, the defense had held them to 13 points.

When you hold the other team's weapons, which included Manning, the big 3 WR's, Bradshaw and B.Jacobs to one TD and 2 FG's throughout the first 59 minutes of the game, you can probably say that they did a good enough job.

How many plays it took and all of those other variables probably didn't matter too much in regards to deciding the outcome.

The defense needs work, sure. We all know that. But some people are acting like it's absolutely terrible too, and that isn't even close to true.

The biggest problem last yr was the injuries to Chung, Spikes, and Fletcher; and also the lack of any kind of adequate safety. When those issues were addressed the defense looked leagues better. The pass rush was improved. The turnovers were plentiful. The run defense was at least average, if not slightly better at times. It was the pass defense that needs to be addressed...that was the weak part of the defense, and even then we saw improvement. It's important that we are fair to the other 'good' things that the defense did throughout the yr.

I don't think it's that much of a stretch to think the defense can stay close to where it was at the end of the season. Even with all of the horrible things that happened, they still finished 15th in pts allowed. If they shave one point per game off of that, they now are in the top 10.

 

[supafly]

when guys like Cortland Finnegan get 10 million and mark Anderson gets 7 million the only way to build the defense is through the Draft

I think this point is great. Awesome post.

Maybe not 'just' the draft alone, but your point remains the same.

Good solid signings that will add depth and competition; not high priced gambles that may or may not work out.

The draft will certainly make things better for the defense this yr, and as a whole that should trickle down to the next few yrs all over again.

It's important that we remember how this team has gone through somewhat of a youth movement/rebuilding process on the fly..without missing a beat or anyone else even noticing. If you asked the majority of other NFL fanbases, they likely wouldn't know too much about what you were discussing, in regards to the NEP rebuilding of the team.

 

[TB146]

I know you're addressing a specific claim in this post, but it got me thinking. In the past two seasons (regular season and postseason) the Pats have scored no fewer than 14 points in any single game. They've scored fewer than 20 points in just 4 of their 36 games. That's amazing.

In the NFL the past two seasons as a whole, teams scored fewer than 20 points 429 times. Teams won 90 of those games, for a winning percentage of .210. Obviously not great, but it's just over 1 in 5. (obviously if a team wins with fewer than 20 points scored, it also means that a team loses with fewer than 20 points scored)

The Patriots have scored fewer than 20 points 4 times, and is 0-4 in those games. If they had scored 19 points against Dallas instead of 20, they'd be 1-5 in such games....right on pace with the rest of the NFL. So we can't exactly "punish" the Patriots for that.

Nevertheless, it is true that the Pats have 7 losses over the past two years, and in 4 of them they've scored fewer than 20 points. Here are their 7 losses:

2010 - at NYJ, 28-14
2010 - at Cle, 34-14
2010 - vs NYJ, 28-21
2011 - at Buf, 34-31
2011 - at Pit, 25-17
2011 - vs NYG, 24-20
2011 - vs NYG, 21-17

So in 6 of their 7 losses, they have scored 21 or fewer points.

Here's kind of the point I'm trying to make. Their offense has been ridiculously good in recent years. Very rarely do they not hold up their end of the bargain. But it's not reasonable to expect them to put up big numbers every game, and when they don't, the D needs to step up and win a game. But the D hasn't done that. The D, when the offense needs to be bailed out, hasn't bailed them out. The offense has, however, bailed out the D numerous times, by winning a bunch of games where the D gave up 27 or more points (4-2 in such situations). Here are those games:

2010 - vs Buf, W, 38-30
2010 - vs Ind, W, 31-28
2010 - vs GB, W, 31-27
2010 - vs NYJ, L, 28-21
2011 - at Buf, L, 34-31
2011 - at Was, W, 34-27

So the O has consistently done a much better job than the D (no surprise) but they've also bailed out the D four out of six times, but the D has never bailed out the O, going 0-for-4 in such games.

