Andy, I took the time to write out a 2 hour response to your initial post breaking down the yards per drive, the result per drive (punt, TD, FG, turnover), scoring at the time and offensive output per game compared to the offensive seasonal output per game.
At the end of it, I just couldn't be bothered submitting it because it would have caused another shítfest between you and I and frankly, I've had enough of them. What it did support was my initial claim, the defense isn't as bad as some people are advocating and it's not as good as you've suggested it's been.
I am not suggesting anything. I am taking opinion out of it, and looking game by game at whether the defense did or didnt contribute to a win or loss.
If that results in you thinking it makes the defense look better than your subjective means of evaluating it, then you should recognize that your subjective method must be wrong.
I am talking about the RESULT and you are trying to say the factors that led to the result are a better yardstick than the result itself. How do you not get that this means you picked a poor yardstick?
By the way I have not made any comment about 'how good the defense is' which you seem to want to frame as the question to start an argument.
I am assessing their contribution to the team. You are free to disagree with any of my conclusion about any of the 12 games, but to generalize away from a factual analysis is to say you can't refute it.
The defense is middle of the road providing a complimentary service to a dominant offense.
The facts dont really show that unless the middle of the road is playing well enough to deserve to win 9 times and poorly enough to deserve to lose 3.
That's the conclusion that I came too. For the Pats to win a championship, Brady's O will need to be lights out and the D will need to play to their maximum capability.
That is complete conjecture. We have won many games, handily, where Brady wasn't 'lights out' and the defense probably still hasn't played to its maximum capability yet and they deserved to win 9 times.
Once again there really is nothing for us to debate. I am talking about the RESULTS of what this defense has done, and you are trying to predict what you think the results will be in the future based upon the factors that produced the result being more important than the result.
Our defense despite being last in passing yardage has played well enough to deserve to win 9 of 12 games.
You have turned this into, because our defense is ranked last in passing yards it will not be able to play well enough to deserve to win.
There is no point to really discussing your position that adds up to "The things that they did that added up to winning cannot add up to winning"
On a sidenote, what the research illustrated is how much of a weapon Mesko has become with his ability to boom punts for favorable field position.
I'm sure there is a joke in here somewhere, but frankly its a valid as anything else you drew from looking at these facts.