Welcome the New Pats DEFENSE: Aggressive, Exciting, Innovative

[Joker]

you used 2008 as a negative???

jeez...talk about a sleazy little friggin' troll....I thought I smelled a green rat...welcome to ignore

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

you used 2008 as a negative???

jeez...talk about a sleazy little friggin' troll....I thought I smelled a green rat...welcome to ignore

Facts are facts. Pats did not make the playoffs that year. If they had Brady, they would have.

for some reason you have a major hair across your ***** about Belichick..that's your business...try this..Belichick had an All Pro QB at the helm when he took over the Patriots...he watched a season and then made a move that rocked the sporting world (maybe you were underground in your bunker taking target practice at your BB dummy) by benching Bledsoe and starting unknown 6th round choice, Tom Brady.

you can't have it both ways ,bub...you want to NEGATE that decision, deride it, mock it,belittle it...go right ahead...I'm not even interested in any of this crap anyway...just sayin'...

Belichick had an All-Pro QB at the helm when he took over and STILL went 5-11? That doesn't help your argument.

I don't hate BB. I love the guy, but I deplore this whole "Rex Ryan is not even in the same class, he's a buffoon" notion that footypajama Pats fans love to talk about. Rex is an excellent coach. I'd rather have BB, but to say that Rex is horrible or a moron or all talk and no walk is just not true. He's gotten the better of us since he's been in our division.

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree with you that personnel has been a big-time issue for the defense over the last 3-4 years, but I think one-gap/two-gap is part of the issue as well.

Not only did the Patriots have elite personnel in those glory years of 03/04, but the league was a different league. The rules have changed since then. The league has become much more of a passing league than it was back then. Back then, guys like LaDanian Tomlinson and Larry Johnson were carrying the rock 350 times per year and approaching 20 TD's per year. That doesn't happen anymore. Not only are two back systems more prevalent, but the NFL is more pass-oriented now.

In 2009, there were 10 QB's who threw for over 4,000 yards. In 2003, there were 2 QB's who threw for over 4,000 yards. You look at the last few years, and QB's numbers are way up. Brees threw for over 5,000 yards in 2008. The QB's are getting better and better. Very few teams are built around a running game -- the NFL is trending much more towards a QB driven league. The Jets have had a great running game and a great defense for the past two years, but they've eventually fallen to teams with better passing attacks and QB's.

Rex took Mangini's 2008 middle of the pack Belichick-styled Jets defense and turned them into the most dominant defense in the league in 2009 with more or less the same personnel. Teams like the Packers, Saints, Steelers, and Giants have all won Super Bowls with similar philosophies on defense -- aggressive one-gap schemes. This style of defense just seems to be the better way to go about defending opponents with the way teams are chucking the ball around the field.

It's just a personal opinion of mine: I think the two-gap defense is a bit outdated for the pass-happy NFL. I'm not just getting caught up in the media frenzy of this training camp and the alleged evolution of the D, I've felt this way for quite a while now (go back and check some posts if you want to from 2009 on).

While I agree that personnel has been a problem for this team on defense, I believe scheme has too. It is hard/difficult to find DL for the 2-gap 3-4. Seymour-types don't grow on trees. McGinest and Vrabel-types don't grow on trees. A one-gap scheme is much easier to address needs with. You can go after some undersized edge rushers. You can go after some shorter/squatty DL who excel at shooting gaps. You can get a more immediate impact from a college player that you draft. I think a guy like Cunningham would be much more productive coming right out of college and being plugged in as a DE in a one-gap 4-3 scheme rather than trying to learn the techniques/coverages/intricacies of a 2-gap 3-4.

You've made this argument in the past. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. There's no sense going deeply into it again, though, because the data and the results have shown you wrong, yet you refuse to just admit to the evidence. Therfore, I'll just point out that the scheme you're crying about is precisely what's enabled a talent deficient defense to remain at the top end of the defensive rankings over the past 3 years, despite the loss of most of the best players.

Bruschi
Harrison
Vrabel
Seymour
Warren


Those guys are gone, and the only one who's replacement has been anything like a fair swap has been the Bruschi/Mayo swap.

Warren for Warren.... no
Everyone for Seymour.... no
Ninkovich et al for Vrabel.... no
Sanders and/or Meriweather for Harrison.... no

The talent has clearly declined, yet the defense has managed to remain in the top ten in scoring. In fact, here's the defensive scoring ranking since the start of the Super Bowl era:

6
17
1
2
17
2
4
8
5
8

There is nothing there that shows any kind of league catching up against that defense. A team with Deltha O'Neal as a starting CB managed to finish in the top ten on defense. Last year's team managed to finish in the top ten on defense, despite having 2 holes on the defensive line, 2+ holes at linebacker, a hole at starting CB and a hole at the nickel CB.

