Defense? What defense!!!

[Metaphors]

Couple of points:

1) This defense is clearly still in transition. Belichick isn't letting them cut loose yet. I'm thinking that the Jets game would be a fine time to have everyone on the same page.

2) It is frustrating seeing how many completions the Pats are giving up downfield when the coverage seems to be fairly solid. Credit to the QBs and receivers and a distinct lack of panic for the Pats DBs at this point.

3) While I am generally an optimistic person, I get downright distraught watching wide open dumpoff passes 6 yards down the field. The completions are bad enough but the 3-5 YAC makes me literally ill. I would much rather see a 50 yard bomb than see a QB go 7-for-7 to RBs in a soul-sucking drive.

4) Wilfork is playing far too many snaps. Credit to him for being able to play 60+ snaps at 350+ lbs but it is a bit much to expect him to be effective late in games or late in the season if this continues. Hoping this changes as Haynesworth gets more work.

 

[RodThePat]

Out of five years in the sample, you advance 100% of the time if you win the turnover battle. Jets once and Pats four times.

Just to play along let's look at 2009. The Ravens took the ball away 4 times to the Patriots 2 in that playoff debacle. We're still at 100% success rate for the team with more takeaways.

The data suggest that the only strategy is to build a defense around the premise of taking the ball away from the opposition more times than the opposing defense takes it away from you.

You cannot predict turnovers, PERIOD. Maybe if you have a team full of playmakers, like the Ravens do, you can kind of foresee some takeovers, but that's not the case here. Turnovers come and go, and, unless you have a really solid defense, you will be absolutely smoked if the other team has a good (not even great) offense and somehow doesn't turn it over.

This defense isn't aggressive, nor is it full of ballhawks and pass-rushing demons, so how can you exactly count on turnovers as a strategy? It fluctuates week to week and relies on mistakes by the opposition, basically. It pressures the offense enormously when you can't get off the field, and, more often then not, this defense just CANNOT get off the field.

 

[Synovia]

And, since turnovers are not a reliable source to build your team around, that kills your argument, because it's obviously not an "ok" strategy to base your team around in the playoffs.

Hi Dues, could you please post some proof that turnovers aren't reliable?

The last couple years, turnovers have correlated at a much higher rate year-to-year than yards have.

IE, relying on turnovers is probably smarter than relying on keeping yards down.

 

[Triumph]

Actually, the data suggests that it's time for the Patriots to improve the defense so that winning the turnover battle is not essential to winning the game. No Tom Brady led team should be 100% locked into a turnover battle for victories. Look, I get that you want to think everything is sunshine and rainbows for the Patriots, but it's not. Belichick has made it clear that he understands this with his dramatic overhaul of the defense. Now, the hope is that time, and maybe some personnel changes at safety, will lead to significant improvement as the team adjusts and improves.

Im not that impressed with Barrett.

Hoping he gets better.

 

[goheels22002]

Look, I get that you want to think everything is sunshine and rainbows for the Patriots, but it's not.

I hate sunshine and rainbows. Sunshine and rainbows is precisely the opposite of what we should be wishing for the Patriots. In bad weather games over the past ten years, the Patriots are nearly unbeatable in both the final score and the turnover ratio.

Most of our favorite Patriot victories came in windy, snowy, cold, wet situations where the defense built to take the ball from the opposing team is at its most lethal.

 

[Synovia]

I think he means "gave up over 80% of third down conversions". You guys can talk about turnovers all you want, and the fact that this defense can recover the football is huge, but giving up thousands of yards and counting on turnovers to get the ball back without giving up a s**tton of points isn't the best strategy.

And yet, what may be the 2nd or 3rd best offense in the NFL only scored 21 points on 9 drives.

Third down % isn't the be-all end-end all.

This isn't "bend but don't break" at all, as it can blow up on your face against a competent offense very quickly. Forcing turnovers is great, but that absolutely cannot be the only thing the defense is good at. We saw this exact same thing last season, and we know how it turned out.

And yet, they just played ONE OF THE BEST OFFENSES IN THE NFL, and it didn't.

No, what we saw last season is the offense self destructing against the Jets. The Jets had 190 yards passing in that playoff game. That game wasn't on the defense.

 

[aluminum seats]

It turned out that in 2010 the Patriots led the NFL in turnover margin at 1.6 more takeaways than giveaways per game and with the best record in the league at 14 - 2.

Seems like an okay strategy to me.

