Would you like to see that Pats change defensive philosophies?

[shatch62]

I think no one can argue that the philosophy works. The Pats always are in the top 10 in team defense in the NFL but at what price. The Pats defense is based on taking on the blocks, beating your guy and making the play as opposed to a speed D that is based on shooting a gap, avoiding contact and trying to blow-up the play before it starts. Again, there is no denying that the Pats philosophy works but there seems to be 3 large “negatives” with the D.

1) It is a bend don’t break D. The D is designed to give up huge plays – and except for Hawkins this year – it does just that. The only problem is that it gives up some long drives and the pats O usually needs to drive the whole field to score a TD.
2) It requires “smart/veteran” players. You always hear how difficult/complex the defense is for players to master. In today’s game with players changing teams all the time due to free agency would it be better to have a “simple” penetrating D that new guys could pick up quickly?
3) Team gets the crap kicked out of them. Every year the Pats lose a ton of defenders to injuries and I must assume to D has something to do with it. Unlike most Ds that try and avoid contact the Pats D initial contact and the guys seem to break down.
So would you like them to change – and maybe benefit – or stay the same.

As much as I think that it would be better to make the change, they are so successful with the D it is hard to argue with it.

 

[Tunescribe]

I think no one can argue that the philosophy works. The Pats always are in the top 10 in team defense in the NFL but at what price. The Pats defense is based on taking on the blocks, beating your guy and making the play as opposed to a speed D that is based on shooting a gap, avoiding contact and trying to blow-up the play before it starts. Again, there is no denying that the Pats philosophy works but there seems to be 3 large “negatives” with the D.

1) It is a bend don’t break D. The D is designed to give up huge plays – and except for Hawkins this year – it does just that. The only problem is that it gives up some long drives and the pats O usually needs to drive the whole field to score a TD.
2) It requires “smart/veteran” players. You always hear how difficult/complex the defense is for players to master. In today’s game with players changing teams all the time due to free agency would it be better to have a “simple” penetrating D that new guys could pick up quickly?
3) Team gets the crap kicked out of them. Every year the Pats lose a ton of defenders to injuries and I must assume to D has something to do with it. Unlike most Ds that try and avoid contact the Pats D initial contact and the guys seem to break down.
So would you like them to change – and maybe benefit – or stay the same.

As much as I think that it would be better to make the change, they are so successful with the D it is hard to argue with it.

I've thought about this myself, but it apparently is contrary to BB's philosophy. To do it they'd have to switch to the 4-3 as their base defense. Interesting theory, though, on how it might contribute to injuries.

 

[BelichickFan]

Belichick has used this philosophy for decades. It ain't changing.

 

[Jimke]

The main problem with the Patriots on defense is depth at

linebacker. During their last Super Bowl, they were able to rotate

Vrabel, McGinest, and Colvin on the outside and Johnson, Bruschi, and

Phifer on the inside. They need a couple more veteran linebackers

to add to their rotation to keep fresh bodies on the field.

 

[PatsFan37]

1) It is a bend don’t break D. The D is designed to give up huge plays – and except for Hawkins this year – it does just that.
2) It requires “smart/veteran” players.
3) Team gets the crap kicked out of them. Unlike most Ds that try and avoid contact.

Not sure I agree with your premises.

(1) Disagree. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I thought the Pats gave up the fewest long plays, and I thought the philosophy was to take away the long play, force teams into long drives and thus increase the chance of turnovers and 3rd and long.

(2) Agreed. It's more of a game-plan defense than others. I thought that was one of the best parts of the defense, and is effective at confusing QB's into throwing ints.


3) Disagree. How do most teams avoid initial contact? Run players down from behind? Send nasty letters? Yell obscenities? Sorry to be facetious, but that doesn't make sense. Linemen always make contact, how can they not? DB's get hurt because contact is at high speed. The Pats try to be a swarming, aggressive defense and being a tentative, considerate defensive would seem to be the wrong approach.

 

[Stokes]

Not sure I agree with your premises.

(1) Disagree. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I thought the Pats gave up the fewest long plays, and I thought the philosophy was to take away the long play, force teams into long drives and thus increase the chance of turnovers and 3rd and long.

(2) Agreed. It's more of a game-plan defense than others. I thought that was one of the best parts of the defense, and is effective at confusing QB's into throwing ints.


3) Disagree. How do most teams avoid initial contact? Run players down from behind? Send nasty letters? Yell obscenities? Sorry to be facetious, but that doesn't make sense. Linemen always make contact, how can they not? DB's get hurt because contact is at high speed. The Pats try to be a swarming, aggressive defense and being a tentative, considerate defensive would seem to be the wrong approach.

I agree with you here, though I think #1 was just a typo, really meant the opposite. 2 is correct, although from the original post I don't think you need to be a veteran, just smart (guys like Seymour, Wilfork, Hobbs, Gay, Wilson, etc. all stepped in and played significant time their 1st year). You are right on about #3 as well, although if you limit it to a discussion of the D-line it makes more sense, as the 2 gap scheme is more about making sure you keep good position and take on blocks than firing through a gap to break up the play yourself.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I think no one can argue that the philosophy works. The Pats always are in the top 10 in team defense in the NFL but at what price. The Pats defense is based on taking on the blocks, beating your guy and making the play as opposed to a speed D that is based on shooting a gap, avoiding contact and trying to blow-up the play before it starts. Again, there is no denying that the Pats philosophy works but there seems to be 3 large “negatives” with the D.

