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

[The Dynasty]

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.

No. The 2006 Patriots started 1 rookie, and 3 2nd year players. The 2010 Patriots start 3 rookies and 2 2nd year players and a 3rd in Butler who plays a ton. The 2010 team is a lot younger than the 1996 team, the 1996 team was not labeled a young team.

You can continue to create turnovers in the playoffs, but it is very risky especially with such a young team. Thats the point that you are failing to get. I havent denied that turnovers dont happen in the playoffs because they do, but with such a young and inexperienced team its hard to depend on them.

 

[RobertWeathers]

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.


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.

I'd say that if not properly coached, a rookie would fail in the playoffs. I would also say that about a 10 year vet.

At least with the Patriots during the BB era (including 1996), I cannot think of any examples of a rookie totally blowing up. Maybe Milloy on a deep Favre pass during the SB but I'd need to look at that more closely.

 

[The Dynasty]

I'd say that if not properly coached, a rookie would fail in the playoffs. I would also say that about a 10 year vet.

At least with the Patriots during the BB era (including 1996), I cannot think of any examples of a rookie totally blowing up. Maybe Milloy on a deep Favre pass during the SB but I'd need to look at that more closely.

I just think its tough to expect big things from all of the Pats rookies and 2nd year guys like Chung, Arrington and Butler. There is only 1 real vet on the D with playoff experience in Wilfork. Wilfork cannot lead the entire defense, same with BB. I am not denying that they could continue their solid play, all I am saying is that it is a cause for concern and puts much more pressure on the offense.

 

[ausbacker]

No. The 2006 Patriots started 1 rookie, and 3 2nd year players. The 2010 Patriots start 3 rookies and 2 2nd year players and a 3rd in Butler who plays a ton. The 2010 team is a lot younger than the 1996 team, the 1996 team was not labeled a young team.

You can continue to create turnovers in the playoffs, but it is very risky especially with such a young team. Thats the point that you are failing to get. I havent denied that turnovers dont happen in the playoffs because they do, but with such a young and inexperienced team its hard to depend on them.

Let's take a look at some of your posts shall we. One thing is clear. You have been consistent with a point that has no backing either by historical argument or statistical correlation. We know this as fact from referenced material.

It is true, but come playoff time its tough to depend on turnovers to keep bailing you out. I am not saying the defense needs to be a top 5 defense, it just needs to get a little better and not depend on forcing turnovers every week.

Incorrect.

3rd downs on defense are equally as important regardless of the opponent or situation. You never want the offense to convert on 3rd down, especially on 3rd and long. This is the time to step up and make a stop and get the D off the field.

Incorrect x 2.

No...my logic is that the Pats are relying too much on forcing turnovers. Good teams in the playoffs are not going to be turning the ball over and will be making the Pats pay for their poor play on 3rd down if they cannot change this trend.

Incorrect x 3.

You are just piling nonsense on to your argument. 17 is a lot of stops, almost 2 more 3rd down stops a game. If you didnt include Monday nights game in that it would be a lot higher because the Pats 3rd down D was actually very good last night, not what it is been all season. Could this be an indication that it is improving?, maybe so, but still after such a great performance and still being 32nd in the league shows just how poor it has been.

Incorrect x 4.

I said the Pats 3rd down D played well against the Jets. This could be an indication it is getting better, it is yet to be seen.

You keep using the Colts game as an example, the Colts were 11-14 on 3rd down. The Sanders pick changed everything obviously. If he didnt make the INT, I think people would be all over the fact that the Pats were terrible on 3rd down which allowed the Colts to come back in the game. If the Pats face the Colts in the playoffs its hard to rely on Manning throwing an INT in that situation.

Yes I agree. The Sanders pick sealed the game. That's a turnover which Manning is known for come post-season.

So, come playoff time you feel fine with giving up tons of yards and then hoping the Pats force a turnover to bail them out? Playoff QB's don't throw many INT's, its tough to rely solely on forcing turnovers, defenses need to learn to be successful without them. If you can force them obviously they can help.