I was going to say something along these lines, only not worded nearly as well and not as thoroughly researched... I was specifically going to point out the three game stretch last year (Dal, Pit, NYG) where the Offense scored 20 pts or fewer and we lost two of them and could have lost to Dallas as well. Then the offense struggled in both the AFCCG and the Super Bowl while the D really stepped up.

Having said all that, I like the FA signings so far, but I'm really hoping for a few big D picks in the draft.

 

[Marqui]

Before the 2nd NYG touchdown with under a minute left, the defense had held them to 13 points.

When you hold the other team's weapons, which included Manning, the big 3 WR's, Bradshaw and B.Jacobs to one TD and 2 FG's throughout the first 59 minutes of the game, you can probably say that they did a good enough job.

How many plays it took and all of those other variables probably didn't matter too much in regards to deciding the outcome.

The defense needs work, sure. We all know that. But some people are acting like it's absolutely terrible too, and that isn't even close to true.

The biggest problem last yr was the injuries to Chung, Spikes, and Fletcher; and also the lack of any kind of adequate safety. When those issues were addressed the defense looked leagues better. The pass rush was improved. The turnovers were plentiful. The run defense was at least average, if not slightly better at times. It was the pass defense that needs to be addressed...that was the weak part of the defense, and even then we saw improvement. It's important that we are fair to the other 'good' things that the defense did throughout the yr.

I don't think it's that much of a stretch to think the defense can stay close to where it was at the end of the season. Even with all of the horrible things that happened, they still finished 15th in pts allowed. If they shave one point per game off of that, they now are in the top 10.

People have actually deluded themselves into thinking time of possession and field position doesn't matter? Wow.

 

[DaBruinz]

I find it pretty funny that Billdog basically dodged Deus' first question. Instead of giving actual NAMES of players who he thinks the Pats should have signed, he wimps out and just says that he thinks the Pats should have made at least 3 other signings to the defense. No names or anything. And, what else does Billdog do? He downplays the signings that were made. As if they have little chance to actually help the team.

Lets look at the signings:
Jonathan Fanene - He seems to be a replacement for Mike Wright. A passing down DT. But, he could step in at 3-4 DE as well.

Steve Gregory - Started 28 of 40 games he played in during the last 3 years. He missed 8 games due to injury, 7 in 2010. He's played Free Safety and Strong Safety, as a starter. He's a definite improvement over Barrett, Brown, Jones and Moore.

Will Allen - A veteran presence at CB. This is a depth signing, imho, though he could move to FS and be ok there if needed.

Trevor Scott - OLB - He should replace Mark Anderson pretty easily. His numbers were down last year because he was returning from an ACL injury. With a full year under his belt he should be better. Also, his best year was in 2009, when the Raiders were running the 3-4. The last two years in the 4-3, he wasn't used as much for that.

Now, I would like to hear some of these other players the Pats should have signed... So, billdog, are you going to actually say who you think they should sign? or you just going to cop out?

 

[supafly]

It doesn't mean the defense hasn't had good games or hasn't made big plays. Of course it has. And I do confess to being a bit arbitrary with the "when the Pats score fewer than 20 points" cutoff point, because it's true that the defense made a huge play (Sterling Moore) to stop the Ravens, for example. But in the four games that the Patriots have scored fewer than 20 points over the past two seasons, they've lost all four. And that means that the Pats' defense hasn't filled the gap for the offense in those games. It hasn't taken the game on its shoulders and said, that's ok, you guys are having a bad game, we're winning this.

I'm not trying to be obtuse or deny that the defense has had it's positive moments, but what I am stating are actual facts....that are not really disputable. You may dispute what those facts mean, but you can't dispute the facts.

I think the problem with many posters disagreeing is that they may have different expectations about what they expect from the defense than others. In other words, maybe they are expecting something closer to the 2004 defense? In my opinion, that probably isn't going to happen this yr, maybe even the next, or the one after that.

