The Worst Defense in the History of the World...

[The Dynasty]

It depends. If the defense let's his receivers get behind them he probably goes for about 6-7 TDs, which is apparently the safe way to play defense, according to you.

I havent said I wanted the Pats to change their defense, and say put more pressure on the QB. It'd be stupid to change their defense.

If Manning was put in the situation with the final drive vs the Pats again, what would you say the probability is he at least gets a FG? 8/9 times out of 10 I would say.

 

[The Dynasty]

I'd probably say James Sanders picking him off but that's just me.

Of course, because it proves your side of the argument true.

 

[Ring 6]

Last year, in 11 playoff games there were 39 turnovers.
During the reg season the average team made about 25 turnovers.
That works out to about 3.2 per game or both teams in the reg season and 3.5 in the post season.
It appears that in 2009 turnovers INCREASED in the playoffs.

In those 11 playoff games the loser committed 3+ turn overs 6 times, 2 turnvoers 3 times and the losing team only committed 0 or 1 turnover, or the team that won forced less than 2 turovers only 2 times.

It would appear that based on last season turnovers increase and MUST BE relied on to win.

 

[Ring 6]

What is more likely? A SB winner and one of the best QBs ever to play the game leading his team to a game winning TD, or a young defense with no playoff experience picking him off?

You are joking right? One happened, one did not.
I think you need to move away from fantasy football

 

[jays52]

Turnovers come in all shapes and sizes. Interceptions obviously fit into this group. Some are caused by pressure, some by good technique by the defender, some by bad reads, some by tipped balls, and some are deliberately baited. While some are more random than others, teams that generate frequent turnovers tend to do so consistently and in clutch situations. The more technique and scheme based the picks, the more consistent they will be irrespective of the opposing offense.

The Patriots' picks fall under great technique and scheme. Obviously what the players are doing is phenomenal, but what BB is doing is downright disgusting. He is embarrassing his opponents this year with baited interceptions. I wish I had access to coach's tape to check out his polymorphic coverages, but what we can glean from TV is still impressive.

I think one of the major points in this discussion is the use of the three safety look and rotation. It doesn't seem like they are rolled down in a pursuit role like you would see in HS and college anti-spread 3 safety looks. It seems like he is utilizing the inverse with a balanced 2 high pre-snap look with another safety rolled up somewhere. There are many advantages to this. The main one is that because of the deep balance and (I guess I'll call it a flex safety) low, there is little the offense can do to force the defense to declare the coverage. Add to this the relative infrequency of blitzing and heavy use of zone and you have one of the most ambiguous pre-snap looks imaginable. It's no secret that BB loves cover-2, and I think that for the most part this is because of the balanced look and the fact that cover-2 can become a lot of other coverages in a hurry. This is where the baiting comes in. I have seen the flow of the game, and have seen Belichick allow a comfort come to an offense against a certain look. He will anticipate the offensive playcall in an advantageous situation, give them the look of the known and exploited coverage then place his players in a position to make a pick with his call. Granted, his DB's are playing out of their minds right now adjusting to the ball, but BB is baiting and creating these turnovers through coverage without pressure. This is incredible.

Given how these turnovers are being created this is not simply an opportunistic defense that makes a few lucky plays. This is the Sistene Chapel of one of the greatest defensive coaches to ever work the sidelines. This is the kind of defensive trend that will not statistically even out against elite offenses, but one that will continue to improve with increased reps for the young DB's and backers.

 

[Ring 6]

Last year, in 11 playoff games there were 39 turnovers.
During the reg season the average team made about 25 turnovers.
That works out to about 3.2 per game or both teams in the reg season and 3.5 in the post season.
It appears that in 2009 turnovers INCREASED in the playoffs.

In those 11 playoff games the loser committed 3+ turn overs 6 times, 2 turnvoers 3 times and the losing team only committed 0 or 1 turnover, or the team that won forced less than 2 turovers only 2 times.

It would appear that based on last season turnovers increase and MUST BE relied on to win.