The defense is getting better and better each week, so I have confidence that they will continue to improve and start relying less and less on the turnovers.

Well no ****.

No, because my argument isnt strictly based on their poor 3rd down play. The defense struggles with giving up yards as well and some of this is because of their poor play on 3rd down. I understand that a lot of the yards have came in garbage time when the outcome of the game was already determined and the clock was more of the opponent rather than the offense.

If yards come in garbage time then the measure of yards given doesn't matter.

Wrong. The Saints only had 7 INTs and 11 fumble recoveries all of the regular season last year. The Pats have 17 INTs and 5 fumble recoveries, and there are still 4 games left. So the Saints had a total of 18 turnovers, the Pats already have 23. In the postseason the Saints forced 8 turnovers. Clearly the Pats depend more on the turnover than the Saints did.

NO was 25th in total defense last year, the Pats are 31 right now. I know stats dont mean much but I am just trying to show that the Saints defense was better than the Pats defense is right now, and they did not depend on forcing turnovers as much as the Pats are now.

Incorrect x5.

The Patriots are better at creating turnovers than the Saints were, but the Saints held opponents to less yards and were the better overall defense. My whole argument is that the Pats are depending on creating turnovers too much and come playoff time these turnovers are mostly likely not going to keep happening, and instead of a turnover when the offense is driving, it will turn into points.

There is no difference between a turnover and a 3rd down stop, a turnover is actually better,

I agree. A turnover is better than a 3rd down stop. The Pats D is now better than the Saints D? I thought you said the Pats D was not better than the Saints D?

Okay, I am not saying that I would rather have a defense that doesnt create turnovers, what I am saying is that you cannot continue to depend on them to keep creating these turnovers. Sooner or later, like in the playoffs where there are very good QB's it will catch up to them.

The defense has done its job this season, I am not denying that by any stretch of the imagination.

If the defense has done it's job everything else is inconsequential. That is the point. The defense is doing it's job and you recognize this. FFS that is the point.

Yeah, that was also 9 years ago...with a veteran Patriot defense, and just one game. 1 game cannot make your argument, I am not denying that it happened, just the chances of it happening again with the 2010 team arent very high.

Incorrect x 6.

My point is that the Pats of 2010 cannot expect win in the playoffs with the way that they are playing now, depending on causing turnovers.

You are comparing this team to the 2001 team. While they play the same style and have the same head coach, it doesnt mean you can expect to get the same results especially when the '01 team was full of veterans and the '10 is full of mostly first and second year players and a few 3rds.

If the defense is doing its job as you pointed out then they can continue to play the way they are and expect to win in the playoffs.

Again the Pats 2010 defense is not like the Saints D last year or the 2001 Pats. Both of those had veterans, unlike the Pats this year where the majority of their players are in their first or second years. You cannot expect or depend on these young guys to force turnovers in the playoffs, it could happen, but it isnt very likely.

I thought you said the Patriots defense was similar to the Saints defense but not as good? Which is it?

They have been doing this with turnovers. The probability of forcing turnovers in the playoffs goes down. When you are facing the some of the best QBs in the league, and have such a young defense with no playoff experience it is pretty risky counting on that to win playoff games. I am not saying it cannot happen, its just pretty risky.

Incorrect x7.

Why cannot I make the point that rookies dont play the same in the playoffs as the regular season?

2009 Regular season interceptions
Green Bay 30 (1st)
Philadelphia 28 (4th)

Each had 0 in the playoffs, although they both lost in the first round, still shows that the dependency of turnovers can prove costly. There are more too in previous years as well. It does happen, and the chances of it happening with a young defense increase because of the inexperience.

I thought you didn't like using one game as an example point.

The only real tight game throughout that the Pats have played in was the Baltimore game, the SD and Colts games the Pats had big leads, and gave them up in the 4th quarter. The Pats D in the 2nd half did not play well at all, they got bailed out by Sanders' INT of Manning.