We have some high powered, high priced weapons on offense that will demand a large payday, and rightfully so. With Brady at the helm, the offense is definitely the side of the ball that people recognize. It's the side of the ball that keeps the other teams coordinators up at night, not the defense, which is average. Not only that, but the offense was pretty much competitive the whole way through, with Brady staying here the whole time. It was the defense that was getting old, had guys like Seymour and Samuel demand large paydays that the team couldn't match, and had core guys retire or move on. It was the defense that needed the majority of the attention, and the transformation is not yet complete.

That said...I also believe that we saw improvement in many areas from the years of 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 on that side of the ball. How many posters and fans wanted a "younger, faster defense?" Well, here is it on a silver platter. The problem is that success at the level many are looking for (a return to the stifling defense of 2004, a return to allowing 14/15 pts per game) is not going to come overnight. It's not possible, it's simply not going to happen, at least with the quickness that we all want.

What we can expect is a defense that can force the other team to march the length of the field, a defense that can create turnovers, and a defense that can keep us in the game by allowing 18-19 pts per game, so our incredible offense can win the majority of the time. When you win 3/4+ of your games, something correct is happening somewhere.

Some of this argument/debate stems from the inability to win the SB this yr. Had we won, many would be singing a different tune altogether.

 

[supafly]

People have actually deluded themselves into thinking time of possession and field position doesn't matter? Wow.

He didn't say ONE word about TOP or field position. He mentioned the # of plays on the NYG shortest drive, and the fact that our defense didn't make "a single 3 and out." I'm not sure why you mention TOP or field position, b/c those things were not brought up..at all.

If Welker catches the pass, or if the safety had not happened early in the game would it have mattered?

No.

If Gronkowski isn't hurt would it have mattered? No.

It didn't matter as much in all of the other games that we won, when the stats said that we were "one of the worst defenses of all time."

Points matter.

No one is delusional here. The score was 17-15. That's what mattered. Not how many plays the NYG had on their "shortest drive," and not the fact that the "defense didn't cause one 3 and out."

I'm not arguing that TOP and improved field position doesn't help your odds of winning games, I'm arguing that the variables that Keyser Soze is bringing up (# of plays on the NYG shortest drive??? LOL...) didn't have sh!t to do with winning or losing the SB.

 

[supafly]

Comprehension is a lost art, I swear.

 

[Marqui]

Keyser mentioned the Giants shortest drive was 9 plays because it illustrated the fact that the Pats defense couldn't quickly get off the field to save its life. If the Giants shortest drive was 9 plays then the Pats D obviously wasn't forcing any 3 and outs. If they weren't forcing any 3 and outs then the Giants were never forced to punt deep in their own zone giving the Pats O good field position. Also if the Giants O was allowed to have 9+ plays per drive, then that means they were easily controlling TOP. Not sure why you aren't understanding all this.

 

[supafly]

Keyser mentioned the Giants shortest drive was 9 plays because it illustrated the fact that the Pats defense couldn't quickly get off the field to save its life. If the Giants shortest drive was 9 plays then the Pats D obviously wasn't forcing any 3 and outs. If they weren't forcing any 3 and outs then the Giants were never forced to punt deep in their own zone giving the Pats O good field position. Also if the Giants O was allowed to have 9+ plays per drive, then that means they were easily controlling TOP. Not sure why you aren't understanding all this.

What am I 'not understanding?'

The facts that the NYG's shortest series of plays was 9, and that the defense didn't cause any 3 and outs did not have anywhere near the amount of bearing on the game as any of the following:

---the fact that the NEP actually had the lead with ONE minute left to play in the game

---the fact that Manningham makes another 'miracle catch' ala Tyree in the last SB on their final drive

---the fact that there was a safety early that did not allow the NEP to try and get into FG range to tie or win the game (since the Giants wouldn't have gone for 2 pt conversion at the end, they would've likely been in position to tie). Instead we had to throw a hail mary at midfield to end the game, rather than try to kick a tying FG

---the fact that if Welker catches the pass, we easily win the game late in the 4th

---the fact that the NEP defense still did its job by allowing 19 pts, which was approx their average for the yr

---the fact that the offense did not score enough for the 2nd consecutive SB, putting up totals of 14 and 17

