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

[ausbacker]

Nothing controversial in what you’re saying. Not sure why Dynasty has allowed himself to be pulled down the rabbit hole by the likes of Andy et al. He probably was too definitive regarding the Pats not being able to continue to rely on turnovers come Jan and chose not to dwell on the fact that injuries have taken their toll (what team doesn’t have injuries?). So what? We needed 42 pages of slamming the guy for that? Here are his first couple of posts:

I see your points and agree with most - I must be missing something.

You're missing a lot. There is no statistical correlation suggesting that turnovers decline in the post-season. In fact, it is the opposite.

Nobody is saying the Patriots D is the be all and end all because it isn't. What most people who have taken issue with certain posters is that the same rationale is not applied to the performance of one defense to the next defense.

 

[mb6592]

You're missing a lot. There is no statistical correlation suggesting that turnovers decline in the post-season. In fact, it is the opposite.

Nobody is saying the Patriots D is the be all and end all because it isn't. What most people who have taken issue with certain posters is that the same rationale is not applied to the performance of one defense to the next defense.

Nice try pal, I'm not Dynasty. I don't give a shat about your "statistical correlation." The Pats had better become more consistent on D come playoff time (especially on 3rd down as Dynasty has pointed out) or it will have been a wonderful season - albeit, sans a Super Bowl trophy.

 

[RayClay]

Nice try pal, I'm not Dynasty. I don't give a shat about your "statistical correlation." The Pats had better become more consistent on D come playoff time (especially on 3rd down as Dynasty has pointed out) or it will have been a wonderful season - albeit, sans a Super Bowl trophy.

Problem is, you change your strategy to improve in one area, you have to potentially give up something else. Would you rather they improve their third down defense by risking more big play pass completions, because that's the trade off.

 

[mb6592]

Problem is, you change your strategy to improve in one area, you have to potentially give up something else. Would you rather they improve their third down defense by risking more big play pass completions, because that's the trade off.

You're probably right, but all that does is confirm the underlying point - this defense is somewhere between mostly average and, when healthy and firing on all cylinders, good.

 

[RayClay]

You're probably right, but all that does is confirm the underlying point - this defense is somewhere between average and, when firing on all cylinders, good.

I've been surprised it's functioned this well. Considering everybody, especially me, realizes a defense with almost all rooks and second year players and one seasoned vet (since Warren and Bodden went down) is not tops talent wise, there isn't any argument there.

The argument is, how do we get the most out of it? The other poster says by improving our 3rd down defense. I say it could make us worse, especially given we have 3 corners, none vets, one a rook, one demoted.

Believe me, if I though Dynasty was just saying our defense stinks, I wouldn't respond, because that's pointless. He's trying to make legitimate points, i just disagree with them.

 

[karran_s]

Apparently winning is irrelevant, deserving relevant in your world.

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

Losers who don't whine but show up in the next game to really play well and also win .. that's the team we would all like to see. I think the Pats demonstrated that when they lost to the Browns. Clearly, no one in NE thought that the Browns would hand down a beating to the Pats.

Brady said it best - "we sucked out there".... A win is a win... winners find a way to accomplish that goal. Losers play well but fail when the game is on the line.

Witness GB's offense - the QB wasted precious seconds to get to the line of scrimmage and was waiting for instructions from an inept coaching staff on the sideline. Prior to that too, a lot of time was wasted - timeouts, running plays, etc.

No one DESERVES to win or lose - as someone pointed out, that's a laughable concept in sports. The team that makes the critical plays and shows the mental strength to fight through adversity usually wins.

 

[Kontradiction]

Seeing as I have not been the only person making comparisons to the 2009 Saints, I figured I'd put this post in this thread rather than dedicating a new thread to the topic.

2009 New Orleans Saints (16 games):
1. Pts/G - 21.3
2. Total Pts Allowed - 341
3. Yds/G - 357.8
4. Comp Pct - 57.5
5. Pass Yds Allowed - 3,769
6. INT's - 26
7. Sacks - 35
8. Rush Yds Allowed - 1,955
9. Rush TD's Allowed - 19

2010 New England Patriots (14 games):
1. Pts/G - 21.6
2. Total Pts Allowed - 303
3. Yds/G - 374.6
4. Comp Pct - 65.9
5. Pass Yds Allowed - 3,686
6. INT's - 21
7. Sacks - 28
8. Rush Yds Allowed - 1,559
9. Rush TD's Allowed - 10

There are a lot of comparisons to be made here. Neither defensive unit was a lockdown type of defense. Both units have their fair share of personnel issues. Both units have been able to create turnovers. Both have allowed near the same amount of points per game. Both will probably have allowed near the same amount of total points by the time the season ends. The Saints allowed less yards per game than we have thus far, but it's not like that's an eye popping difference. Saints have allowed a lower completion percentage than we have. By the time the season ends, they will have allowed less passing yards than us, but, again, it's not like that's going to be an eye popping difference. Both will probably have around the same amount of sacks.

