Why are people still trashing the defense?

[Rob0729]

So much irony from one who magically finds attacks on WRs in posts about the defense. The comedy is great, though.

Deus everything you argue is just set up for your overall agenda of the Pats "trading away" Welker. Your defense of Brady's performance on Sunday and how he played really well and any mistakes were because of the receivers. The fact the defense isn't as good we think is going to set up the Pats don't have the defense to account for the loss of Welker. Your "see I told you Welker is still great" crap in the Broncos/Raiders thread last night. Everything with you comes back to the same transparent agenda.

And unlike you, I don't dismiss anyone's argument that doesn't agree with mine. I will debate them and may try to poke holes in their argument, but I don't just dismiss their arguments as irrelevant just because I don't like it. Well, I don't with people who want to civilly debate an argument. So that you excludes you and a number of other trolls on this board.

And by the way, when I said something about your attack on the defense. I was actually trying to politely let you know you were acting like an arse and it was basically addressing your behavior in the entire thread and not that specific post.

 

[ivanvamp]

The Bucs lost both of their top WRs at the start of the game so, in effect they didn't have the "two very good receivers".

They lost Mike Williams for a play, but then he came back and played basically the rest of the game. Do you realize, for example, that Freeman threw him a pass on the Bucs' last drive of the game? Vincent Jackson played the entire first half and the first drive of the second half.

In other words, your claim that "The Bucs lost both of their top WRs at the start of the game" is utter crap.

It is true that they were missing their best receiver for most of the second half of the game.

Before those receivers were injured, the Bucs were moving the ball against the Patriots defense, which is the point I was making earlier about this game.

Since your first point is factually incorrect, this second part is also incorrect. In the first half, plus the first drive of the second (when they still had VJax), here were their drives:

8 plays, 50 yds, 2 first downs, missed FG
13 plays, 76 yds, 5 first downs, FG
7 plays, 21 yds, 1 first down, turnover on downs
7 plays, 42 yds, 2 first downs, turnover on downs
4 plays, 11 yds, 1 first down, interception
4 plays, 7 yds, 1 first down, punt (first drive of the second half)

Average drive: 7.2 plays, 34.5 yds, 2.0 first downs, 0.5 pts

Second half drives:

3 plays, 8 yds, 0 first downs, punt
11 plays, 46 yds, 5 first downs, turnover on downs
3 plays, 1 yd, 0 first downs, punt
8 plays, 76 yds, 3 first downs, turnover on downs

Average drive: 6.3 plays, 32.3 yds, 2.0 first downs, 0.0 pts

So their average drive with VJax was 0.9 plays, 2.2 yds, no first downs, and 0.5 points better than it was without him. He made a slight difference, but obviously not that big of a difference.

And Freeman sucks.

So far this year he does. But he was terrific in 2010 and solid in 2012. He has ability. Which is what I said already.

 

[ivanvamp]

1.) You're trying to argue style points when the team's changed its style

You must have me confused with someone else. I haven't said a damned thing about "style points". I just gave you the numbers.

2.) You ignore the impact of getting to face two rookies to start this season

I haven't ignored it. I pointed out the offensive ranking of these teams, which takes into consideration the fact that they are led by rookie QBs.

3.) You can't quantify just how disjointed the Bucs were before, and after, the injuries to the WRs.

Your "injured WRs" claim was BS, as I've shown.

4.) etc...

Etc. what? In other words, you're completely full of crap.

 

[Deus Irae]

And by the way, when I said something about your attack on the defense. I was actually trying to politely let you know you were acting like an arse and it was basically addressing your behavior in the entire thread and not that specific post.

No, you were being your typical self, which is a shell of what you once were. You've gone from being one of the best posters here to being among the very worst. It's been sad to watch, really, because you were once an excellent read.

As for my "Welker" argument, that's a crock and you know it. My "Welker" argument was that he's great and stays healthy, and Amendola's already on the shelf. I've already been proven right about the "Welker" argument. Meanwhile, you tried claiming Welker's basically washed up after a couple of games.