---the fact that out of 3 NYG fumbles, none of them were recovered

---the fact that Gronkowski was hurt and even more ineffective than anyone could ever have imagined

---the fact that ALL of Welker, Branch, and Hernandez all dropped passes late in the 4th quarter

---the fact that Mankins played through a torn ACL and couldn't effectively defend Tuck

---the fact that the running game never really got going

---the fact that Belichick lost his only challenge of the year in 9 attempts

---the fact that Brady threw a very untimely INT

---the fact that the fumble we recovered was nullified by a 12 man call, very unpatriot like

---the fact that we lost the turnover battle

---the fact that Brady apparently hurt his shoulder in the 2nd half

---the fact that in any other game we WIN where:

1. The offense scores TD's to close out the half, and comes back to score another TD to start the 2nd half usually means a win in about 85% of the games

2.Brady sets a completion record for 16 consecutive completions

3.The offense outscores the NYG 17-0 at one point in the game

----------------------------------------------------------------------

ALL of these had way more to do with the fact that we should've won and lost the game, than "how many plays the Giants' series were;" especially considering the fact that the defense allowed ONE TD and 2 FG's through the first 59 minutes of the game (98.333% of the Super Bowl).

ALL of these facts had way more to do with the loss than the fact that "we didn't cause even one 3 and out." The defense still did it's job limiting Cruz to 4 catches and 25 yards. I am sure Belichick would get a big kick out of hearing how "yes, but they didn't force any 3 and outs." Who the hell cares?

There were plenty of games where the NEP won where they lost the TOP battle this yr, as a matter of fact they were horrible in TOP all throughout the year, yet they still went 15-4 and lost the SB in the final minute.

I am not arguing that TOP usually increases the odds, and that field position is an important aspect of the game, as a whole; but in this particular game there were about 25 other more important aspects that had a much more direct cause on the game. The bottom line is that points allowed and points scored are what matters...not "how many plays the Giants 'shortest' series was." That's just laughable.

If anything, it was a staple of the Pats defense all yr long, that they forced other teams to march down the length of the field in a manner of precision, not being able to make the slightest mistake. That is exactly what a 'bend but don't break' defense is all about!!!

In this case, ONE of any of the following probably leads to a NEP win, and BB was playing the percentages. Much like trying to make them force the ball to Manningham, b/c the high percentage play just wasn't there. Once again, the NYG defied logic and percentages, and they won. As other posters have pointed out, SB wins and big game wins are often about getting a good bounce, or having a bit of luck on their side.

 

[Fencer]

This is of course a small point, but I'd argue that the defense should be viewed as if it allowed at least 20 points in the Super Bowl. Without the safety, there's no failed two-point conversion What's more, without lousy field position, there's no safety.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Not sure you realize what a jerk you sound like when ending your arguments like. You basically are saying, "Get it?" or "NOW do you understand?" It's as if only your opinion can be right, and you cannot fathom how someone could disagree. This is not a becoming trait.

Now, if you are going to do this, which you probably should not, it is important to be sure you are absolutely hammering the other person in the argument, lest your condescension make you seem someone who is insecure and overly aggressive when challenged. As you are not winning this argument, at all, you'll probably want to avoid using that absurd wording.

We straight?

Translation

What patsfaninpittsburgh is saying just sails over my head. Man, that's above my paygrade.

If I post something, maybe he'll dumb it down for me.

Man, me not straight.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Not really sure why you are being so venomous. My original post in this thread gave two seasons' worth of evidence that the pats' offense has carried the team, and when the offense has come up small *over the course of an entire game*, as it did in the Super Bowl and three other occasions in the past 2 years (which is to say, not very often), the defense hasn't put up the big-time effort to win the game. In other words, I would love to see the Pats' defense step up on a day when the Pats' otherworldly offense can only muster up 17 points and hold the opposition to just 10-13. But in the last two years, that has not happened once. That is a fact. No spin, no conjecture. Actual fact.

