Defense? What defense!!!

[The Scrizz]

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?

Really? You agree that giving up a 50 yard bomb for a TD is better than a bunch of dump-offs? How are drives soul-sucking when they end with no points or a FG?

It's not that we're giving up yards that's the problem, it's that were taking too long to do it? So screw it, let's give up yards and points as long as we do it quickly so Brady can get back out there.

This thread has jumped the shark.

 

[SEA_Pat]

Patriots caught a break when Tolbert fumbled the ball. It was a close game until that point.

This is not a championship defense. I'm worried about the Bills for god's sake

Wow, really? You mean Tolbert could have just raced straight forward for a 10-yard gain but instead turned around and just dropped the ball?

Strange, I could've sworn he had his hole plugged, tried to find an alternative route, got stuffed and stripped and the swarming defense recovered the fumble. I call that "making plays" and "opportunistic fundamental defense".

 

[goheels22002]

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.

In January 2011, the Jets did not commit a turnover against the Patriots and won the game. The Patriots had one interception for a -1.0 takeaway ratio and lost the game. The team with the most takeaways won the game.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

The gameplan obviously was to take away Gates which they did (cue Otter winking at Dean Wermer), the Pats are lucky that the Chargers lost Floyd, but Jackson was just lighting them up, but almost all of his receptions were the results of tremendous cacthes and throws and not bad coverage. I doubt many QBs could have even attempted, let alone completed that last TD to him. That was a tremendous throw and an even better catch.

Now you can complain (loudly) about the lack of a pass rush, the Pats rushed 4 all day and they never even sniffed Rivers' jock the whole game. The Bolts went up and down the field on the Pats, luckily the Pats got those turnovers........

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

Absolutely...

Having an excellent overall defense that is also able to generate turnovers and help out the offense = good thing

Having a defense that needs turnovers to cover up its overall weakness and avoid putting increased pressure on the offense = bad thing

It's stunning that people can't figure this out.

 

[DarrylS]

Cold Hard Football Facts keeps track of these stats, and if memory serves me correctly if you turn the ball over you have a 27% greater chance of losing, cannot find the direct source, but remember it pretty clearly from last year.

OTOH a whole lot of bytching about a team that is 2 & 0.... folks should have lived during the early 90's, there is only one stat at the end that matters.. either a w or a l and nothing in between.

 

[Banjo]

In January 2011, the Jets did not commit a turnover against the Patriots and won the game. The Patriots had one interception for a -1.0 takeaway ratio and lost the game. The team with the most takeaways won the game.

that interception lead to a missed field goal, so really no foul there. there was a lot of reasons they lost that game. the dropped touchdown by Crumpler stands out the most to me

 

[Kontradiction]

In January 2011, the Jets did not commit a turnover against the Patriots and won the game. The Patriots had one interception for a -1.0 takeaway ratio and lost the game. The team with the most takeaways won the game.

Again, what you want in a defense is a secondary and front seven that can not only generate turnovers, but also limit drives, which means limiting yardage. Statistically, this is the most effective way to win the game. Limiting yardage also helps your powerhouse offense get the ball back more quickly with more opportunities to score. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the defenses of 2003 and 2004 not only generated turnovers, but they also finished in the top ten in YPG allowed. I fully expect that this is what Belichick is trying to get back to, hence the signings of Haynesworth and Ellis, the increased playing time for Fletcher, and the drafting of a CB in Dowling.

 

[Deus Irae]

Cold Hard Football Facts keeps track of these stats, and if memory serves me correctly if you turn the ball over you have a 27% greater chance of losing, cannot find the direct source, but remember it pretty clearly from last year.

OTOH a whole lot of bytching about a team that is 2 & 0.... folks should have lived during the early 90's, there is only one stat at the end that matters.. either a w or a l and nothing in between.

I've been following the team since the '70's. I don't see why you would think the time of someone's fandom would somehow make a struggling defense immune from discussion in 2011.

 

[RodThePat]

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.

Well, for a minute I almost forgot that here in Patsfans there's this ridiculous group of people that take it personally when we criticize the team. The guys with whom I was arguing before all had the football knowledge to debate their opinions without resorting to dumb "huh, maybe you should be a Jets fan, than!1!!1one" rants. Maybe you should read their posts and learn a little bit.

The Chargers converted on 80%+ of third downs. I guess that's good enough for you. I'd like to see this defense force more punts and generally be more solid, as I don't believe counting on turnovers while being gashed all game long through the air is a valid strategy, because I simply don't believe we have the playmaking personnel on D to make that a valid strategy. That's it.

For the record, I couldn't be happier as a Patriots fan, but once again, I bet everything I ever have that you were nervous as nervous could be when the Chargers had the ball late in the game with a chance to take the lead. I don't think many here are confident this defense can get a big stop when it needs to. But of course, when the game ends and we end up winning, guys like you come here talking about how the defensive game plan is great and if I don't like I should root for a divisional rival, because obviously I'm unhappy as a Patriots fan. Yeah, real good arguments there, dude.

I have my convictions, I won't change them depending solely on the end result. The defense could gel, and has a lot of time to get better, we are implementing a new system after all. That being said, the way they are playing simply isn't good enough, in my opinion, and if that makes me a pathetic fan in your view, so be it. I guess that's my fault for expecting greatness out of this team.

