The official "our defense is horrible" thread

[Kontradiction]

I think the ceiling for the defense is the 2001 Pats (although I doubt they will get there or close to it). That defense was mediocre to start the season, but Belichick and Crennel changed things up (including switching to a 4-3 base) and it was arguably the best defense down the stretch and in the playoffs. That defense had a lot of veterans on it. So it might be setting the sights way too high.

Eh, I'm not sure about that. It would be nice, don't get me wrong. But I think it's more like the 2009 Saints. With our youth and some of the question marks we have, I don't see this defense being a true "shut down" defense (like the 2001 defense was at points). I see them, at their best, being just good enough to get it done with it counts. That would define the 2009 Saints. However, I would take the 2001 defense any day of the week at this point.

 

[mgcolby]

He already accounted for the ST touchdown. Hence why that summary only accounts for 23 points.

Whoops my mistake. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Deus Irae]

Not at all. I'm saying you can use ST points or you can choose not to. As long as you apply your standard uniformly, it's defensible. To use ST points when it suits your case and ignore them when it doesn't, though, kills your credibility.

After all, the Pats are 2-0 in games where they scored more points than their opponent. They're undefeated!

Ok, but I never said not to count the ST points, so maybe you crossed your posts? Rob was trying to make a false argument by tossing out a red herring regarding those ST points. The Jets are tied with the Chiefs for #10 in scoring (meaning they are 10/11), and ahead of the Saints. I'd never added or dismissed ST points in the course of the conversation. Rob was essentially complaining because I called #10/11 "average", yet he demands that I not look at #28 "one of the worst".

 

[Deus Irae]

I try to engage you in an intelligent conversation. I treat you like a child and send you to bed without supper when you misbehave like ignoring facts that go against your argument because they aren't valid. It isn't cut and run, it is good parenting skills. You need a time out.

You don't try to engage in intelligent conversation. You jumped into a discussion I was having with JackBauer. I, as a matter of fact, conceded to some of your point, while noting my position:

I'm certainly not claiming that the stats are definitive. However, using what little information we have is better than just pulling "NFC West defenses" out of our asses.

Your response was to get ridiculous and to pretend that I was posting with some agenda about where the defense is:

The Pats defense isn't good right now. But you are trying to make it seem worse.

Later on, you decided to toss in this chestnut as you began your retreat:

Ok, you have established stats only matter when you think they are valid.

It is my fault for not realizing that you cannot play well with others and choose to decide to dictate the rules of a conversation and determine what stats are valid for discussions and what aren't. That isn't really debating, it is forcing your opinions down other people's throats. I have no desire to play these games anymore.

Take a good, long, look in the mirror. Maybe you'll stop being so hypocritical. My most "negative" post towards you was to tell you that your argument about it being premature to "declare it one of the worst and use stats to support your argument is way too premature." made no sense when my posts in the thread were clearly about the CURRENT state of the defense. You were the one who decided to get personal.

 

[IcyPatriot]

How about this:

A: Bill can run the defense to hold the Bills to a lower score but the defense will just be running basic stuff that won't help them learn moving forward.

B: Bill runs a defense where he plays a game balancing the need to learn with the need to win. the defense matures greatly from this approach moving forward. Good coaches are known to use this method as often as possible.


Knowing that every year we get the team revealed to us by weeks 6-8 I'm going to go with "B". The score of this game is very irrelevant compared to the value of the film produced from this game as a learning tool.

If this was week 9 or 10 I would be worried ... we're still in training stage mode. I always do B when training young soccer teams ... it almost always pays off further into the season. Don't use film though.
managing a game balancing learning and winning IMO is the best way to go ... as long as the score doesn't bother you all that matters is you got a W and you learned along the way.

 

[RayClay]

I thought we'd struggle because we're young anyway. Having Warren and Bodden drop so soon makes me ecstatic how Brace has played and cautiously optimistic about the secondary. Let's see if a healthy Wheatley gives us a better rotation, if not, an older vet pickup for stability might be what we need.

Until then we have 11 busts, naturally.

 

[IcyPatriot]

I thought we'd struggle because we're young anyway. Having Warren and Bodden drop so soon makes me ecstatic how Brace has played and cautiously optimistic about the secondary. Let's see if a healthy Wheatley gives us a better rotation, if not, an older vet pickup for stability might be what we need.

Until then we have 11 busts, naturally.

We have different busts each week ... there's a rotation going.

At least that's what some threads tell me.

so far Ingram is safe ...
but the week he hikes it over Zoltans head leading to a TD ... which costs us the game ... well

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I thought we'd struggle because we're young anyway. Having Warren and Bodden drop so soon makes me ecstatic how Brace has played and cautiously optimistic about the secondary. Let's see if a healthy Wheatley gives us a better rotation, if not, an older vet pickup for stability might be what we need.

Until then we have 11 busts, naturally.

The key point is that they held Cincy till the game was decided and made red zone stops yesterday. In both games, the defense caused turnovers. For a young defense, that's important and should give people cause for hope.

