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

[Deus Irae]

I swear you are a ranting Packers fan! If the better team did not win, how come the Patriots have a better record than the Packers?

Interesting argument from a Patriots fan, especially given 2007.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not misconstruing the argument. You and others do not seem worried about the defense in the playoffs and think that because they force so many turnovers they will be able to win games. Well, what if the offense struggles? This defense is built to complement the offense, not win games. I do not think this defense has the ability to win a playoff game if the offense struggles.

Why are you all of a sudden making excuses because of the injuries to the defensive line? You're right there will be no additions to the 2010 Patriots, so you think what the team has right now is good enough to win a game if the offense can not put up 20+ points? Do you really think Mike Wright and Ron Brace make the Patriots that much better? Sure, they make them have more depth, but big Vince played 70 something plays and had his best game as a Patriot making up for their absence.

You TOTALLY misconstrue the argument.
First you said the Patriots can't win without turnovers and everyone knows that you cant get turnovers in the playoffs. Then it was proven to you that turnovers are MORE prevalent in the playoffs.
Then you changed gears to say they are young and havent played close games so they will fail. They just played a close game and shut down the other team in the 4th quarter, so you move the goalposts again.
Now its the inane "What if the offense sucks"
Well its a ridiculous discussion, because every team will be in trouble if their offense sucks, and the Patriots offense has been the best in the league.
Soon you will be asking how we could possibly hope to win if some team shuts us out, and say thats your proof the defense blows.

If you would like please show me the team that has proven to you they can win if their offense sucks.

 

[RayClay]

Why do you keep posting irrelevant responses?

Apparently winning is irrelevant, deserving relevant in your world.

Winners win. Loser make excuses about how they deserved what they did not accomplish.

 

[The Dynasty]

I could care less about the better statistics that a team accumulate while winning less games.
The Jets and Ravens defenses have CONSISTENTLY failed in the 4th quarter. The Jets offense actually balied out there defense in all of those close wins vs bad teams. Werent you paying attention?
See, here is where we go in opposite directions.
The Patriots win 35-24 and the defense gives up a lot of yards but the game is never in jeopardy. The Jets win 35-3.
Then next week the Patriots win 35-24 and the Jets either lose 21-17 because the defense allowed the other team to score a go ahead 4th quarter TD, or they win 24-21 because the offense came back and scored again.
You think that means the Jets have a better defense because they have better statistics.
I say the plays that decide football games mean 1000 times more than the ones that are irrelevant to outcome.

You are an absolute moron if you firmly believe that the Patriots defense is better than the Jets. You lose all credibility with that statement.

That is plain stupid. When they played against each other it is meaningless but the statistics they got against other teams is meaningful?
Did the Patriots defense virtually shut out the Jets? Did it stone the Steelers until the game was out of hand? Did it shut down the Ravens when the game was on the line?
Head to head, the Patriot defense outplayed each of them BY A LOT. Yet, you think they must be better because you are counting yards?
Do the Jets get more credit for holding Cincy to 10 while winning than we do because they scored meaningless points vs us?
Does the Jet D get more credit for allowing 17 to Pitt than we get for playing better than they did before the game was out of hand?

Did you forget that the Jets actually beat the Patriots in week 2? The Jets played their worst game of the season vs. the Patriots, while the Patriots had their best. I'm not saying the Jets would have won if they didnt play their worst game of the year, but I am just pointing it out. If the two teams meet in the playoffs both games this year would be thrown out the window, the playoffs is an entirely new season. You cannot compare teams to common opponents, each game is different-different game plans, weather conditions, circumstances, etc.

Why aren't you saying what if the Jets cant keep 35 off the board?
It is not an even playing field. Our offense is the highest scoring in the NFL. It is very unlikely it will fail in the playoffs. When it has in the regular season almost every time the defense has stepped up.

The chance of the offense struggling is very slim. No matter how many times you want to keep repeating yourself statistics, yardage totals, time of possession or whatever you want to pull out of your @ss are not a better gauge of what a defense will do when they need a stop to win a game than what they do when they need a stop to win a game.
Throw out the insignificant statistics and answer this statistical question. What defense has the best statistics at stopping the other team when the game is on the line. If your answer is honest, it will be the Patriots.
Now tell me why those other stats you love so much are a better indicator of what the defense will do when the game is on the line.

