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

[alvinnf]

50 pages of Cat Fighting..... Mercy, mercy. Is it a good or a bad defense. God I'm confused. They look good to me. Just not when they are spotted a big lead. Oh yeah, I forgot. They are a big part of that lead process. Oh well, I digress....

 

[RayClay]

Again, you are changing what I say around a little bit to make me sound bad. I never said coaching doesnt matter, I said experience means more than coaching.

Yet the same coaches seem to win with different teams. They are two factors. One may be more important than the other, but you give no evidence to prove it, you just state it as if it was a fact.

 

[The Dynasty]

Yet the same coaches seem to win with different teams. They are two factors. One may be more important than the other, but you give no evidence to prove it, you just state it as if it was a fact.

Just like you are so quick to dismiss my claim. Where is your proof? Has Belichick coached a Super Bowl winning team with its defense being mostly first and second year guys?

 

[Joker]

oh great...the Black Knight, Dynasty is back for more....

 

[RayClay]

Just like you are so quick to dismiss my claim. Where is your proof? Has Belichick coached a Super Bowl winning team with its defense being mostly first and second year guys?

Would you mind putting the goal posts back?

Where do you get that from this?

Yet the same coaches seem to win with different teams.

BB has had teams in all states of being. Young, old, top picks, street free agents, he has a winning record with every one.

Cowher did, Dungy did, Parcells, took the worst teams and ended up winning.

As has been noted our 1996 SB team had young players like Bruschi, Mcginest, Law, Ted Johnson, Curtis Martin, Troy Brown, Drew Bledsoe, Terry Glenn and Lawyer Malloy, and that's just the stars between 22-25.

Again, you want to change the subject and have given no veteran teams with average coaches to back up your point.

 

[ausbacker]

Just like you are so quick to dismiss my claim. Where is your proof? Has Belichick coached a Super Bowl winning team with its defense being mostly first and second year guys?

 

[The Dynasty]

BB has had teams in all states of being. Young, old, top picks, street free agents, he has a winning record with every one.

Cowher did, Dungy did, Parcells, took the worst teams and ended up winning.

As has been noted our 1996 SB team had young players like Bruschi, Mcginest, Law, Ted Johnson, Curtis Martin, Troy Brown, Drew Bledsoe, Terry Glenn and Lawyer Malloy, and that's just the stars between 22-25.

Again, you want to change the subject and have given no veteran teams with average coaches to back up your point.

Perfect example last year with the Colts and Caldwell. He is an average coach, but the majority of the roster had a lot of experience and knew what it took to reach the Super Bowl.

And you want to bring up the 1996 Patriots. The leaders/stars of the team were in majority over 25 years old. Those younger guys didnt have as much of an impact as this years team, with the majority of the defense being in their 1st-3rd year. Offensively, Bledsoe was in his fourth season, Martin his second, and Glenn was a rookie. They also had veterans in Jefferson, Coates, Byors, and Gash. Defensively here was the starting line up:

Ferric Collons LDE-2nd year
Mark Wheeler LDT-5th year
Pio Sagapolutele RDT-6th year
Willie McGinest RDE-3rd year
Chris Slade LLB- 4th year
Ted Johnson MLB- 2nd year
Todd F. Collins RLB- 5th year
Ty Law LCB- 2nd year
Otis Smith RCB- 6th year
Lawyer Milloy SS- rookie
Willie Clay FS- 5th year

The 1996 team was much older than this 2010 team, and had a lot more prior experience.

 

[VJCPatriot]

My main points in this thread have been that the Patriots defense may be a problem in the playoffs because of their youth and their dependence on the offense giving them a double digit lead. I have not said they have a bad defense, I have said their defense is average. Then this turned into a comparison between the Patriots and the Jets and I said that the Jets have a better defense than the Patriots. Didnt think it would turn into 50 pages worth of back and forth.