 

[Kontradiction]

Cold Hard Football Facts keeps track of these stats, and if memory serves me correctly if you turn the ball over you have a 27% greater chance of losing, cannot find the direct source, but remember it pretty clearly from last year.

OTOH a whole lot of bytching about a team that is 2 & 0.... folks should have lived during the early 90's, there is only one stat at the end that matters.. either a w or a l and nothing in between.

Very few people in here are "b!tching". I'm sure we're all happy with the way the team looks. People are simply looking and calling for improvements within the defense. Turnovers are good, yes, but so is limiting overall yardage and T.O.P. Do this, and a good defense will turn into a very good, championship contending defense.

 

[Synovia]

Except for that whole "pressure the quarterback" part.

You mean, the two sacks, the two INTS that were direct results of pressures, the handfull of times Rivers had to scramble, and the 8-10 hits, weren't caused by pressure?

 

[rojo8401]

Wow, really? You mean Tolbert could have just raced straight forward for a 10-yard gain but instead turned around and just dropped the ball?

Strange, I could've sworn he had his hole plugged, tried to find an alternative route, got stuffed and stripped and the swarming defense recovered the fumble. I call that "making plays" and "opportunistic fundamental defense".

There was a huge lane to the right but Tolbert completely screwed that play up. I just got done watching the game again on DVR. You can see Norv screaming at him "Why did you turn back?!".

Overall a bad game defensively is the impression I get after watching the game twice. No pass rush at all. Closer game than many here are saying. The Chargers could have easily won this game if not for a few boneheaded mistakes by Rivers and Norv Turner (atrocious playcalling down the stretch).

Turnovers happen when they happen. Nobody in their right mind would rely on them as any kind of dependable defensive 'scheme'. That's like relying on scratch tickets to pay your rent.

 

[Synovia]

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

Of course it is. I mean, Everybody wants the 86 bears as your defense, but it just doesn't happen all that often.

I'll take a defense that stops the opponent on 66% of its drives every friggen week.

 

[RodThePat]

You mean, the two sacks, the two INTS that were direct results of pressures, the handfull of times Rivers had to scramble, and the 8-10 hits, weren't caused by pressure?

I'm sorry, if you think we got good pressure on Rivers you must have really low expectations of this defense.

 

[Triumph]

OTOH a whole lot of bytching about a team that is 2 & 0.... folks should have lived during the early 90's, there is only one stat at the end that matters.. either a w or a l and nothing in between.

Youre right.

I re watched the game in a pair of these and everything is beautiful.

 

[RodThePat]

Of course it is. I mean, Everybody wants the 86 bears as your defense, but it just doesn't happen all that often.

I'll take a defense that stops the opponent on 66% of its drives every friggen week.

So would I. As long as that doesn't mean: let them get inside your 30-yard line on every drive and hope for a turnover.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Well, for a minute I almost forgot that here in Patsfans there's this ridiculous group of people that take it personally when we criticize the team. The guys with whom I was arguing before all had the football knowledge to debate their opinions without resorting to dumb "huh, maybe you should be a Jets fan, than!1!!1one" rants. Maybe you should read their posts and learn a little bit.

The Chargers converted on 80%+ of third downs. I guess that's good enough for you. I'd like to see this defense force more punts and generally be more solid, as I don't believe counting on turnovers while being gashed all game long through the air is a valid strategy, because I simply don't believe we have the playmaking personnel on D to make that a valid strategy. That's it.

For the record, I couldn't be happier as a Patriots fan, but once again, I bet everything I ever have that you were nervous as nervous could be when the Chargers had the ball late in the game with a chance to take the lead. I don't think many here are confident this defense can get a big stop when it needs to. But of course, when the game ends and we end up winning, guys like you come here talking about how the defensive game plan is great and if I don't like I should root for a divisional rival, because obviously I'm unhappy as a Patriots fan. Yeah, real good arguments there, dude.

I have my convictions, I won't change them depending solely on the end result. The defense could gel, and has a lot of time to get better, we are implementing a new system after all. That being said, the way they are playing simply isn't good enough, in my opinion, and if that makes me a pathetic fan in your view, so be it. I guess that's my fault for expecting greatness out of this team.

Nobody has problems with posters being critical.

The problem here is the majority of it is dumb.

 

[Synovia]

I'm sorry, if you think we got good pressure on Rivers you must have really low expectations of this defense.

How many Sacks, Pressures, and Hits do you think is average in the NFL?



There were atleast 4 plays where pressure from the defensive line lead directly to a turnover. There were several more that lead to incompletes.

 

[Synovia]

So would I. As long as that doesn't mean: let them get inside your 30-yard line on every drive and hope for a turnover.

Its a lot easier to force turnovers in the redzone because the field is compressed. You don't have to worry about your safeties being 40 yards downfield.


Also, the field between the 20s just isn't that valuable. You force a team to make a bunch of short plays on the hope they screw something up (like the tolbert fumble).


Honestly, if thats Eli Manning out there instead of Phillip Rivers, they win that game by 50 points, because hes not throwing the ball to places where only Jackson can go up and get it.


They played an elite offense yesterday, and while they didn't shut them down, they more than well enough to win. Expecting teams to shut down elite offenses in today's NFL is just not reasonable. It just doesn't happen.