What game has the offense truly failed? The first game vs. the Jets is the only legit game they failed, and guess what the defense gave up 28 points and lost. Sunday night they offense did not play well, the defense really did not bail them out. The Packers playing with a back up quarterback bailed them out. Can you honestly say if Aaron Rodgers played and the Patriots played like they did that the Patriots would win? In the playoffs QBs like Matt Ryan will not be playing, it will be quality QBs that make you pay for mistakes.

In how many games have the Patriots stopped the opponent when the game was on the line? Three? Ravens, Jets, Colts? The Ravens stopped the Saints this week and prevented them from tieing the game up. They also got the pick-6 in OT vs. the Texans. In the first meeting with the Steelers they Ravens stopped them when the game was on the line. The Steelers forced a turnover on the Ravens in their Sunday night meeting in the 4th quarter a few weeks ago. Harrison had a big INT on the Dolphins last possession when the Steelers beat the Dolphins earlier in the year. Other teams do this too besides the Patriots. You are acting like the Patriots are the only team that their defense comes up with stops at the end of games.

 

[Deus Irae]

Apparently winning is irrelevant, deserving relevant in your world.

Winners win. Loser make excuses about how they deserved what they did not accomplish.

No... being named as preseason favorites is irrelevant to deserving to win a specific game due to on-field performance.

Winners win. Smart winners admit when they got lucky breaks, and then go about making sure that luck isn't needed the next time.

 

[The Dynasty]

You TOTALLY misconstrue the argument.
First you said the Patriots can't win without turnovers and everyone knows that you cant get turnovers in the playoffs. Then it was proven to you that turnovers are MORE prevalent in the playoffs.
Then you changed gears to say they are young and havent played close games so they will fail. They just played a close game and shut down the other team in the 4th quarter, so you move the goalposts again.
Now its the inane "What if the offense sucks"
Well its a ridiculous discussion, because every team will be in trouble if their offense sucks, and the Patriots offense has been the best in the league.
Soon you will be asking how we could possibly hope to win if some team shuts us out, and say thats your proof the defense blows.

If you would like please show me the team that has proven to you they can win if their offense sucks.

My argument the whole time has been that the defense may not get it done in the playoffs. This is because of a number of reasons, first I said because they live by the turnover too much. People said that teams win more when they force turnovers in the playoffs, I am saying that the playoffs is an entire new season and the Patriots are very young so there is no guarantee they will be able to force turnovers then. You already shot that down, and I dont really want to get into it again so dont even bother.

You cannot take much from Sundays game. They played Matt Flynn, a guy making his first NFL start. Things will be considerably different in the playoffs.

I am not saying "what if the offense sucks", I am saying what if the offense doesnt give the defense a double digit lead to work with like it has for pretty much every win this season.

You are saying the defense can get it done in the playoffs and are fairly certain in that. I have never said that they can't, I am just saying there is a possibility that it cannot especially if the offense doesnt play like it has all year. Can you atleast admit that there is a chance this defense can not get it done in the playoffs?

 

[Ring 6]

You are an absolute moron if you firmly believe that the Patriots defense is better than the Jets. You lose all credibility with that statement.

First of all you need a course in reading comprehension.
Secondly it is indisputable that there are some things that the Patriots D has done better than the Jets D. One is play well against top teams. Another is protect leads in the 4th quarter.
The Patriots D has not coughed up 45 in a big game. The Jets D has surrenedered numerous 4th quarter leads. Your precious yardage stats notwithstanding.
Answer me this, what would the Patriots record be if they had the Jets D? Answer 12-2.

Did you forget that the Jets actually beat the Patriots in week 2? The Jets played their worst game of the season vs. the Patriots, while the Patriots had their best.

You dismiss everything that doesnt support your argument with an excuse like this. How can you just pretend it didnt happen by saying they played their best or worst? Doesnt it count?

I'm not saying the Jets would have won if they didnt play their worst game of the year, but I am just pointing it out.

No you are inventing it as an excuse. How about the Patriots made them play their worst?

If the two teams meet in the playoffs both games this year would be thrown out the window, the playoffs is an entirely new season.

You are the one who is arguing that something that happened in a past game should make everyone worry about the future.

You cannot compare teams to common opponents, each game is different-different game plans, weather conditions, circumstances, etc.

Again YOU are the one projecting one game (GB) into future meaning.

What game has the offense truly failed? The first game vs. the Jets is the only legit game they failed, and guess what the defense gave up 28 points and lost. Sunday night they offense did not play well, the defense really did not bail them out.

What is TRULY baling them out? Is a 10 point win better than 6? 14? 24?


quote] The Packers playing with a back up quarterback bailed them out. Can you honestly say if Aaron Rodgers played and the Patriots played like they did that the Patriots would win?/quote]
It would have been a totally different game. Arguably the game plan with Rodgers would not have worked as well as the balanced game plan they used. No one knows.