The Jets defense that gave up 45 points to the Pats and also coughed up 38 points to Chicago? I think the Jets defense is overrated in your mind and the Pats defense underrated. All due to... inexperience. That's your entire argument, right. That's it? Results don't matter? Alrighty then.

Why don't we do a stat comparison. How many times have the Jets D given up 20 or more points this season: 8 times. That's at least 50% of the games they will play this year. How many times have they given up 30 or more points? Twice - to the Pats and Bears. Jets schedule.

How about the Pats defense? 20 points or more. 8 times. Which is the same number as the Jets defense to date. 30 or more points? Twice - to the Bills and the Browns. The exact same number as the Jets defense. Pats schedule.

Hmmm. But which defensive unit has performed better over the past 4 games? Pats have given up 3, 7, 27, 3 = 10 PPG. Jets have given up 45, 10, 17, 38 = 27.5 ppg. Given the latest data set, do you care to re-evaluate your position on the relative merits of the Pats and Jets defenses?

 

[The Dynasty]

The Jets defense that gave up 45 points to the Pats and also coughed up 38 points to Chicago? I think the Jets defense is overrated in your mind and the Pats defense underrated. All due to... inexperience. That's your entire argument, right. That's it? Results don't matter? Alrighty then.

Why don't we do a stat comparison. How many times have the Jets D given up 20 or more points this season: 8 times. That's at least 50% of the games they will play this year. How many times have they given up 30 or more points? Twice - to the Pats and Bears. Jets schedule.

How about the Pats defense? 20 points or more. 8 times. Which is the same number as the Jets defense to date. 30 or more points? Twice - to the Bills and the Browns. The exact same number as the Jets defense. Pats schedule.

Hmmm. But which defensive unit has performed better over the past 4 games? Pats have given up 3, 7, 27, 3 = 10 PPG. Jets have given up 45, 10, 17, 38 = 27.5 ppg. Given the latest data set, do you care to re-evaluate your position on the relative merits of the Pats and Jets defenses?

Stats do not always tell the whole story. Obviously the Jets turn the ball over a lot more than the Patriots do, therefore they more often than not give the defense very bad field position. The Patriots on the other hand never turn the ball over and more often than not set up the defense with good field position more often than not inside the opponents 30 yard line.

And again, the Jets defense returns a defense that led them to the AFCCG last season, what did the 2009 Patriots defense do? I am just saying I would rather have the Jets defense with the Patriots offense, rather than the Patriots D with Patriots O.

 

[RobertWeathers]

And you want to bring up the 1996 Patriots. The leaders/stars of the team were in majority over 25 years old. Those younger guys didnt have as much of an impact as this years team, with the majority of the defense being in their 1st-3rd year. Offensively, Bledsoe was in his fourth season, Martin his second, and Glenn was a rookie. They also had veterans in Jefferson, Coates, Byors, and Gash. Defensively here was the starting line up:

Ferric Collons LDE-2nd year
Mark Wheeler LDT-5th year
Pio Sagapolutele RDT-6th year
Willie McGinest RDE-3rd year
Chris Slade LLB- 4th year
Ted Johnson MLB- 2nd year
Todd F. Collins RLB- 5th year
Ty Law LCB- 2nd year
Otis Smith RCB- 6th year
Lawyer Milloy SS- rookie
Willie Clay FS- 5th year

The 1996 team was much older than this 2010 team, and had a lot more prior experience.

It's a good discussion because in terms of youth, I was also comparing the 1996 squad to the 2010 squad and also thinking that the 96 team has just as many young players contributing (I say 1st contract) so I checked it out....

2010
Rookies- 10
2nd year- 13
3rd year-6
4th year-2
5th year-6
6th -3
7th- 2
8th- 3
9th-1
10th- 4
11th- 2
13th-1

1996
Rookies- 12
2nd year- 8
3rd year-6
4th year-10
5th year-7
7th- 3
8th-2
9th- 2
10th- 1
11th- 1
12th- 1

Analysis: No question that the 2010 squad has more impact rookies (although Adam V, Glenn, Milloy and Bru made a big impact too), but not by much. However from years 3-4, you had 16 on the 1996 team and 8 on the 2010. Incredible number of 2nd year players on 2010....WOW.