It doesn't mean the defense hasn't had good games or hasn't made big plays. Of course it has. And I do confess to being a bit arbitrary with the "when the Pats score fewer than 20 points" cutoff point, because it's true that the defense made a huge play (Sterling Moore) to stop the Ravens, for example. But in the four games that the Patriots have scored fewer than 20 points over the past two seasons, they've lost all four. And that means that the Pats' defense hasn't filled the gap for the offense in those games. It hasn't taken the game on its shoulders and said, that's ok, you guys are having a bad game, we're winning this.

I'm not trying to be obtuse or deny that the defense has had it's positive moments, but what I am stating are actual facts....that are not really disputable. You may dispute what those facts mean, but you can't dispute the facts.

There is nothing venomous.

However, football as in life have universal concepts.

Ever hear.....

"Even a blind squirrel can find a nut"

"If you play with fire, eventually you get burned"

The Super Bowl was lost because a universal concept of existance existed. If you allow the opponent to hang around, you will eventually pay.

Sorry that's reality. The defense "bailed" the offense after the Gronk INT, they bailed them out by limiting the Giants to 13 points until the last drive.

However, the Giants are a top 10 offense that averaged 25 points a game. It's unforntunate, but if they have the ball enough, they will put together a scoring drive and they will do that against everybody.

They did it against SF, the stats are almost indentical, so SF defense sucks?

No, both defenses don't suck. The inevitable law of averages suck....for us and the 49ers.

Your analysis of the Redskins game shows why you refuse to accept this.

To arrive at conclusions, one must always review the facts and circumstances....not adhere to a belief and torture events to "prove" a conclusion.

In the Redskins game the defense:

Scored 7 points on the fumble recovery in the end zone

Gave the ball back the offense with superior field position in the 4th to close the game out.

Won it on the Mayo INT.

The offense:

Went 3 and out deep in our territory early to set up the second Redskin TD.

Whiffed on two easy TD's

Didn't close out the game when they had the chance. A fact even more critical in a Jeff Triplette officiated game.

This is reality and is totally obvious to anyone not stuck on "the defense sucks" mantra.

Go back and review the games you listed and review based on conceptual reality.

Turnovers are the single most important determinant of a football game. It's universal and has been true since the first pigskin took flight.

If your have four turnovers in a game, you lose 95% of the time.

If you are -2 in turnovers, you lose 90% of the time.

If you give opponents short fields, they have a better chance of scoring.

If you have the chance and don't put your opponent away, expect bad things. Ask the Cowboys about that.

In today's NFL, red zone defense and turnovers are the most important factors in defense. Likewise, an offense must sustain scoring. That's how the rules are set up. Review that and think how that fits into "putting away" the opponent.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I think the problem with many posters disagreeing is that they may have different expectations about what they expect from the defense than others. In other words, maybe they are expecting something closer to the 2004 defense? In my opinion, that probably isn't going to happen this yr, maybe even the next, or the one after that.

We have some high powered, high priced weapons on offense that will demand a large payday, and rightfully so. With Brady at the helm, the offense is definitely the side of the ball that people recognize. It's the side of the ball that keeps the other teams coordinators up at night, not the defense, which is average. Not only that, but the offense was pretty much competitive the whole way through, with Brady staying here the whole time. It was the defense that was getting old, had guys like Seymour and Samuel demand large paydays that the team couldn't match, and had core guys retire or move on. It was the defense that needed the majority of the attention, and the transformation is not yet complete.

That said...I also believe that we saw improvement in many areas from the years of 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 on that side of the ball. How many posters and fans wanted a "younger, faster defense?" Well, here is it on a silver platter. The problem is that success at the level many are looking for (a return to the stifling defense of 2004, a return to allowing 14/15 pts per game) is not going to come overnight. It's not possible, it's simply not going to happen, at least with the quickness that we all want.

What we can expect is a defense that can force the other team to march the length of the field, a defense that can create turnovers, and a defense that can keep us in the game by allowing 18-19 pts per game, so our incredible offense can win the majority of the time. When you win 3/4+ of your games, something correct is happening somewhere.

Some of this argument/debate stems from the inability to win the SB this yr. Had we won, many would be singing a different tune altogether.