The year before in 11 playoff games there were 44 turnovers.
7 winners forced 3 or more
2 winners forced 2
2 winners forced 1 or 0

I'm glad I looked this up.
If in fact the Patriots are 'relying on turnovers' then their chances to win it all are even better than I thought since it seems very apparent that you have to rely on turnovers to win in the playoffs.

 

[The Dynasty]

Last year, in 11 playoff games there were 39 turnovers.
During the reg season the average team made about 25 turnovers.
That works out to about 3.2 per game or both teams in the reg season and 3.5 in the post season.
It appears that in 2009 turnovers INCREASED in the playoffs.

In those 11 playoff games the loser committed 3+ turn overs 6 times, 2 turnvoers 3 times and the losing team only committed 0 or 1 turnover, or the team that won forced less than 2 turovers only 2 times.

It would appear that based on last season turnovers increase and MUST BE relied on to win.

Two of the top 5 team leaders in interceptions made the playoffs, and each failed to intercept a pass. Regular season success doesnt guarantee post season success as well.

 

[Patspsycho]

I think one of the major points in this discussion is the use of the three safety look and rotation. It doesn't seem like they are rolled down in a pursuit role like you would see in HS and college anti-spread 3 safety looks. It seems like he is utilizing the inverse with a balanced 2 high pre-snap look with another safety rolled up somewhere. There are many advantages to this. The main one is that because of the deep balance and (I guess I'll call it a flex safety) low, there is little the offense can do to force the defense to declare the coverage. Add to this the relative infrequency of blitzing and heavy use of zone and you have one of the most ambiguous pre-snap looks imaginable. It's no secret that BB loves cover-2, and I think that for the most part this is because of the balanced look and the fact that cover-2 can become a lot of other coverages in a hurry. This is where the baiting comes in. I have seen the flow of the game, and have seen Belichick allow a comfort come to an offense against a certain look. He will anticipate the offensive playcall in an advantageous situation, give them the look of the known and exploited coverage then place his players in a position to make a pick with his call. Granted, his DB's are playing out of their minds right now adjusting to the ball, but BB is baiting and creating these turnovers through coverage without pressure. This is incredible.

While breaking down the Jets game, it was amazing to see how much BB was screwing around with Sanchez- giving him zone looks that elapse into man coverage, and vice versa- not only do those result in interceptions, but also quite a few incompletions. I remember a play where Holmes broke a stick route flat, realized zone coverage and nested as you do in zone, but Sanchez was thinking man and led Holmes, and the ball just sailed wide.

Even Manning was fooled by a cover 3 scheme that resulted in the McCourty INT (where Garcon correctly modified his route from a flag to out when he saw the cover 3 emerge).

I think we are on a good roll right now and it will take a while before OC's figure out the antidote.

P.S. you need to post more.

 

[Ring 6]

Two of the top 5 team leaders in interceptions made the playoffs, and each failed to intercept a pass. Regular season success doesnt guarantee post season success as well.

Wow, you are really, really reaching.
Your stat is a lie as well.
NO, GB, Philly and Baltinmore were in the top 5 in Ints.
I'm pretty sure Baltimore and NO had some Ints, since Bmore came againmst us, and I remember one by the Saints very, very clearly.
Do you have a bad stat source, just guess, or know its wrong and post it anyway?

 

[ausbacker]

Of course, because it proves your side of the argument true.

Or probably because I watched it happen a few weeks ago and I've watched it happen against Peyton Manning for the better part of a decade.

You have no side of your argument. That's what is fundamentally clear.

 

[RayClay]

I havent said I wanted the Pats to change their defense, and say put more pressure on the QB. It'd be stupid to change their defense.

If Manning was put in the situation with the final drive vs the Pats again, what would you say the probability is he at least gets a FG? 8/9 times out of 10 I would say.

They don't play games over. How many games did the opposition swear we stole or were lucky in the 2003, 14-2 season?

You seem to think if we played tighter and Manning threw a 50 yard pass that would be OK because that's what we expect him to do.

When I have presented so many examples of actual games, why should I talk about your fantasy scenarios?