The 2009 Saints were a better defense against the pass than the 2010 Pats are, but the Pats have been a better defense against the run than the 2009 Saints were. If the defense can stay aggressive, improve against the run (which should happen with the return of Brace and Spikes), and keep creating turnovers, we should be able to go deep into the playoffs with the way our offense is playing.

 

[mb6592]

The argument is, how do we get the most out of it? The other poster says by improving our 3rd down defense. I say it could make us worse, especially given we have 3 corners, none vets, one a rook, one demoted.

Well, I'm sure Belichick would like better results on 3rd down, but he clearly agrees with you as he has instituted a bend but don't break approach with this collection of Patriots. Maybe that's his general defensive philosophy overall, and maybe it's as much a product of his (lack of) pass rush as the corners' situation.

 

[RayClay]

Well, I'm sure Belichick would like better results on 3rd down, but he clearly agrees with you as he has instituted a bend but don't break approach with this collection of Patriots. Maybe that's his general defensive philosophy overall, and maybe it's as much a product of his (lack of) pass rush as the corners' situation.

My opinion in a nutshell is executing the game plan that, in conjunction with out offense, gives us the best chance of winning that game.

Against manning, keeping his longest pass to 28 yards (including YAC) might have been more important than keeping them from getting 10 yards at a time. I suspect so.

Against the Jets, we were much better at third down stops (9 out of 12). Does that mean we solved that "problem"? I contend it means we played a team that moves the chains with the run tighter to make third down stops. Do we risk Sanchez killing us by airing it out? I guess. Forcing him into bad down and distance situations and taking away his short passes to physical hard running receivers seemed to work.

I don't think Peyton cares what down it is, he's heaving it coming out of the locker room sometimes.

Bottom line, statistics are useful to evaluate, but individual game plans executed is what pays the rent.

 

[ausbacker]

Nice try pal, I'm not Dynasty. I don't give a shat about your "statistical correlation." The Pats had better become more consistent on D come playoff time (especially on 3rd down as Dynasty has pointed out) or it will have been a wonderful season - albeit, sans a Super Bowl trophy.

The Pats D is consistent, you just don't like the results of that consistency because;

1. the defense gives up yards,
2. the defense creates turnovers,
3. the defense scores, &
4. the defense has restricted opponents 12 out of 14 times to scores less than the offense.

I'm pleased to read that you don't give a crap about statistical data or historic events in the NFL. That further emphasizes that you don't know what you're talking about when you discount proven events on the whim.

It's interesting going back and forth with people who employ opinion over fact. Me, well I work with facts and don't bother losing sleep over comments such as yours and The Dynasty's given the improvement I have observed from the defense as the year has progressed.

 

[mb6592]

The Pats D is consistent, you just don't like the results of that consistency because;

1. the defense gives up yards,
2. the defense creates turnovers,
3. the defense scores, &
4. the defense has restricted opponents 12 out of 14 times to scores less than the offense.

I'm pleased to read that you don't give a crap about statistical data or historic events in the NFL. That further emphasizes that you don't know what you're talking about when you discount proven events on the whim.

It's interesting going back and forth with people who employ opinion over fact. Me, well I work with facts and don't bother losing sleep over comments such as yours and The Dynasty's given the improvement I have observed from the defense as the year has progressed.

Feeling holier than thou because you point to some BS stats? So you're BS statistics are a more factual prediction of what will happen come playoff time than what some of us see with our own eyes too often on the field? And if the Patriots get blown out like last year because their sometimes swiss cheese defense gets exposed once again will you take your stats and shove them up your azz? Too many geeks on this forum sometimes.

Like I said, "this defense is somewhere between mostly average and, when healthy and firing on all cylinders, good." I hope come playoff time the latter is the defense that shows up. By the way, do you agree with my evaluation? If you do, why be a j---off?

Note: And before you point out that turnovers caused that lopsided outcome, I'd point out the defense giving up 234 yards of rushing made any comeback impossible (à la Peyton Manning's defense holding the NE offense to 1 touchdown in the second half which made possible that terrible comeback in 2007. Pats 1st half rushing 85 yards, 93 yards total for the game - how's that for a stat?).

 

[The Dynasty]

It's nice to see that I actually have had some people come to my defense and see where I am coming from in regards to the defense, unlike some people who just see W's and think everything is perfect

 

[ausbacker]

Feeling holier than thou because you point to some BS stats? So you're BS statistics are a more factual prediction of what will happen come playoff time than what some of us see with our own eyes too often on the field? And if the Patriots get blown out like last year because their sometimes swiss cheese defense gets exposed once again will you take your stats and shove them up your azz? Too many geeks on this forum sometimes.

