You guys are being too hard on your defense

[BPF]

The defense can't get consistent pressure on opposing quarterbacks. It can't defend against the pass unless the safeties are playing lights out. It is substandard against the run.

It's quite good at celebrating plays, though.

Safeties are part of the defense, football being a team game you need all players performing their assignments in order to be succesful. The Steelers D isn't as good w/Polamalu not playing, what's the point?

 

[Deus Irae]

Many on this board went from "we have a top 5 defense" to "our defense sucks" in one game, and that's clearly an overreaction.

Could you point out some of these rapid position switches to me, please? I'd be very interested in reading them.

 

[Deus Irae]

Safeties are part of the defense, football being a team game you need all players performing their assignments in order to be succesful. The Steelers D isn't as good w/Polamalu not playing, what's the point?

I'd say the point is pretty obvious, particularly after games where the safeties struggle, such as the Jets game.


Wouldn't you?

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Our defense has been fine this season aside from the NO game. The Colts game was far from good but they were on the field quite a bit against an all time great QB, and it's hard to blame the last TD on them. Top 5 in the NFL in PA despite playing both 11-0 teams, not bad for a rebuilding defense. They should only get better.

 

[coltsfan]

Thanks for the kind words of wisdom. Many on this board went from "we have a top 5 defense" to "our defense sucks" in one game, and that's clearly an overreaction. I'm very optimistic for the future. But we need to be able to get pressure. I don't think you can win in today's NFL without pressure on the QB.

Yeah, I thought it was a little amusing that I've read all season on here how great players like Merriweather, Chung, Bodden, Butler, etc are; and now they all suck. Much of it has to do with the difference btw facing teams like the Jets/Dolphins/Bucs, versus facing the Saints.

I think the problem against the Saints was much more pass coverage than pass rush. Brees was getting rid of the ball fairly quick, his receivers were just beating your CBs. He also had a TE in to protect many times bc they were running the ball well.

The weakness of the Saints' offense is left tackle bc Jammal Brown is out for the season. But the Pats didn't really have the opportunity to exploit that bc of the reasons I mentioned.

 

[BPF]

I'd say the point is pretty obvious, particularly after games where the safeties struggle, such as the Jets game.


Wouldn't you?

Young players, regardless of position tend to struggle with consistency.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Take away the Colts & Saints games, and the D has been very good. Those 2 games have tarnished the D in a lot of people's eyes. They're still one of the best scoring D's in the league though, even with those 2 games factored in. I just hope that once the playoffs roll around, they'll be able to hold the better offenses under control.

Take away winter and Boston has a warm climate.

Those were the two, most meaningful tests of the D.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Take away winter and Boston has a warm climate.

Those were the two, most meaningful tests of the D.

Yep. Thats the way I look at it too. 35 and 38 points respectfully is not good.

Against mediocre offenses, the D has done reasonably well.

 

[Patriot Missile]

Funny, with better play calling and a little more intensity, I still think we could give that Saints team a run for their money. Fact is besides the blown coverage Brees was on absolute fire that night. His throws were perfect like out of a video game. I venture to say he is not always going to be that hot. I've watched a lot of Saints games this year and he is human and prone to mistakes.

I think the Colts are probably better suited to beat the Saints if they can generate a pass rush with Freeney and Mathis and then hold their own against the rush. I am not conceding anything away from the Patriots either. I think the next time the Colts face the Pats there is a very fair chance the Pats get their number.

One thing for sure is the uncertainty has made this team fun to watch in some ways. But knowing that we have 3 2nd rounds picks next year and 2 1st's the year after that make it very hard not to lose hope of the future of this team. Either way, The Pats Colts and Steelers are way ahead of everyone else in their long term staying power.

 

[mb6592]

Could you point out some of these rapid position switches to me, please? I'd be very interested in reading them.

He won't find them. Those who have had concerns about this D continue to do so. I can, however, find 100's of posts by the faction that loves to call anyone who points out a concern regarding this team a chicken little. It's like clockwork. Someone will post a concern or a criticism followed by like posts, followed by the inevitable posts chastising the clueless "sky is falling" posters who are unworthy of posting. I don’t get it. I read through the threads and find most posts (excluding gameday threads) temperate. If only a very few of the posts in these threads are “out there,” why the need for all these "look at me I can call out the chicken littles" posts?