One last note, since you were talking about the attack style teams. The only 3-4 team that can compare with the Patriots defensive dominance during the Patriots Super Bowl era is the Steelers, and even they've had more seasons outside the top 10 during that time (4-2). In fact, since the last time the Patriots finished outside the top 10 in defense, the Steelers have done it twice (2006 and 2009). The best 4-3 team during that time, the Ravens, have finished outside the top 10 three times, most recently in 2007.

 

[strngplyr]

You've made this argument in the past. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. There's no sense going deeply into it again, though, because you've been schooled on this before and refuse to just admit to the evidence. Therfore, I'll just point out that the scheme you're crying about is precisely what's enabled a talent deficient defense to remain at the top end of the defensive rankings over the past 3 years, despite the loss of most of the best players.

Bruschi
Harrison
Vrabel
Seymour
Warren


Those guys are gone, and the only one who's replacement has been anything like a fair swap has been the Bruschi/Mayo swap.

Warren for Warren.... no
Everyone for Seymour.... no
Ninkovich et al for Vrabel.... no
Sanders and/or Meriweather for Harrison.... no

The talent has clearly declined, yet the defense has managed to remain in the top ten in scoring. In fact, here's the defensive scoring ranking since the start of the Super Bowl era:

6
17
1
2
17
2
4
8
5
8

There is nothing there that shows any kind of league catching up against that defense. A team with Deltha O'Neal as a starting CB managed to finish in the top ten on defense. Last year's team managed to finish in the top ten on defense, despite having 2 holes on the defensive line, 2+ holes at linebacker, a hole at starting CB and a hole at the nickel CB.

One last note, since you were talking about the attack style teams. The only 3-4 team that can compare with the Patriots defensive dominance during the Patriots Super Bowl era is the Steelers, and even they've had more seasons outside the top 10 during that time (4-2). In fact, since the last time the Patriots finished outside the top 10 in defense, the Steelers have done it twice (2006 and 2009). The best 4-3 team during that time, the Ravens, have finished outside the top 10 three times, most recently in 2007.

Yeah but the pats gave up a lot of yards last year. That's how teams score right? What are these "points" you're talking about.

 

[PatsFanStnfrd]

Vince Wilfork adds his weight to the "new defense" saying:
"“So far, so good,” the team captain said. “It’s a learning curve. We have a bunch of young guys in this locker room, some new things that we’re doing out there on the field, not just the young guys starting their career with something new, but guys who’ve been around here for a long (time). We’re actually doing a couple different things that we have to learn. We just have to stay on that point.” (emphasis provided)

Vince Wilfork, defense set to attack for Patriots - BostonHerald.com

 

[n8wood]

Perhaps they're mixing 1 gap/2 gap schemes. Assigning one side of the line to penetrate while the other side stays home. The LBs could be responsible for exposed gaps on that one side to reduce some of the risk in getting gashed. This could allow more misdirection.

I realize the base is designed to stop the run, but you have to also consider how much of a disadvantage you will be at if they decide to pass. When the overall ratio of pass-to-run shifts, a reevaluation of scheme is prudent.

 

[ivanvamp]

4,8,5,8 isn't very much different than top 3 or 5. In fact last year, IIRC after the first month of the season the Pats were 2nd or 3rd in points allowed.

While points allowed is more important, obviously, than yards allowed, yards allowed is still a potentially significant stat. If two teams each give up 20 points a game, but team A gives up 200 yds a game and team B gives up 350 yds a game, it's almost certain that team B's defense is on the field longer than team A's, meaning that team B's *offense* is on the field less than it could be. Thus, team B's scoring opportunities are minimized, compared with team A's.

Giving up yards, first downs, field position...these are all things that impact the outcome of games. Better to give up fewer yards than more, fewer first downs than more, and improve your field position.

I know this is all basic stuff, but sometimes people here (not suggesting you're saying this) equate defense with scoring defense only, and that's just not a valid way to look at it. Again, scoring defense is more important than yardage defense, no doubt, but yards allowed *is* an important stat over the course of a season.

And when you factor in yardage allowed, the Pats' D the past few years could use some improvement.

 

[Deus Irae]

While points allowed is more important, obviously, than yards allowed, yards allowed is still a potentially significant stat. If two teams each give up 20 points a game, but team A gives up 200 yds a game and team B gives up 350 yds a game, it's almost certain that team B's defense is on the field longer than team A's, meaning that team B's *offense* is on the field less than it could be. Thus, team B's scoring opportunities are minimized, compared with team A's.