Like I said, "this defense is somewhere between mostly average and, when healthy and firing on all cylinders, good." I hope come playoff time the latter is the defense that shows up. By the way, do you agree with my evaluation? If you do, why be a j---off?

Note: And before you point out that turnovers caused that lopsided outcome, I'd point out the defense giving up 234 yards of rushing made any comeback impossible (à la Peyton Manning's defense holding the NE offense to 1 touchdown in the second half which made possible that terrible comeback in 2007. Pats 1st half rushing 85 yards, 93 yards total for the game - how's that for a stat?).

Actually statistics are an indicator of correlations in data. They certainly aren't the be all and end all and generally illustrate some sort of theme (which is apparently above your pay grade). Trends are great to reference but like you, I also enjoy the eyeball test.

I still stand by my comments given that's what I have seen on the field and that's what the statistics have observed. Early in the season I was concerned about the defense. As the season has progressed they have improved tremendously so much so that I no longer view the defense as a liability. You can please yourself with your assessment even in light of a factual basis to construct my argument (as are those who agree the defense has improved and is making the necessary plays). Feel free to hold onto yards and 3rd down conversions if you should so chose.

As for your Colts explanation. I must have missed the score of that game. Can you tell me what Peyton Manning's last play was and who performed the match sealing deal? What leads you to assume that the Patriots cannot do that again? Why not blame the offense given the Patriots D has done an admirable job in their role?

The defense has been playing well enough. I don't think they are an average group and I don't think it's an elite defense. I believe this defense is opportunistic as has been pointed out. I believe the defense is on the way to becoming a very good defense from what I have observed and the returning players.

The reality is this defense is making the necessary plays. I see no reason why that cannot continue and I see no reasonable explanation for the assumption that they cannot continue this against elite teams given they have done it against elite teams and will most likely be playing at Foxboro for the duration of the playoffs (assuming the team wins out to SB45).

Everything in between is just conjecture.

 

[RayClay]

No one is arguing everything is perfect. The argument is, given the players they have, are they performing well. I think so.

Comparing them against an imaginary perfect defense just shows a weak argument.

 

[Ring 6]

No one is arguing everything is perfect. The argument is, given the players they have, are they performing well. I think so.

Comparing them against an imaginary perfect defense just shows a weak argument.

Actually the argument in this thread is against:
1) An incorrect assertion that the defense has relied only on turnovers, that there is something wrong with getting turnovers, and that the ability to produce turnovers evaporates in the playoffs
2) Ignoring the fact that the defense has played very well in the 2nd half and 4th quarter preventing points when the game is 'on the line', and the fact that almost every other contender has not done nearly as well in that area
3) That other defense have been consistently and dramatically outperforming this one all season long.
4) That is it a stupid argument to ask what will happen to the team that scores the most points in the NFL if it stops scoring points.
but even sillier to imply that the offense will all of sudden do something entirely different than what it did all season and apply what the defense did all season to what the result would be.

The argument has never been that the defense is more than it is. The argument has been that you cannot take selective cumulative statistics over the course of a season in very different circumstances and apply the average of them to make a case that the defense will fail in the clutch.
3rd down conversion percentage, total yards allowed especially with a large lead and other cumulative stats are not as good of an indicator of what a defense will do with a 4th quarter lead than what that defense actually did with a 4th quarter lead, and the fear of that situation is unfounded when the exact teams that you think will take advantage of it have performed worse in that situation.

If the concern is that the 2010 Patriots couldnt win a SB with an average offense, well, duh, this was a total waste of time.
The point is that this defense only needs to win in conjunction with THIS offense, and the greatest strength this defense has shown is that it plays its best in situations where the game is close. For some reason, some posters want to dismiss that good play when the result of it is to increase the lead, which makes no sense to me.

 

[mb6592]

Actually statistics are an indicator of correlations in data. They certainly aren't the be all and end all and generally illustrate some sort of theme (which is apparently above your pay grade). Trends are great to reference but like you, I also enjoy the eyeball test.

I still stand by my comments given that's what I have seen on the field and that's what the statistics have observed. Early in the season I was concerned about the defense. As the season has progressed they have improved tremendously so much so that I no longer view the defense as a liability. You can please yourself with your assessment even in light of a factual basis to construct my argument (as are those who agree the defense has improved and is making the necessary plays). Feel free to hold onto yards and 3rd down conversions if you should so chose.

As for your Colts explanation. I must have missed the score of that game. Can you tell me what Peyton Manning's last play was and who performed the match sealing deal? What leads you to assume that the Patriots cannot do that again? Why not blame the offense given the Patriots D has done an admirable job in their role?

The defense has been playing well enough. I don't think they are an average group and I don't think it's an elite defense. I believe this defense is opportunistic as has been pointed out. I believe the defense is on the way to becoming a very good defense from what I have observed and the returning players.