The playoffs are just a completely different animal. I don't use the Colts comparison lightly--like the old SD teams, or Buffalo in 90's, you're just not going to win Super Bowls with just the high-flying offense.

 

[livinginthe past]

So I see this thread is still churning away.

Things I have learned so far.

1. The Patriots are the only team in the NFL who benefits from unsolicited turnovers - the other 31 teams have to actually work for theirs. Maybe this was something Robert Kraft was busy enacting into the new CBA, while everyone else was looking the other way.

2. Once things become serious in the post-season, the opposition finds themselves a lot less predisposed to gift the Patriots the aforementioned unsolicited turnovers resulting in a sure-fire loss.

3. Brady's struggles in these playoff losses are to be largely ignored - if in doubt, always refer back that time the other team unsportingly scored some points on us.

4. If there are turnovers, it will always be the Patriots who commit them. Just because you have shown an aptitude for causing them in the regular season, don't expect to see any in the playoffs.
Its possible the Patriots are carelessly using up their quota in meaningless regular season games.

5. It is unacceptable for the Patriots to fail to keep winning Superbowls at their previous rate. Personally, I look at that 3 SB wins in 4 years streak, and my immediate question is: Why the hell didn't we win 4?

6. The New England Patriots have a monopoly on QB's passing for multiple TD's and more than 300 yards.
We don't care that other teams have good offenses with excellent QBs paid huge sums of money to throw to dominant WR's.
The Patriots will throw for 300+ and 4 TD, the other team can make do with 150yds, 6 sacks and 4 INTs. 3 of which will be returned to the house.

 

[Dragda]

it's never good enough around here...the Pats win by 14 points but it's real bad...the offense moves the ball but they didn't score every time they had the ball...this is real bad...players get nicked up...real bad...everything is bad all the time....instead of Parcells 101"good defense forces turnovers" ..it's, "those turnovers were REAL BAD!!!! because what if they don't get those turnovers???..then it's all bad...and we don't want turnovers if we may not get turnovers in a future game...so they really don't count and only BAD and BAD FEELING counts...and you watch, some day we'll be right and you'll see HOW BAD everything is..in fact, today was REAL BAD...a terrible win"...

I'm just sick of all the constant nit picking and bellyaching...guess what...the OTHER guys get paid to play too...and some of them are pretty dyamed GREAT football players...you SAW plenty of them out there today in Charger uniforms...but if a 14 point win has to be a real downer and real bad, then keep up the bawking and chicken clucking...

This is a great post. Count me as a nit picking clucker. We still don't have a pass rush.

 

[RodThePat]

So I see this thread is still churning away.

Things I have learned so far.

1. The Patriots are the only team in the NFL who benefits from unsolicited turnovers - the other 31 teams have to actually work for theirs. Maybe this was something Robert Kraft was busy enacting into the new CBA, while everyone else was looking the other way.

2. Once things become serious in the post-season, the opposition finds themselves a lot less predisposed to gift the Patriots the aforementioned unsolicited turnovers resulting in a sure-fire loss.

3. Brady's struggles in these playoff losses are to be largely ignored - if in doubt, always refer back that time the other team unsportingly scored some points on us.

4. If there are turnovers, it will always be the Patriots who commit them. Just because you have shown an aptitude for causing them in the regular season, don't expect to see any in the playoffs.
Its possible the Patriots are carelessly using up their quota in meaningless regular season games.

5. It is unacceptable for the Patriots to fail to keep winning Superbowls at their previous rate. Personally, I look at that 3 SB wins in 4 years streak, and my immediate question is: Why the hell didn't we win 4?

6. The New England Patriots have a monopoly on QB's passing for multiple TD's and more than 300 yards.
We don't care that other teams have good offenses with excellent QBs paid huge sums of money to throw to dominant WR's.
The Patriots will throw for 300+ and 4 TD, the other team can make do with 150yds, 6 sacks and 4 INTs. 3 of which will be returned to the house.

Using irony to avoid having to elaborate actual arguments. I bet you think you look really smart.

 

[Deus Irae]

I hate sunshine and rainbows. Sunshine and rainbows is precisely the opposite of what we should be wishing for the Patriots. In bad weather games over the past ten years, the Patriots are nearly unbeatable in both the final score and the turnover ratio.

Most of our favorite Patriot victories came in windy, snowy, cold, wet situations where the defense built to take the ball from the opposing team is at its most lethal.