 

[mb6592]

Our defense has been fine this season aside from the NO game. The Colts game was far from good but they were on the field quite a bit against an all time great QB, and it's hard to blame the last TD on them. Top 5 in the NFL in PA despite playing both 11-0 teams, not bad for a rebuilding defense. They should only get better.

Really? Even in the second halves?

 

[mb6592]

Take away winter and Boston has a warm climate.

Those were the two, most meaningful tests of the D.

Wonderfully put - prepare for the wrath.

 

[condon84]

The defense can't get consistent pressure on opposing quarterbacks. It can't defend against the pass unless the safeties are playing lights out. It is substandard against the run.

It's quite good at celebrating plays, though.

Which is saying quite a lot seeing as Hobbs is no longer with us. It's good to know that Hobbs made an impression on the young ones.

 

[muzz]

The Pats haven't played many teams that even have a decent offense, they played NO (if you wanna call that a game, I prefer to think of that as getting bent over and ........) and the Colts.

They've played the:
29th ranked Bills
28th ranked Bucs
22nd ranked Doofises
19th ranked Jesters
18th ranked Donkos
16th ranked Falcons
14th ranked Titans
13th ranked ravens

3rd ranked Colts
1st ranked Saints

 

[Deus Irae]

He won't find them. Those who have had concerns about this D continue to do so. I can, however, find 100's of posts by the faction that loves to call anyone who points out a concern regarding this team a chicken little. It's like clockwork. Someone will post a concern or a criticism followed by like posts, followed by the inevitable posts chastising the clueless "sky is falling" posters who are unworthy of posting. I don’t get it. I read through the threads and find most posts (excluding gameday threads) temperate. If only a very few of the posts in these threads are “out there,” why the need for all these "look at me I can call out the chicken littles" posts?

To be fair, there are plenty of Chicken Little posters, just as there are plenty of homers. It's the mix that makes a message board work. Go back and look at some of the 2007 game threads, for example, where things would happen such as "we suck!" being posted over the defense giving up a first down (not a touchdown, a first down). You'll find that the Chicken Littles are well represented.

 

[mb6592]

To be fair, there are plenty of Chicken Little posters, just as there are plenty of homers. It's the mix that makes a message board work. Go back and look at some of the 2007 game threads, for example, where things would happen such as "we suck!" being posted over the defense giving up a first down (not a touchdown, a first down). You'll find that the Chicken Littles are well represented.

My post purposely excluded the game threads, which I agree bring out the crazy in posters (or just the crazies period).

 

[Deus Irae]

My post purposely excluded the game threads, which I agree bring out the crazy in posters (or just the crazies period).

I know you excluded them. They're just the easiest ones to point to. However, the post game threads after a loss, the Fire "x" threads, etc... show a pretty good example of the Chicken Littles.

 

[fair catch fryar]

"So I have my doubts that even the Pats defense of 5 years ago would have held the Saints under 28 points."
Wrong. The 2004 defense with the likes of Law, Harrison, Bruschi, and Vrabel with the 2004 rules as they were constitued before you know who changed them, would have smothered this offense and forced Brees into making turnovers.

"I guess my point is, you won't face an offense like the Saints in the AFC. Or the Vikings, for that matter."

The Saints may be rolling, but I'd bet my last dollar that Favre breaks down before then.

 

[wilfork is beastin']

The Saints may be rolling, but I'd bet my last dollar that Favre breaks down before then.

It's going to happen sooner or later. I think the past 2 years have been some intricate plot started by the Packers to set the vikes back a decade

 

[mb6592]

I know you excluded them. They're just the easiest ones to point to. However, the post game threads after a loss, the Fire "x" threads, etc... show a pretty good example of the Chicken Littles.

Exactly, and that's the point. Those (in game & post game) threads are filled with kneejerk, not well thought out, frustrations (rather than actuals thoughts). In light of that, I stay away or don't let them bother me. But, when a thread is filled with mostly sane, legitimate, albeit, critical posts, it drives me nuts when the homers attack. You rarely see the opposite. The half empty faction rarely attacks the half filled one, why do you suppose that is? Do you suppose it's George Bush's fault?