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 â€śnegativesâ€ť with the D. 1) It is a bend donâ€™t break D. The D is designed to give up huge plays â€“ and except for Hawkins this year â€“ 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 â€śsmart/veteranâ€ť players. You always hear how difficult/complex the defense is for players to master. In todayâ€™s game with players changing teams all the time due to free agency would it be better to have a â€śsimpleâ€ť 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 â€“ and maybe benefit â€“ 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.