Giving up yards, first downs, field position...these are all things that impact the outcome of games. Better to give up fewer yards than more, fewer first downs than more, and improve your field position.

I know this is all basic stuff, but sometimes people here (not suggesting you're saying this) equate defense with scoring defense only, and that's just not a valid way to look at it. Again, scoring defense is more important than yardage defense, no doubt, but yards allowed *is* an important stat over the course of a season.

And when you factor in yardage allowed, the Pats' D the past few years could use some improvement.

The Patriots model is built precisely around the notion that the team will give up 10 yards rather than 40. As a result, it will allow more shorter yardage plays in order to prevent big plays, in an attempt to force the opponent to make more good plays. The result is more yards allowed, but fewer points allowed. The notion that yardage means something of real significance when the scoring is held down runs completely counter to the very philosophy being used.

It's not a zero stat, but it's not far from one.

 

[BHSL2]

The Patriots model is built precisely around the notion that the team will give up 10 yards rather than 40. As a result, it will allow more shorter yardage plays in order to prevent big plays, in an attempt to force the opponent to make more good plays. The result is more yards allowed, but fewer points allowed. The notion that yardage means something of real significance when the scoring is held down runs completely counter to the very philosophy being used.

It's not a zero stat, but it's not far from one.

Belichick's philosophy in a nutshell. If a defender keeps everything in front of him and is the right place at the right time, good things will happen.

The defense 'looks' worse as a whole when the players aren't forcing turnovers. But amazingly, creating takeaways is something the young unit figured out how to do last year. I do expect that to continue with these players.

 

[olschool]

Vince Wilfork adds his weight to the "new defense" saying:
"“So far, so good,” the team captain said. “It’s a learning curve. We have a bunch of young guys in this locker room, some new things that we’re doing out there on the field, not just the young guys starting their career with something new, but guys who’ve been around here for a long (time). We’re actually doing a couple different things that we have to learn. We just have to stay on that point.” (emphasis provided)

Vince Wilfork, defense set to attack for Patriots - BostonHerald.com

The pats website has a Patriots Today segment on Wilfork, that shows him flipping over a blocking sled.

He looks even bigger when he's mad.

 

[PatsFanStnfrd]

On the eve of the first game vs. Dolphins, here is Bedard of the Globe on the Pats approach to defense this year:

"tired of not being able to get off the field on third downs, Belichick has revamped the scheme.

The 3-4 read-and-react scheme has been read its last rites. It worked wonders for years and even today against middling quarterbacks, but the talent in the shotgun today is too good to hope a QB doesn’t see a defender underneath in coverage, or is inaccurate enough to get the defense off the field.

These Patriots will be coming after the opponent to affect the quarterback. The optimal way to win defensively in today’s NFL is to be able to rush with just four and push the pocket from the interior. "

Belichick’s plans for Patriots sound just super - The Boston Globe

Bedard is an astute Xs-Os observer -- better than most on the Pats beat. So, it will be interesting to see how the defense unfolds today and the rest of the season.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Excited to see the D tonight..lets hope for a shutout!

 

[ivanvamp]

To bump a thread from the beginning of the year....

So far, through 3 games, this defense isn't aggressive, it isn't terribly exciting, and it sure doesn't seem innovative.

It's nothing like what we saw the first two preseason games, that's for sure.

I'm optimistic about improvement, but it isn't quite what I expected either.

 

[TB=TD]

This bump is good.:singing:

 

[Ring 6]

To bump a thread from the beginning of the year....

So far, through 3 games, this defense isn't aggressive, it isn't terribly exciting, and it sure doesn't seem innovative.

It's nothing like what we saw the first two preseason games, that's for sure.

I'm optimistic about improvement, but it isn't quite what I expected either.

Its been extremely aggressive. You can tell by all the big plays being allowed.

 

[Big-T]

Its been extremely aggressive. You can tell by all the big plays being allowed.

If it was aggressive the QB wouldn't finish the game with a clean jersey

 

[ivanvamp]

Its been extremely aggressive. You can tell by all the big plays being allowed.

I can't tell if you're being serious or funny. Because I laughed when I first read this but then I started to wonder....

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

HMMMM

Aggressive - At letting the other team score at will

Exciting - To the other teams fans whose QB and WR is looking like Montana and Rice

Innovative - The defensive play calling by picking a play out of a hat...is surely working well

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Does anyone have the totals on what opposing offensive yardage the defense has allowed this year through the air and on the ground?

Is it over 1,200 yards, I presume?

 

[Ring 6]

If it was aggressive the QB wouldn't finish the game with a clean jersey

Aggressive doesn't mean successful.
You are seeing aggressivness fail. Did you think that only success comes from aggressiveness.