Play games with the wording all you want. When the extent of your plan is "I know we're getting lit up, but if we can just win the turnover battle....", you don't have much of a plan when it comes to playing the big boys in the playoffs.

 

[goheels22002]

The playoffs are just a completely different animal. I don't use the Colts comparison lightly--like the old SD teams, or Buffalo in 90's, you're just not going to win Super Bowls with just the high-flying offense.

You are right. Takeaway ratio is actually a better predictor of success in the playoffs than in the regular season.

 

[Synovia]

Play games with the wording all you want. When the extent of your plan is "I know we're getting lit up, but if we can just win the turnover battle....", you don't have much of a plan when it comes to playing the big boys in the playoffs.

Except that wasn't the gameplan at all. The gameplan was "give them the underneath stuff, pressure the quarterback, and they'll make mistakes", and on 6 of 9 drives, thats exactly how it worked.

 

[BradyManny]

3) While I am generally an optimistic person, I get downright distraught watching wide open dumpoff passes 6 yards down the field. The completions are bad enough but the 3-5 YAC makes me literally ill. I would much rather see a 50 yard bomb than see a QB go 7-for-7 to RBs in a soul-sucking drive.

I agree with this - we know very well that Belichick does not, though.

The fact is, Brady is more likely to put up 7 then the other team, so I feel like getting the offense the ball back faster should be at a premium. If it comes at the expense of a big play or two, so be it.

Consider the 4th & 4 call. It was a no-brainer. Why? Because Belichick probably realized that San Diego would end up with the ball at that spot in the field sooner or later in their next drive. Did San Diego even have a drive that didn't get into Pats territory?

 

[RodThePat]

Except that wasn't the gameplan at all. The gameplan was "give them the underneath stuff, pressure the quarterback, and they'll make mistakes", and on 6 of 9 drives, thats exactly how it worked.

Except for that whole "pressure the quarterback" part.

 

[RodThePat]

I agree with this - we know very well that Belichick does not, though.

The fact is, Brady is more likely to put up 7 then the other team, so I feel like getting the offense the ball back faster should be at a premium. If it comes at the expense of a big play or two, so be it.

Consider the 4th & 4 call. It was a no-brainer. Why? Because Belichick probably realized that San Diego would end up with the ball at that spot in the field sooner or later in their next drive. Did San Diego even have a drive that didn't get into Pats territory?

I think the 4th and 4 call was more motivated by Mesko's injury than anything else.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think the 4th and 4 call was more motivated by Mesko's injury than anything else.

Unless Belichick was lying during his post game press conference, you are correct.

 

[Joker]

You cannot predict turnovers, PERIOD. Maybe if you have a team full of playmakers, like the Ravens do, you can kind of foresee some takeovers, but that's not the case here. Turnovers come and go, and, unless you have a really solid defense, you will be absolutely smoked if the other team has a good (not even great) offense and somehow doesn't turn it over.

This defense isn't aggressive, nor is it full of ballhawks and pass-rushing demons, so how can you exactly count on turnovers as a strategy? It fluctuates week to week and relies on mistakes by the opposition, basically. It pressures the offense enormously when you can't get off the field, and, more often then not, this defense just CANNOT get off the field.

The Chargers had NINE possessions...they scored on three...that would be less often than not, not more often than not. You'll argue THIS though because you have your feet dug in the sand and the Patriots defense does not play the way YOU want it to.From here ,you invent this "enormous pressure!!!!" fallacy to buttress an argument that is already flawed by your underpinning "more often than not" premise. Anger and frustration at a team you supposedly root for after they start 2-0 with double digit wins is puzzling.Would it be more comforting to see the Pats play like the Jets...if so, you should think about switching allegiances...for the sake of your own personal happiness...the way you're ranting and raving and inventing fallacy to express your rage at the Patriots suggests that you are a very very unhappy fan.

 

[Kontradiction]

Hi Dues, could you please post some proof that turnovers aren't reliable?

The last couple years, turnovers have correlated at a much higher rate year-to-year than yards have.

IE, relying on turnovers is probably smarter than relying on keeping yards down.

It's probably better if you can do both, though. I expect Belichick would agree with that as well.

 

[aluminum seats]

You are right. Takeaway ratio is actually a better predictor of success in the playoffs than in the regular season.

The Pats' quick exit from the playoffs last year would suggest otherwise. A tough, effective defense that happens to create turnovers might be something to be replicated in the postseason. An otherwise porous defense that saves its bacon through turnovers? That's more likely to fall under the category of luck.