Either way, overall I think both teams were pretty young but with the bulk of the key players on the 1996 team have a year or two more of experience.

 

[The Dynasty]

It's a good discussion because in terms of youth, I was also comparing the 1996 squad to the 2010 squad and also thinking that the 96 team has just as many young players contributing (I say 1st contract) so I checked it out....

2010
Rookies- 10
2nd year- 13
3rd year-6
4th year-2
5th year-6
6th -3
7th- 2
8th- 3
9th-1
10th- 4
11th- 2
13th-1

1996
Rookies- 12
2nd year- 8
3rd year-6
4th year-10
5th year-7
7th- 3
8th-2
9th- 2
10th- 1
11th- 1
12th- 1

Analysis: No question that the 2010 squad has more impact rookies (although Adam V, Glenn, Milloy and Bru made a big impact too), but not by much. However from years 3-4, you had 16 on the 1996 team and 8 on the 2010. Incredible number of 2nd year players on 2010....WOW.

Either way, overall I think both teams were pretty young but with the bulk of the key players on the 1996 team have a year or two more of experience.

Agreed, especially with your last point. Thanks for finding all that info and figuring out all the years.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Agreed, especially with your last point. Thanks for finding all that info and figuring out all the years.

I'm on vaca so I got the time..

Some more nuggets. Number of rookies to make the team in the BB era..

2009- 14
2008- 11
2007- 5
2006- 11
2005- 8
2004- 10
2003- 10
2002- 8
2001- 9
2000- 20

So based on the averages, BB brings in around 9-10 rookies a year (UFAs, etc) so by the 2011 Opener, you could assume that 30+ players on the roster with be either rooks or players with 2 years or less NFL experience. That is astounding.

Look at 2000. Talk about cleaning house.

 

[ausbacker]

It's a good discussion because in terms of youth, I was also comparing the 1996 squad to the 2010 squad and also thinking that the 96 team has just as many young players contributing (I say 1st contract) so I checked it out....

2010
Rookies- 10
2nd year- 13
3rd year-6
4th year-2
5th year-6
6th -3
7th- 2
8th- 3
9th-1
10th- 4
11th- 2
13th-1

1996
Rookies- 12
2nd year- 8
3rd year-6
4th year-10
5th year-7
7th- 3
8th-2
9th- 2
10th- 1
11th- 1
12th- 1

Analysis: No question that the 2010 squad has more impact rookies (although Adam V, Glenn, Milloy and Bru made a big impact too), but not by much. However from years 3-4, you had 16 on the 1996 team and 8 on the 2010. Incredible number of 2nd year players on 2010....WOW.

Either way, overall I think both teams were pretty young but with the bulk of the key players on the 1996 team have a year or two more of experience.

I'm on vaca so I got the time..

Some more nuggets. Number of rookies to make the team in the BB era..

2009- 14
2008- 11
2007- 5
2006- 11
2005- 8
2004- 10
2003- 10
2002- 8
2001- 9
2000- 20

So based on the averages, BB brings in around 9-10 rookies a year (UFAs, etc) so by the 2011 Opener, you could assume that 30+ players on the roster with be either rooks or players with 2 years or less NFL experience. That is astounding.

Look at 2000. Talk about cleaning house.

Interesting that your numbers support the argument against what The Dynasty has been saying all along. Thank you for that emphatic illustration and taking the time to do this (as some people challenged with a task simply ignore it full well knowing it will illustrate their ill advised point of view).

 

[The Dynasty]

Interesting that your numbers support the argument against what The Dynasty has been saying all along. Thank you for that emphatic illustration and taking the time to do this (as some people challenged with a task simply ignore it full well knowing it will illustrate their ill advised point of view).

Not sure what point that might may be...

I am getting sick of your ignorance.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Not sure what point that might may be...

I am getting sick of your ignorance.