In the playoffs QBs like Matt Ryan will not be playing, it will be quality QBs that make you pay for mistakes.

I think you mean Flynn, who actually played very well. In any event, we would be defending different QBs differently, with different players on the field as well.

In how many games have the Patriots stopped the opponent when the game was on the line? Three? Ravens, Jets, Colts?

Packers? Vikings?
In how many did they fail?

The Ravens stopped the Saints this week and prevented them from tieing the game up. They also got the pick-6 in OT vs. the Texans.

They let the Texans come back from 21 points down to force OT. THAT is your example of stopping the pther team when it matters? Wow. You are just making things up now and pretending they support your argument.
They also let the Saints tie the game in the 4th.
They let the Bills come back from 10 in the 4th quarter. They let us come back from 10 in the 4th quarter. They gave up a 4th quarter lead and lost to Atlanta.

In the first meeting with the Steelers they Ravens stopped them when the game was on the line. /quote]
The Ravens have been one of the worst 4th quarter defenses in the NFL, and you are trying to say they are good? If you can't accept that, there is no point having a conversation because you will tell me the sky is purple if it helps your argument. Man up on this one.

The Steelers forced a turnover on the Ravens in their Sunday night meeting in the 4th quarter a few weeks ago. Harrison had a big INT on the Dolphins last possession when the Steelers beat the Dolphins earlier in the year.

I thought turnovers weren't really stops they were lucky baliouts? Or is that only when the Patriots force them?

Other teams do this too besides the Patriots. You are acting like the Patriots are the only team that their defense comes up with stops at the end of games.[/quote]
No, I said the Patriots have been superb at it, which is correct. YOU are the one who said they havent stopped anyone late in close games. (Other than the ones they did which you dont want to count for some reason)

 

[Ring 6]

My argument the whole time has been that the defense may not get it done in the playoffs. This is because of a number of reasons, first I said because they live by the turnover too much.

Proven wrong.

People said that teams win more when they force turnovers in the playoffs,

And as many or more turnovers happen in the playoffs

I am saying that the playoffs is an entire new season and the Patriots are very young so there is no guarantee they will be able to force turnovers then.

Young is irrelevant, there is no correlation to age and a dropoff in performnace in the postseason.
There is no guarantee any team will do anything in any game.

You already shot that down, and I dont really want to get into it again so dont even bother.

Then why keep saying it when it is wrong?

You cannot take much from Sundays game. They played Matt Flynn, a guy making his first NFL start. Things will be considerably different in the playoffs.

You are taking things from that game if they suit your position.
What is it, you get to pick what translates and what doesnt?

quote]I am not saying "what if the offense sucks", I am saying what if the offense doesnt give the defense a double digit lead to work with like it has for pretty much every win this season. [/quote]
In the games that it has not, the defense has still protected the lead. You just want to pretend those games didnt happen.

You are saying the defense can get it done in the playoffs and are fairly certain in that.

Actually I have never said that. I have said that your argument is flawed, ignorant and wrong. I have stated what they have done this season, and I have applied how they actually performed in the situation you are saying they won't perform in rather than use meaningless statistics to pretend what will happen. I have addressed the errors in your argument, such as saying they haven't stopped teams in close games in the 4th quarter.
I have offered absolutel no prediction of what they will do in the playoffs. I have simply redirected the discussion about what is relevant to that question by discussing what actually is relevant.

I have never said that they can't, I am just saying there is a possibility that it cannot especially if the offense doesnt play like it has all year. Can you atleast admit that there is a chance this defense can not get it done in the playoffs?

There is a chance the offense cant get it done, there is a chance the defense cant get it done, there is a chance every teams offense and every teams defense cant get it done.
Are you seriously telling me that you have gone to this much trouble, used this much subterfuge, twisted this many facts, just to get to the conclusion that we shoiuldnt be handed the Lombardi until the games are played?

 

[ATippett56]

Interesting argument from a Patriots fan, especially given 2007.

Unlike 2007 with regard to a game not to be specifically mentioned, the final score was New England Patriots 31, Green Bay Packers 27!

 

[Ring 6]

Apparently winning is irrelevant, deserving relevant in your world.

Winners win. Loser make excuses about how they deserved what they did not accomplish.