My point is that in the playoffs you are not going to face QBs making all kinds of poor decisions. I give credit to the Pats D for capitalizing on them, but what happens when they dont get them?

By bailed out you mean made the game winning play. The Pats D will face QB who make bad decisions in the playoffs.

That's a small taste of your finest work The Dynasty (my apologies on needing to edit down to keep it under the word limit). That's not even half of your pointless rambling.

 

[Ring 6]

What about yards, and how the two teams are against the pass and the run? Definite edge to the Jets there. /quote]
What about yards? What about takeaways? Why do you value one and not the other? The points are virtually identical. Clearly the Patriots have played a style that allows more yards, but takes the ball away, while the Jets allow fewer yards, but dont take the ball away.
The only argument you can make that fewer yards and the same number of points is better is field position you give the offense, and the takeaway differntial obvioulsy balances that out.

quote]As for the playoffs its a whole new season, what happens in the regular season means pretty much nothing.

Thats a ridiculous argument. You can use that argument to say every team is 8-8 quality because what happens in any game doesnt affect the next. The fact is the quality of a teams play in the regular season translate very closely to the quality of its play in the postseason, so regular season results are very pertinent to the post season predictions that you are attempting to make here.

The Jets have the playoff experience on the defense end, the Patriots dont.

Really? If that makes such a difference how did they win last year with less playoff experience on defense than the Patriots have this year?
How does having played 3 playoff games last year equate to playing better football in the playoffs this year? That is just a concept invented by you with no factual basis.

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.

I guess if you like to allow less yards but be more likely to blow a lead you'd be right to think that.

 

[ausbacker]

I'd say that if not properly coached, a rookie would fail in the playoffs. I would also say that about a 10 year vet.

At least with the Patriots during the BB era (including 1996), I cannot think of any examples of a rookie totally blowing up. Maybe Milloy on a deep Favre pass during the SB but I'd need to look at that more closely.

That's the point robertweathers. I viewed this young defense as a liability at the beginning of the season. I thought 2012 would be their announcement season. The coaching job BB has done with this collective group in spite of all the injuries has astounded me.

Right now this defense is balling. They are one of the form defenses in the league. To suggest they shouldn't be capable or shouldn't depend on the method which has worked for them simply because it's the post-season is outrageous even in light of the obvious roster composition.

Good teams are good teams. The defense as recognized by the other side of this argument has admitted that the defense is doing it's job. That is all we can ask for and basically what most of us have been arguing.

 

[Ring 6]

No. The 2006 Patriots started 1 rookie, and 3 2nd year players. The 2010 Patriots start 3 rookies and 2 2nd year players and a 3rd in Butler who plays a ton. The 2010 team is a lot younger than the 1996 team, the 1996 team was not labeled a young team.

You can continue to create turnovers in the playoffs, but it is very risky especially with such a young team. Thats the point that you are failing to get. I havent denied that turnovers dont happen in the playoffs because they do, but with such a young and inexperienced team its hard to depend on them.

I'm curious.
It seems that the crux of your argument is that the way the Patriots have been winning, and winning more than anyone, is fleeting and not as likely to continue in the playoffs.
It seems that you are saying that in the playoffs, a defense that allows more yards and forces more turnovers and is weak on 3rd down, but strong in the red zone, can't be expected to keep that up. I assume you mean this is because it will be against better competition.
So, lets take the converse. A team that doesnt allow a lot of yards, is better on 3rd down, but doesnt force turnovers and isnt as good in the red zone by your argument is more apt to play well.

Why would yards allowed or 3rd down conversions not be equally less likely to remain a strength in the postseason as turnovers or red zone stops.

It seems that what this has resulted in is that we look at defenses, (the Pats, Jets and Ravens are good examples because they all allow a very similar amount of points and have divergent strengths and weaknesses) that have gotten about the same results by very different methods, you are singling out the Patriots and saying only there method of success will evaporate against good teams.
The facts actually show the opposite.