I'm happy to hold him to a long pass of 28 yards, knowing he's not known for patience. That approach won period. it's history, like the Pitt and Ram playoff, SB and the Eagles SB. No what if there, we won those 4 games.

 

[The Dynasty]

Wow, you are really, really reaching.
Your stat is a lie as well.
NO, GB, Philly and Baltinmore were in the top 5 in Ints.
I'm pretty sure Baltimore and NO had some Ints, since Bmore came againmst us, and I remember one by the Saints very, very clearly.
Do you have a bad stat source, just guess, or know its wrong and post it anyway?

Clearly you cant read....

The bolded teams were in the top 5. GB and Philly didnt intercept a pass during the post season.

 

[BradyFTW!]

What is more likely? A SB winner and one of the best QBs ever to play the game leading his team to a game winning TD, or a young defense with no playoff experience picking him off?

We don't have to speculate, since we saw what actually happened in exactly that situation. BTW, Tracy Porter is pretty young himself.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Clearly you cant read....

The bolded teams were in the top 5. GB and Philly didnt intercept a pass during the post season.

A single game isn't a sufficient sample size to conclude anything. I mean Brady threw 3 picks in last year's loss to Baltimore. Does that mean Brady will always throws 3 INTs in every play-off game? And what about Baltimore, which averaged under 1.4 INTs per game in the regular season but averaged 2 INTs in the play-offs? Does that count as proof that all teams throw more INTs in the play-offs? No. You can't use a few games to make sweeping conclusions.

Also, while Green Bay and Philly didn't get an INT, they each caused a turnover by fumble. The Packers actually forced another fumble but didn't recover.

And since we're still discussing turnovers in the play-offs, I took a second look at last season's play-off games and found there were turnovers in all 11 games. Not only that, but 7 of the 11 had turnovers from both teams.

In the Super Bowl, there was only one turnover, a beautiful pick-6 by Porter. That has nothing to do with anything other than I love mentioning this pick-6 Manning threw :singing: But that was also the only play-off game with 1 turnover, which means in 10 of 11 play-off games, there were multiple turnovers. In fact, 5 of 11 games had 4+ turnovers, almost half the play-off games. And Jake Delhomme wasn't even involved.

The 2009 NFL playoffs averaged around 3.6 turnovers per game. The 12 play-off teams combined for 356 turnovers in the regular season, or 1.8 each per game, which combines to 3.6 turnovers per game. So surprisingly, there wasn't a decrease in terms of turnovers per game in the play-offs last season. I didn't look at 2008, but there were actually more turnovers in the playoffs that season (45 vs. 39) so the data should be similar, if not showing an increase in turnovers in the playoffs.

 

[Ring 6]

Clearly you cant read....

The bolded teams were in the top 5. GB and Philly didnt intercept a pass during the post season.

Clearly I can. This is what you wrote.

"Two of the top 5 team leaders in interceptions made the playoffs, and each failed to intercept a pass"

In the English language that means 2 of the top 5 made the playoffs.

 

[Ring 6]

Clearly you cant read....

The bolded teams were in the top 5. GB and Philly didnt intercept a pass during the post season.

Nonetheless, rather than typing a post to imply I misread yours when in fact I didnt where is your response to the critical infomration. You know, the facts that show your primary assumption that your opinions in this thread have been based on--that turnovers decrease in the playoffs---is flat out wrong?

Are you capable of admitting you are wrong or should I take all of your posts, errors, incorrect stats, misleading statements, etc, as just trying to win an argment even if you know you are wrong?

 

[ausbacker]

Just terrible this defense. God awful actually.

 

[Michael]

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Man, this defense is coming on. It's one thing to force Sanchez into a poor game, but Cutler was playing great coming into this game.

12/26 for 152 yards mostly in garbage time, 47 yards rushing, 3 of 8 on 3rd down, whatever metric you want to use to measure defense, we did well today.

 

[ausbacker]

Man, this defense is coming on. It's one thing to force Sanchez into a poor game, but Cutler was playing great coming into this game.

12/26 for 152 yards mostly in garbage time, 47 yards rushing, 3 of 8 on 3rd down, whatever metric you want to use to measure defense, we did well today.