Besides, the days of the 2001-2004 defense is gone. Ty Law would rack up 50 penalties a game in 2010. The 2010 NFL is about elite offenses, QB's and scoring.

 

[alvinnf]

Our scheme stinks.....

 

[OldNEPatsFan]

Here's how this "points allowed" start stacks up among others in Belichick's tenure ...

2000: 62
2001: 46
2002: 59
2003: 57
2004: 53
2005: 67
2006: 51
2007: 35
2008: 58
2009: 50
2010: 82

 

[Kontradiction]

Our scheme stinks.....

Not really. While I personally prefer an aggressive, one-gapping 3-4, there's nothing wrong with the scheme. The personnel and execution just aren't ideal.

 

[Rob0729]

Eh, I'm not sure about that. It would be nice, don't get me wrong. But I think it's more like the 2009 Saints. With our youth and some of the question marks we have, I don't see this defense being a true "shut down" defense (like the 2001 defense was at points). I see them, at their best, being just good enough to get it done with it counts. That would define the 2009 Saints. However, I would take the 2001 defense any day of the week at this point.

I am saying it is very unlikely that they could do what the 2001 Patriots did, but with Belichick it isn't out of the question. I wouldn't give it more than a single digit percentage chance.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

We have different busts each week ... there's a rotation going.

At least that's what some threads tell me.

so far Ingram is safe ...
but the week he hikes it over Zoltans head leading to a TD ... which costs us the game ... well

IcyPatriot is right - RayClay is wrong. With our defensive rotation we have 15 or 16 busts - not just 11. Let's get it right.

 

[The Boston Patriot]

It could be worse, we could be Giants fans.

 

[IllegalContact]

Here's how this "points allowed" start stacks up among others in Belichick's tenure ...

2000: 62
2001: 46
2002: 59
2003: 57
2004: 53
2005: 67
2006: 51
2007: 35
2008: 58
2009: 50
2010: 82

The 2010 numbers are against the 15th, 21st, and 32nd best offenses in the NFL

 

[Pessimistic Pete]

Brandon Marshall (x2)
Anquan Boldin, Derrick Mason, Ray Rice
Phillip Rivers
Adrian Peterson
Peyton Manning
Aaaron Rodgers

Will our defense be able to shut down any of the above?

 

[Sicilian]

Brandon Marshall (x2)
Anquan Boldin, Derrick Mason, Ray Rice
Phillip Rivers
Adrian Peterson
Peyton Manning
Aaaron Rodgers

Will our defense be able to shut down any of the above?

Shut down? No. Limit enough that we can win? I don't see why they can't. Will or won't I'll leave to the psychics.

 

[captain stone]

I originally posted this in the Post-Game thread, but I thought it appropriate here, too:

"This defense is in a very, very bad place right now.

As in worse than 2005 or 2002 bad.

But at least those units still had a D-Line of $eymour & Jarvis Green, Bobby Hamilton & Anthony Pleasant (2002), and Wilfork & Warren (2005); LBs like Bruschi, Vrabel & Willie Mac, TJ & Phifer (2002), and TBC & Rosie (2005); and a D-Backfield of Law, O-t-i-s, Buckley, Milloy & Tebucky Jones (2002), and A$ante, Gay, Hobbs, Geno Wilson, Hank the Man Poteat & Artrell Hawkins (2005).

This unit has none of those players, exc. for Wilfork & TBC. Nor does it have - aside from Wilfork - any players with the aforementioned's combination of experience, talent, toughness & savvy. What it has instead is a toxic combination of the following:

- Wilfork, an island of quality unto himself;
(But a DL of Wilfork, Brace & GWarren is the slowest, most unathletic DL - even for a 34 - in football.)

- Undertalented, try-hard JAGs (Wright, TBC, Ninko, Guyton, Sanders, Arrington) who should never, ever be starters on even a PO-quality defense, never mind a SB-quality defense;

- Youth with promise but without any experience (McCourty, Cunningham, Spikes), or with very little experience (Chung, Brace), or with no promise at all (Wilhite);

- Recent high draft picks but also completely unknown quantities (Wheatley, Crable);

- A bottom of the roster limited in both experience & potential (Love, Deaderick, Pryor, Fletcher) or with experience but no potential (White, Page, GWarren);

- And perhaps worst of all, recent high draft picks (Meriweather, Mayo, Butler) who are allegedly the core of the defense going forward, but are instead the ones who consistently display the worst fundamentals, lack of production, and zero of the leadership qualities needed to be the long-term answers at their respective positions.

If Bill really wanted to make a statement to his D, he would not have started his defensive captain Mayo in addition to Stomper, Butler & TBC.

In conclusion, this is the worst combination of lack of talent, lack of experience, lack of leadership, and lack of tackling technique that I've seen from this team since the Bad Old Days of 1990-92. I do believe that the franchise record for points allowed in one 16-game season (446, almost 28 ppg) is about to be seriously threatened."

 

[Pessimistic Pete]

 

[Patjew]

Am I a bad person for laughing at that?