 

[The Dynasty]

Ausbacker say hello to my ignore list. You're a moron, plain and simple.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I'd like to officially re-name this The Worst Defense in the History of the World with Three Pro Bowlers On It

Thank you all very much.

 

[ausbacker]

Ausbacker say hello to my ignore list. You're a moron, plain and simple.

I'll take that as the confirmation of the complete and utter destruction of your point of view by referencing your own material. You said the defense was doing it's job. It's there in plain sight for all to see. I didn't make that up. You wrote that The Dynasty.

No matter how many times you say it, you are wrong and will continue to be wrong because you have agreed with what we have all been saying with the comment that the defense is doing it's job.

 

[Ring 6]

I just think its tough to expect big things from all of the Pats rookies and 2nd year guys like Chung, Arrington and Butler. There is only 1 real vet on the D with playoff experience in Wilfork. Wilfork cannot lead the entire defense, same with BB. I am not denying that they could continue their solid play, all I am saying is that it is a cause for concern and puts much more pressure on the offense.

It seems that your negativity has now defaulted to hinge on experience.
Why does that matter? I understand its something you could make a hypothetically argument about. Its easy to guess that young players would choke under pressure. But there is really no supporting evidence at all.
Of course you also are exaggerating your point. Wilfork is not the only Patriot with playoff experience. Sanders has many years. Warren, Wright, Mayo, Guyton, TBC, Meriwhether and other reserves also have playoff experience. And the majority of the Jets players have a whopping 3 games, which they played with zero playoff experience before that.

 

[The Dynasty]

I'm curious.
It seems that the crux of your argument is that the way the Patriots have been winning, and winning more than anyone, is fleeting and not as likely to continue in the playoffs.
It seems that you are saying that in the playoffs, a defense that allows more yards and forces more turnovers and is weak on 3rd down, but strong in the red zone, can't be expected to keep that up. I assume you mean this is because it will be against better competition.
So, lets take the converse. A team that doesnt allow a lot of yards, is better on 3rd down, but doesnt force turnovers and isnt as good in the red zone by your argument is more apt to play well.

Why would yards allowed or 3rd down conversions not be equally less likely to remain a strength in the postseason as turnovers or red zone stops.

It seems that what this has resulted in is that we look at defenses, (the Pats, Jets and Ravens are good examples because they all allow a very similar amount of points and have divergent strengths and weaknesses) that have gotten about the same results by very different methods, you are singling out the Patriots and saying only there method of success will evaporate against good teams.
The facts actually show the opposite.

The way the Patriots have been winning is pretty risky come playoff time against good teams and experienced playoff quarterbacks. It is very hard to to depend and count on rookies and young guys to come up with all of these turnovers in the playoffs.

A team that doesnt allow a lot of yards and is good on third down would probably be just as good as the 13-2 Patriots of this season. If they are good with those two stats teams would probably not be reaching the red zone as much against them so that stat would not really matter.

Good teams dont turn the ball over. That is the basis of my argument as to why the Patriots way of playing defense might come back to haunt them in the playoffs. Good teams dont turn the ball over in the playoffs, good teams capitalize on being in the red zone. These are the teams the Patriots will be facing in the playoffs. Either the Patriots offense will have to carry them like they have been or the Patriots defense might need to find a different way to win in the playoffs.

 

[Ring 6]

That's the point robertweathers. I viewed this young defense as a liability at the beginning of the season. I thought 2012 would be their announcement season. The coaching job BB has done with this collective group in spite of all the injuries has astounded me.

Right now this defense is balling. They are one of the form defenses in the league. To suggest they shouldn't be capable or shouldn't depend on the method which has worked for them simply because it's the post-season is outrageous even in light of the obvious roster composition.