1) It is a bend don’t break D. The D is designed to give up huge plays – and except for Hawkins this year – it does just that. The only problem is that it gives up some long drives and the pats O usually needs to drive the whole field to score a TD.
2) It requires “smart/veteran” players. You always hear how difficult/complex the defense is for players to master. In today’s game with players changing teams all the time due to free agency would it be better to have a “simple” penetrating D that new guys could pick up quickly?
3) Team gets the crap kicked out of them. Every year the Pats lose a ton of defenders to injuries and I must assume to D has something to do with it. Unlike most Ds that try and avoid contact the Pats D initial contact and the guys seem to break down.
So would you like them to change – and maybe benefit – or stay the same.

As much as I think that it would be better to make the change, they are so successful with the D it is hard to argue with it.

Item three is the catalyst for your question, the other two points follow off your concern for the "apparent" high number of injuries the defense must juggle each season. As fans I would say we have two options, learn to live with the turnover or find a perennial loser and hope they don't have a bad streak.

The Pats get every teams "A" game, if you know your facing the Patriots, you know you have to be physical from the word "go" if you expect to be competitive. As fans we are seeing the current football dynasty, note the comparisons between past dynasties and their closest rivals in the AFCCG run-up, whatever Coach Belichick might preach to his team about ignoring the Dynasty talk, it's an accepted premise throughout the NFL.

Do you have any doubt that the Pats will be going into the 2007 season as the team to beat? Even if Indy wins the Superbowl, they are at risk to collapse like Pittsburgh did as teams running Tampa Two defenses bid for their Free Agents the way teams bid for the Patriots' Free Agents.

You and I don't get to decide if the Team will pay the price of being a top ten defense, Bob Kraft in his choice of Head Coach made that decision. I can live with it because I'm a fan and I want to root for a winner. I can also hurt, as you must be, for the players damaged in the process. Those players own competitive nature puts them in their situation, I doubt they would have it any other way.

Note how physical Indy's defense was this year, how they carried a struggling Peyton Manning forward over KC and Baltimore, and they made the deciding play with their interception of Tommy to win the game. They may have coasted on Peyton's coattails against lessor opponents during the regular season, but come the playoffs they were as physical as any other defense.

There is only one NFL team who has won a post-season game in the past four years - you and I like the fact that it is our favorite team. As I see it, the defense is what it is because that is what works, big physical defenses win championships - consistently.

 

[sieglo]

The defense works so long as there is a modicum of health and personnel consistency. The two times it's really broken down -- the Carolina Super Bowl and this last game against the Colts -- has been because of key injuries and personnel loss.

Why change a good thing? The D functions at the highest level. This year was NE's best ever in points allowed. I have no complaints.

 

[DarrylS]

I have to chime in with if it is not broke why fix it?? Not sure if you can make the correlation between our D and injuries.. that has to be a stretch and no way to quantify that. Age is a factor as much as anything else and if you look at Seau, Harrison and T. Jones all are senior players. The reality is that players get hurt, whether it be in this D or some other D alignment.

Very difficult to mess with success, if anything the needs of this D are obvious and I anticipate they will be dealt with.

 

[Krugman]

I agree,the scheme is good(look how many want to emulate it)like any good scheme it requires the right personnel,sometimes we have'em,sometimes we dont.A few new additions in the LB and CB core will help what is already a solid defence next year.

 

[everlong]

The 3-4 is what BB does and does well so it isn't changing. I would like to see them be more aggressive with it as they have been in past years but I think they were hindered by personnel. Their 3-4 doesn't attack like Baltimore or SD. That's because they lack team speed in the back 8 so they have no recovery speed. Also they don't have a lock down corner. Assante is very good and improving but BB wasn't going to put him on an island.

I'd like to see us get some more team speed so they could do more of that. You didn't see the pressure packages on 3 and 7+ as much as the past.

 

[ATippett56]

Would you like to see that Pats change defensive philosophies?

No but, this year, I would like to see the Patriots change their drafting philosophy ......... linebackers, linebackers, and more linebackers.

 

[PatsFan37]

I agree with you here, though I think #1 was just a typo, really meant the opposite. 2 is correct, although from the original post I don't think you need to be a veteran, just smart (guys like Seymour, Wilfork, Hobbs, Gay, Wilson, etc. all stepped in and played significant time their 1st year). You are right on about #3 as well, although if you limit it to a discussion of the D-line it makes more sense, as the 2 gap scheme is more about making sure you keep good position and take on blocks than firing through a gap to break up the play yourself.

Too right, Stokes, #1 was an obvious typo. I agree with Box (as usual, I can be quite the sycophant of the breakdown folks) that physical defenses win football games and that the Colts D has won when it has brought that physical element.

What gives the Patriots their winning edge is the ability to bring that dominating physical presence, year after year. The Steelers had it for a while, and then it dissipated. Jax and Baltimore had it this year, and SD, and it's benefited them. Will it be there next year? I don't know. But it will for the Pats, count on it. And I think that accounts for some of the injuries among the smaller D players -- they play with the same attitude of the bigger teammates without as much of the meat.

As much as a good LB, I'd like a big fast safety. Hawkins, at 195 is small. Sanders at 210 packs more of a wallop. Rodney, at 6-1 220 is perfect, but they need to groom someone young to follow along. The Colts have a great player in Bob Sanders, but he's an injury risk when he takes the field.

Guys like Hobbs and Gay and Samuel are always at risk because they trade size for speed and agility. It's riskier with the Pats because these guys don't stop for red lights.