The team that wins the game deserves to win because they did what was necessary to win. Winning is the purpose, and only purpose of the game.
If the team that has the most time of possession wins 99.9% of the time, that does not mean that the team that overcomes not having that advantage didnt deserve to win.
Thats the problem. People think they know what leads to winning and when the game doesnt follow their model, insread of accepting their model is imperefect they come up with something moronic like something other than the most points is more deserving of winning.

 

[Joker]

He's obviously an undercover troll but for what team has been the question...I think he answered that with the ridiculous Jet/Patriots comparison using week two as a counter to 45-3.Of course,that is an idiotic comparison only a homer makes...a Jet homer.

 

[ATippett56]

My argument the whole time has been that the defense may not get it done in the playoffs. This is because of a number of reasons, first I said because they live by the turnover too much. People said that teams win more when they force turnovers in the playoffs, I am saying that the playoffs is an entire new season and the Patriots are very young so there is no guarantee they will be able to force turnovers then. You already shot that down, and I dont really want to get into it again so dont even bother.

Who are you to say the New England Patriots offense can't get it done? If it worked for the New Orleans Saints last year, it can work for the New England Patriots this year.

 

[Deus Irae]

Unlike 2007 with regard to a game not to be specifically mentioned, the final score was New England Patriots 31, Green Bay Packers 27!

If the better team did not win, how come the Patriots have a better record than the Packers?

The Giants won the game in 2007. The Patriots had an 18-1 record.

The Giants don't win the game if the official calls whistles Manning down as he should have.

So.........

1.) One can argue that the Giants didn't deserve the game, based on a blown call (There's also a clock question, according to some).

2.) One can argue that the Giants deserved to win the game, because the Giants made the plays to win, regardless of what the officials did.

3.) One can argue that the better team (18-1) didn't win.

4.) One can argue that the Giants were the better team, because they won the Super Bowl.

All are arguable positions. Score alone doesn't answer the "who's better" question. "Deserve" doesn't always apply to winners. That's just the reality of sports. 2007 should have smartened up this fan base enough to know such things.

 

[ATippett56]

He's obviously an undercover troll but for what team has been the question...I think he answered that with the ridiculous Jets/Patriots comparison using week two as a counter to 45-3. Of course, that is an idiotic comparison only a homer makes...a Jets homer.

A Jets homer using the cover as a Green Bay Packers fan!

 

[Ring 6]

Who are you to say the New England Patriots offense can't get it done? If it worked for the New Orleans Saints last year, it can work for the New England Patriots this year.

This defense only needs to do what it needs to do to win WITH THIS OFFENSE.
If the Patriots win all 3 playoff games 66-63 because the defense blocked a FG attempt, it did its job. All they have to do is just enough to win. More would make it more enjoyable but isnt necessary.
If our offense plays well enough that we could win it all with 29 of the 32 NFL defenses and we are the 29th best, the defense was good enough.
Its just stupid to argue about whether our defense would be winning without our offense, because the definition of their jb would be totally different.

 

[ATippett56]

The Giants won the game in 2007. The Patriots had an 18-1 record.

The Giants don't win the game if the official calls whistles Manning down as he should have.

So.........

1.) One can argue that the Giants didn't deserve the game, based on a blown call (There's also a clock question, according to some).

2.) One can argue that the Giants deserved to win the game, because the Giants made the plays to win, regardless of what the officials did.

3.) One can argue that the better team (18-1) didn't win.

4.) One can argue that the Giants were the better team, because they won the Super Bowl.

All are arguable positions. Score alone doesn't answer the "who's better" question. "Deserve" doesn't always apply to winners. That's just the reality of sports. 2007 should have smartened up this fan base enough to know such things.

Non sequitur. You brought up 2007 which has no bearing whatsoever to 2010. Patriots 31, Packers 27! Patriots 12-2, Packers 8-6. Patriots beat the Packers on the field of play and have a better overall record, as well. Nothing else to discuss.

 

[Ring 6]

The Giants won the game in 2007. The Patriots had an 18-1 record.

The Giants don't win the game if the official calls whistles Manning down as he should have.

So.........

1.) One can argue that the Giants didn't deserve the game, based on a blown call (There's also a clock question, according to some).

2.) One can argue that the Giants deserved to win the game, because the Giants made the plays to win, regardless of what the officials did.

3.) One can argue that the better team (18-1) didn't win.

4.) One can argue that the Giants were the better team, because they won the Super Bowl.

All are arguable positions. Score alone doesn't answer the "who's better" question. "Deserve" doesn't always apply to winners. That's just the reality of sports. 2007 should have smartened up this fan base enough to know such things.