Good teams are good teams. The defense as recognized by the other side of this argument has admitted that the defense is doing it's job. That is all we can ask for and basically what most of us have been arguing.

I think what is pertinent here is that they are getting the job done.
I think its foolhardy to assume that you can judge the WAY they are getting it done and say its a worse way.
The Patriot defense has been very good in many ways, struggled in others, but the overall result has been that in terms of winning games, allowing points, helping the offense score points, they are in the discussion with as good as any, especially when you factor in their improvement. Sicne week 3 they are 4th in points allowed.

It is, IMO, ridiculous to pick some stats out of the entire package and say they are more important to the quality of the defense than the overall result. Its like saying two guys tied in a marathon but one is a better runner because he ran the last (or first or any other ) mile faster.

There are simply too many, wide ranging statistic categories that add up to a result to have the arrogance to think you can pick out the ones that discern between similar results and judge better quality out of similar results.

 

[The Dynasty]

It seems that your negativity has now defaulted to hinge on experience.
Why does that matter? I understand its something you could make a hypothetically argument about. Its easy to guess that young players would choke under pressure. But there is really no supporting evidence at all.
Of course you also are exaggerating your point. Wilfork is not the only Patriot with playoff experience. Sanders has many years. Warren, Wright, Mayo, Guyton, TBC, Meriwhether and other reserves also have playoff experience. And the majority of the Jets players have a whopping 3 games, which they played with zero playoff experience before that.

Not all young players choke under pressure, but when you have so many that you depend on thats is a tough and risky way to operate.

One game where you get blown out at home is not really considered playoff experience, as opposed to 3 games where the defense led your team all the way to the AFCCG.

The playmakers of the defense Mayo, Spikes, Cunningham, Arrington, McCourty, and Chung really do not have much playoff experience if any at all. The Patriots defense would be labeled as inexperienced.

 

[ausbacker]

I think what is pertinent here is that they are getting the job done.
I think its foolhardy to assume that you can judge the WAY they are getting it done and say its a worse way.
The Patriot defense has been very good in many ways, struggled in others, but the overall result has been that in terms of winning games, allowing points, helping the offense score points, they are in the discussion with as good as any, especially when you factor in their improvement. Sicne week 3 they are 4th in points allowed.

It is, IMO, ridiculous to pick some stats out of the entire package and say they are more important to the quality of the defense than the overall result. Its like saying two guys tied in a marathon but one is a better runner because he ran the last (or first or any other ) mile faster.

There are simply too many, wide ranging statistic categories that add up to a result to have the arrogance to think you can pick out the ones that discern between similar results and judge better quality out of similar results.

I agree completely. It's a kin to saying that the Patriots offense is dynamic because they score touchdowns opposed to field goals. That's why The Dynasty's point of view and his insistence upon pushing that point of view despite having it illustrated for him through referenced material and statistics is mind boggling.

As I mentioned earlier, BB has done an outstanding job with the defense. They are a large reason why we are 13-2 going into week 17.

 

[BrainTrust66]

The way the Patriots have been winning is pretty risky come playoff time against good teams and experienced playoff quarterbacks. It is very hard to to depend and count on rookies and young guys to come up with all of these turnovers in the playoffs.

A team that doesnt allow a lot of yards and is good on third down would probably be just as good as the 13-2 Patriots of this season. If they are good with those two stats teams would probably not be reaching the red zone as much against them so that stat would not really matter.

Good teams dont turn the ball over. That is the basis of my argument as to why the Patriots way of playing defense might come back to haunt them in the playoffs. Good teams dont turn the ball over in the playoffs, good teams capitalize on being in the red zone. These are the teams the Patriots will be facing in the playoffs. Either the Patriots offense will have to carry them like they have been or the Patriots defense might need to find a different way to win in the playoffs.

"Good teams don't turn the ball over in the playoffs?" Peyton has done it a few times, if I recall. Any team will turn the ball over under the right circumstances and the Patriots have forced turnovers from good and bad teams. Making teams march methodically down the field (as opposed to striking in one or two plays - see last year's Saints game) increases the odds that a mistake will be made. Make them kick field goals or turn the ball over.