The reality is this defense is making the necessary plays. I see no reason why that cannot continue and I see no reasonable explanation for the assumption that they cannot continue this against elite teams given they have done it against elite teams and will most likely be playing at Foxboro for the duration of the playoffs (assuming the team wins out to SB45).

Everything in between is just conjecture.

I'll forget the "apparently above your pay" because you don't know me or know what I do so you're just being an azz with this comment.

They certainly aren't the be all and end all" - you're right there. So if you admit this, there should be no reason for you to come across as a pompous azz that is somehow more enlightened that the rest of us. Stop relying on stats to show people up. Stop being a f---ing geek for crying out loud, this is football we are talking about.

You seem to be all over the place. You agree that stats aren’t the be all and end all (“Trends are great to reference” because that is there limitation – they are not factual predictions of the future). You agree that the eye test has its place. That is where we part company you employ an over reliance on stats (which may or may not support your argument since I haven’t really studied all relevant stats), where I place greater emphasis on what I see on the field from this defense. We can leave it at this or you can continue to belittle the unenlightened with your BS. Do you really think you’re more educated than others on this board? Do you care how you’re coming across?

“You can please yourself with your assessment even in light of a factual basis to construct my argument” – WTF? So your factual assessment of the statistics you reviewed is a greater predictor of what this defense will do in the playoffs than my eye test? So you should have no problem agreeing to shove those stats up your azz if your “factual basis to construct my argument” turns out not to provide the results you seem to be guaranteeing based on your statistical analysis? You see the problem with your stats?

I said, "this defense is somewhere between mostly average and, when healthy and firing on all cylinders, good." You said, “The defense has been playing well enough. I don't think they are an average group and I don't think it's an elite defense.” These sound very similar, so, why the need for all your tomfoolery?

 

[mb6592]

No one is arguing everything is perfect. The argument is, given the players they have, are they performing well. I think so.

Comparing them against an imaginary perfect defense just shows a weak argument.

I'm 100% with all of your recent posts in this thread Ray.

 

[Ring 6]

No one is arguing everything is perfect. The argument is, given the players they have, are they performing well. I think so.

Comparing them against an imaginary perfect defense just shows a weak argument.

The argument isn't that the bar os lower because of who the players are, the argument is that the defense has done what it takes to win, and the statistics that lead up to those wins are horrendous evidence of impending loss.
Anyone who can take the overall statistics of the defense and use them to conclude the team is more likely to lose than teams with lesser records is using them improperly and putting weight to the wrong statistics and at the wrong level.
Example: 3rd down defense is bad, so that means the defense is bad. Truth, 3rd down defense is bad, but its impact has been totally insignificant, and the things the D has done well has totally outweighed that.

 

[mb6592]

Actually the argument in this thread is against:
1) An incorrect assertion that the defense has relied only on turnovers, that there is something wrong with getting turnovers, and that the ability to produce turnovers evaporates in the playoffs.

I hope no one is suggesting it's impossible for this trend to continue (I certainly don't feel this way). But, it's perfectly reasonable to be uneasy about having to rely on them. I pray that this defense continues on its path toward becoming an above average defense.

 

[Ring 6]

I'll forget the "apparently above your pay" because you don't know me or know what I do so you're just being an azz with this comment.

They certainly aren't the be all and end all" - you're right there. So if you admit this, there should be no reason for you to come across as a pompous azz that is somehow more enlightened that the rest of us. Stop relying on stats to show people up. Stop being a f---ing geek for crying out loud, this is football we are talking about.

You seem to be all over the place. You agree that stats aren’t the be all and end all (“Trends are great to reference” because that is there limitation – they are not factual predictions of the future). You agree that the eye test has its place. That is where we part company you employ an over reliance on stats (which may or may not support your argument since I haven’t really studied all relevant stats), where I place greater emphasis on what I see on the field from this defense. We can leave it at this or you can continue to belittle the unenlightened with your BS. Do you really think you’re more educated than others on this board? Do you care how you’re coming across?

“You can please yourself with your assessment even in light of a factual basis to construct my argument” – WTF? So your factual assessment of the statistics you reviewed is a greater predictor of what this defense will do in the playoffs than my eye test? So you should have no problem agreeing to shove those stats up your azz if your “factual basis to construct my argument” turns out not to provide the results you seem to be guaranteeing based on your statistical analysis? You see the problem with your stats?

I said, "this defense is somewhere between mostly average and, when healthy and firing on all cylinders, good." You said, “The defense has been playing well enough. I don't think they are an average group and I don't think it's an elite defense.” These sound very similar, so, why the need for all your tomfoolery?

If done properly statistics are a good tool to SUPPORT the argument of what you see on the field.
They take it beyond "It is what it is because thats what I saw" which has no value in making a convincing argument.
Done improperly statistics are used to CREATE the argument, making it even more flawed.