Most of those are subject.
Deserve to win is not. The winner is the team that scores the most points. Regardless of anyones definition of playing better, scoring the most point is by definition deserving of winning.

 

[ATippett56]

This defense only needs to do what it needs to do to win WITH THIS OFFENSE.
If the Patriots win all 3 playoff games 66-63 because the defense blocked a FG attempt, it did its job. All they have to do is just enough to win. More would make it more enjoyable but isnt necessary.
If our offense plays well enough that we could win it all with 29 of the 32 NFL defenses and we are the 29th best, the defense was good enough.
Its just stupid to argue about whether our defense would be winning without our offense, because the definition of their jb would be totally different.

Whoa! My name is not The Dynasty. I understand the perspective with regard to the 2010 New England Patriots.

 

[The Dynasty]

First of all you need a course in reading comprehension.
Secondly it is indisputable that there are some things that the Patriots D has done better than the Jets D. One is play well against top teams. Another is protect leads in the 4th quarter.
The Patriots D has not coughed up 45 in a big game. The Jets D has surrenedered numerous 4th quarter leads. Your precious yardage stats notwithstanding.
Answer me this, what would the Patriots record be if they had the Jets D? Answer 12-2.

Okay, first you are criticizing me for saying all of the Patriots flaws and hypothetically saying "what if they play their worst", but yet you are pointing out only the flaws of the Jets. You are one big hypocrite. The Jets had a bad game vs. the Patriots and I would say they gave up in the 2nd half, the 45 points was not the real Jets team, do you think the Pats would put up 45 on the again this year? Definitely not. The Jets do some things better than the Patriots, just like the Patriots do somethings better than the Jets. Overall, I would have to say that the Jets have a better defense than the Patriots do. You really cannot disagree with that.

No you are inventing it as an excuse. How about the Patriots made them play their worst?

You cannot say that it is all the Patriots making a team play at their worst. Sometimes teams just have bad nights. You do have to give most of the credit to the winning team, but teams just have bad nights and off days. It happens. You cannot give all the credit to the Patriots.

It would have been a totally different game. Arguably the game plan with Rodgers would not have worked as well as the balanced game plan they used. No one knows.

I think you mean Flynn, who actually played very well. In any event, we would be defending different QBs differently, with different players on the field as well.

Yes, I ment Flynn. Here you go again, you are criticizing me for hypothetically making points, so how can you say that the Packers would have used a different game plan from what they did and would be more successful. We can only go with what actually happened on the field and what happened was that Matt Flynn, a back up QB made the Pats look terrible for the vast majority of the game. Also, why would there be different players on the field? The Patriots did not use different defense guys just because Flynn was at quarterback.

They let the Texans come back from 21 points down to force OT. THAT is your example of stopping the pther team when it matters? Wow. You are just making things up now and pretending they support your argument.
They also let the Saints tie the game in the 4th.
They let the Bills come back from 10 in the 4th quarter. They let us come back from 10 in the 4th quarter. They gave up a 4th quarter lead and lost to Atlanta.

Then why are you giving the Patriots all the credit in the world for stopping Manning on the last possession. They gave up 14 4th quarter points and then stopped them on the last possession. So its a positive when the Patriots do it, but its bad when other teams do it? You are completely contradicting yourself. It can either be one thing or the other, not one for the Patriots and something different for every other team.

No, I said the Patriots have been superb at it, which is correct. YOU are the one who said they havent stopped anyone late in close games. (Other than the ones they did which you dont want to count for some reason)

There have been 3 instances this year where the Patriots have stopped an opponent late in a close game. The Ravens, Colts and Packers. I gave the Patriots all the credit in the world in the Ravens game, that was a well deserved team win and the defense came up big. The Colts game I said they gave up 14 4th quarter points and won on an INT, so it wasnt that great. THEN when I give other teams that do the same thing you tell me that its a bad thing to give up leads but then come up big when it matters most. So using your logic now the Colts game shouldnt count. Then I say the Packers game doesnt count because it was against a back up quarterback that was making his first NFL start and had never been in that situation before, a playoff quarterback would have been there before and would have most likely performed better.

 

[Deus Irae]

Non sequitur. You brought up 2007 which has no bearing whatsoever to 2010. Patriots 31, Packers 27! Patriots 12-2, Packers 8-6. Patriots beat the Packers on the field of play and have a better overall record, as well. Nothing else to discuss.

It had bearing on the comment I responded to, which happened to be yours. If you aren't capable of seeing it, that's on you, not me.

As you say, nothing else to discuss.