For the record, the Pats are 6-1 against playoff teams this season - this is not new territory for them.

 

[Ring 6]

The way the Patriots have been winning is pretty risky come playoff time against good teams and experienced playoff quarterbacks. It is very hard to to depend and count on rookies and young guys to come up with all of these turnovers in the playoffs.

1) You are wrong to imply that they are winning mostly BECAUSE OF turnovers. There are very few games that turnovers were the lynchpin to. In fact, turnovers have mostly led to piling up the margin of victory in a game won even without them.

2) Why would an experienced QB negate a teams takeaway strength but not negate a teams 3rd down conversion strength?
Don't you agree that a team that DEPENDS on stopping teams on 3rd down will have a hard time keeping that up against great QBs?

A team that doesnt allow a lot of yards and is good on third down would probably be just as good as the 13-2 Patriots of this season. If they are good with those two stats teams would probably not be reaching the red zone as much against them so that stat would not really matter.

That is basically non-responsive.
There are many teams better in yards and 3rd downs and none of them are 13-2. Many of them allow just about as many points as we do, so red zone D obviously matters.

Good teams dont turn the ball over. That is the basis of my argument as to why the Patriots way of playing defense might come back to haunt them in the playoffs.

Turnovers INCREASE in the playoffs.
Good teams take the ball away. In the playoffs too.

Good teams dont turn the ball over in the playoffs, good teams capitalize on being in the red zone.

Good teams dont get stopped on 3rd down in the playoffs, or get held to few yards.
See, what you are doing is saying that good teams are good at what the Patriots take away, but you ignore that they are good at what other teams take away too.
Do you think that good teams don't convert 3rd downs or gain a lot of yards?

These are the teams the Patriots will be facing in the playoffs. Either the Patriots offense will have to carry them like they have been or the Patriots defense might need to find a different way to win in the playoffs.

Isnt every defense going to have to find a different way to win in the playoffs if what they do well is harder to do against good teams?

The Patriot defense over the last 3 months has allowed the 4th fewest points in the NFL. Is that not good enough?

 

[Ring 6]

I agree completely. It's a kin to saying that the Patriots offense is dynamic because they score touchdowns opposed to field goals. That's why The Dynasty's point of view and his insistence upon pushing that point of view despite having it illustrated for him through referenced material and statistics is mind boggling.

As I mentioned earlier, BB has done an outstanding job with the defense. They are a large reason why we are 13-2 going into week 17.

Well, thats the other flaw in the argument.
The argument says that if we face good offenses in the playoffs they won't succumb to our defensive strengths (apparently they will succumb to other teams different strengths) and that is a terrible concern because what if the best offense in the NFL all of a sudden stinks.
I guess is a team shows up that takes away BOTH the strengths of our offense and the strengths of our defense, we are in trouble. Fortunately there is no such team, and if it were likely we wouldn't be 13-2.

 

[Fencer]

I just checked the box scores of the Patriots' games against Rivers, Manning, and other good QBs. There was at least 1 INT each against most of them. Flacco was the exception.

 

[Ring 6]

Not all young players choke under pressure, but when you have so many that you depend on thats is a tough and risky way to operate.

You have shown no evidence of this.

One game where you get blown out at home is not really considered playoff experience, as opposed to 3 games where the defense led your team all the way to the AFCCG.

You have shown no evidence of this either. And how did the Jets get to an AFCC is they had no experience? Your point you are using to back up your argument conflicts with your argument.

The playmakers of the defense Mayo, Spikes, Cunningham, Arrington, McCourty, and Chung really do not have much playoff experience if any at all. The Patriots defense would be labeled as inexperienced.

So? Once again you miss the point. There is no evidence that playoff experience and the amount of it is more important than simply being the best team, and the one that is at home.