I don't know where he was going with that either. I didn't care who was wrong or right. I was just curious.

 

[goheels22002]

Stats do not always tell the whole story. Obviously the Jets turn the ball over a lot more than the Patriots do, therefore they more often than not give the defense very bad field position. The Patriots on the other hand never turn the ball over and more often than not set up the defense with good field position more often than not inside the opponents 30 yard line.

And again, the Jets defense returns a defense that led them to the AFCCG last season, what did the 2009 Patriots defense do? I am just saying I would rather have the Jets defense with the Patriots offense, rather than the Patriots D with Patriots O.

Man, you are all-pro at baseless claims. Statistically these two defenses are basically the same thing - within .6 of a point of ppg and the games when they gave up big numbers are identical. Plus, the Pats D takes the ball away more - a lot more. NE has 12 more takeaways than the vaunted Jets D.

As far as which defensive team is on a roll heading into the playoffs, the Pats are far and away getting better at both shutting people down and taking the ball from them. The Jets? Not so much.

This is the best scenario we could hope for heading into a meaningless game and a bye week.

 

[ausbacker]

Not sure what point that might may be...

I am getting sick of your ignorance.

It's abundantly clear that starting rookies does not equate to what you have intimated. The defense is young and inexperienced and cannot count on creating turnovers in the playoffs. It's now been proven that you can start rookies to achieve results and you can continue to create turnovers in the playoffs as history gauges.

You are taking the word stupid to unknown levels around here now.

I don't know where he was going with that either. I didn't care who was wrong or right. I was just curious.

The point is that BB plays rookies and they provide results. The Dynasty has argued that because the defense is young and creates turnovers that;

1. the collective age will be a problem come playoffs,
2. the young defense should not rely on creating turnovers come playoffs (even though its been disproved).

Your demographic breakdown suggests otherwise as a simplistic notion. Most of us have been arguing this point so much so that I even took the time to breakdown the 2004 vs 2010 class many pages ago. That was dismissed because I did it even though The Dynasty seems capable of backslapping you for doing basically the same with a different group.

Quite simple really and I thank you for your efforts.

 

[The Dynasty]

Man, you are all-pro at baseless claims. Statistically these two defenses are basically the same thing - within .6 of a point of ppg and the games when they gave up big numbers are identical. Plus, the Pats D takes the ball away more - a lot more. NE has 12 more takeaways than the vaunted Jets D.

As far as which defensive team is on a roll heading into the playoffs, the Pats are far and away getting better at both shutting people down and taking the ball from them. The Jets? Not so much.

This is the best scenario we could hope for heading into a meaningless game and a bye week.

What about yards, and how the two teams are against the pass and the run? Definite edge to the Jets there.

As for the playoffs its a whole new season, what happens in the regular season means pretty much nothing. The Jets have the playoff experience on the defense end, the Patriots dont.

I expect the Patriots to go a lot further in the playoffs than the Jets, I am just saying that I'd rather have the Jets D in the playoffs.

 

[goheels22002]

"...taking the word stupid to unknown levels around here...?"

Stupid is what we do pretty well around these parts, but not that well. The Dynasty may get a little nasty while making bogus claims and spurious arguments but new levels of stupid? Nah. Head over to the Jets messageboard that boots us out for not being stupid enough to find new levels of stupid.

 

[ausbacker]

"...taking the word stupid to unknown levels around here...?"

Stupid is what we do pretty well around these parts, but not that well. The Dynasty may get a little nasty while making bogus claims and spurious arguments but new levels of stupid? Nah. Head over to the Jets messageboard that boots us out for not being stupid enough to find new levels of stupid.

It's assumed that Jets supporters are stupid to begin with. I allow every Pats supporter the benefit of a 100% intelligence/comprehensive rating until they prove otherwise.

The Dynasty's insistence on flogging an unsubstantiated point for 700 pages that was disproved many many many pages ago is downright idiotic in my opinion.

Reference the entire thread and you'll see what I mean.