See, supafly is not stuck in the "wing tee" mentality.

I bet supafly isn't going "wishbone" on analysis on the offense.

 

[JMC00]

Marquice Cole also plays cornerback.

As does Will Allen

 

[SeymourTrophies]

The fact that we got killed in the field position battle, due to the Giants never having to punt after three plays, may or may not have hurt our offense's chances of putting up the points. IIRC, our scoring drives were all 80+ yards, and the drive that ended with the welker drop and deflection started in the shadow of the goalpost.

The offense would have had to be that much better than they normally are to do what everyone has come to expect.

What can you do? We finally get a competent pass rush, and there is nobody in the secondary who can cover their guy. Hopefully it all comes together next year. It also didn't help in the Super Bowl that Wilfork couldn't push the pocket like he normally can.

We are definitely overdue for a fantastic defensive draft.

 

[UK_Pat37]

This is of course a small point, but I'd argue that the defense should be viewed as if it allowed at least 20 points in the Super Bowl. Without the safety, there's no failed two-point conversion What's more, without lousy field position, there's no safety.

And if Brady knew where he was on the field, and actually used his body clock which never seemed to kick in, he'd not have been caught out and intentionally grounded the ball.

We could go around in circles all day with this. Silly post. It's not like we've never had to start from inside our own ten.

I'll throw this one at you. Welker and Brady connect, that last Giants drive doesn't happen.

That's how stupid these arguments are! As I said, it fgoes around in circles.

Simple fact is, going into the 60th minute, the Patriots D had conceded 13 points. They did their job. Of course you can argue they didn't step up in the clutch but that's a young unit compared to our more veteran offense (minus the TEs who are something else so they don't count ).

I'd say they did their job well. 17 points is rarely enough to win you a football game. Neither is 14. The offense has choked for much of two Super Bowls.

 

[Patriots2001]

Nobody can beat the Patriots when putting 50+ points on the board every week!! [/QUO



Nobody but the Giants

 

[ivanvamp]

There is nothing venomous.

However, football as in life have universal concepts.

Ever hear.....

"Even a blind squirrel can find a nut"

"If you play with fire, eventually you get burned"

The Super Bowl was lost because a universal concept of existance existed. If you allow the opponent to hang around, you will eventually pay.

Sorry that's reality. The defense "bailed" the offense after the Gronk INT, they bailed them out by limiting the Giants to 13 points until the last drive.

However, the Giants are a top 10 offense that averaged 25 points a game. It's unforntunate, but if they have the ball enough, they will put together a scoring drive and they will do that against everybody.

They did it against SF, the stats are almost indentical, so SF defense sucks?

No, both defenses don't suck. The inevitable law of averages suck....for us and the 49ers.

Your analysis of the Redskins game shows why you refuse to accept this.

To arrive at conclusions, one must always review the facts and circumstances....not adhere to a belief and torture events to "prove" a conclusion.

In the Redskins game the defense:

Scored 7 points on the fumble recovery in the end zone

Gave the ball back the offense with superior field position in the 4th to close the game out.

Won it on the Mayo INT.

The offense:

Went 3 and out deep in our territory early to set up the second Redskin TD.

Whiffed on two easy TD's

Didn't close out the game when they had the chance. A fact even more critical in a Jeff Triplette officiated game.

This is reality and is totally obvious to anyone not stuck on "the defense sucks" mantra.

Go back and review the games you listed and review based on conceptual reality.

Turnovers are the single most important determinant of a football game. It's universal and has been true since the first pigskin took flight.

If your have four turnovers in a game, you lose 95% of the time.

If you are -2 in turnovers, you lose 90% of the time.

If you give opponents short fields, they have a better chance of scoring.

If you have the chance and don't put your opponent away, expect bad things. Ask the Cowboys about that.

In today's NFL, red zone defense and turnovers are the most important factors in defense. Likewise, an offense must sustain scoring. That's how the rules are set up. Review that and think how that fits into "putting away" the opponent.

Ok thanks for the post.