 

[Ring 6]

No, you were being your typical self, which is a shell of what you once were. You've gone from being one of the best posters here to being among the very worst. It's been sad to watch, really, because you were once an excellent read.

As for my "Welker" argument, that's a crock and you know it. My "Welker" argument was that he's great and stays healthy, and Amendola's already on the shelf. I've already been proven right about the "Welker" argument. Meanwhile, you tried claiming Welker's basically washed up after a couple of games.

This post belongs in the Arrogance Hall of Fame.

 

[Deus Irae]

You must have me confused with someone else. I haven't said a damned thing about "style points". I just gave you the numbers.



I haven't ignored it. I pointed out the offensive ranking of these teams, which takes into consideration the fact that they are led by rookie QBs.



Your "injured WRs" claim was BS, as I've shown.



Etc. what? In other words, you're completely full of crap.

Williams got hurt in the second quarter and left the game. He came back in for a couple of plays and had to leave again.

Mike Williams Injury: Buccaneers receiver leaves Patriots game - Bucs Nation

And the offensive rankings don't take into consideration that the teams were led by rookie QBs, so I'm not sure what the hell you're trying to say there.

The rest of your post makes similar mistakes.

 

[Oswlek]

The bolded is what makes them meaningless at the moment. The bolded is also pretty much exactly what I've pointed out about the defense. I've not bashed it. I've simply said that we don't know what it is yet.

Which is fine. But is is also fine, IMO, to point out that they've done pretty well so far, and that NE historically struggles against unknown QBs, so facing two rookies (one with a rookie coach on week 1) isn't exactly a free pass for them.

The problem is each side gets so dug in with their straw men and hyperbole that blowups happen when everyone is pretty much in agreement.:bricks:

 

[Rob0729]

No, you were being your typical self, which is a shell of what you once were. You've gone from being one of the best posters here to being among the very worst. It's been sad to watch, really, because you were once an excellent read.

As for my "Welker" argument, that's a crock and you know it. My "Welker" argument was that he's great and stays healthy, and Amendola's already on the shelf. I've already been proven right about the "Welker" argument. Meanwhile, you tried claiming Welker's basically washed up after a couple of games.

First, your opinion of mean very little to me. Your opinion, in general, means very little to me. If you think I am among the very worst posters around here, it must mean I am a pretty good poster because you are the king of the contrarians. You are the Ron Borges of this board.

Second, that is your problem. You are all about being proven right. You want to show you are smarter than everyone else and intellectually superior.

Third, I never said Welker was washed up. In fact, I said he is still a very good receiver. I did say his hands are a major concern and I stand by it. He led the league in drops last year and he had 5 drops in the first two games. One game without a drop does not change my opinion.

 

[Ring 6]

The bolded is what makes them meaningless at the moment. The bolded is also pretty much exactly what I've pointed out about the defense. I've not bashed it. I've simply said that we don't know what it is yet.

This is good to know. Going forward you can now turn yuor agenda of bashing the loss of Welker into "lets let it play out" and "we just don't know yet".

 

[Rob0729]

This post belongs in the Arrogance Hall of Fame.

They would have to open a new wing in the Arrogance Hall of Fame to house all of Deus' posts.

 

[ivanvamp]

Williams got hurt in the second quarter and left the game. He came back in for a couple of plays and had to leave again.

Mike Williams Injury: Buccaneers receiver leaves Patriots game - Bucs Nation

Williams caught a pass on 3rd and 3 from the TB 27 in their last drive of the 3rd quarter. He was targeted again on the last drive of the game.

I'm re-watching the game on nflrewind right now. In the second half, Williams was in on their first drive. He was in on their second drive. He was in on their third drive. And fourth drive. Every single drive of the second half, Williams was in the game.

Williams missed a handful of plays in a couple of offensive series', a few due to injury, and some due to regular substitution and formation usage. That's it. He played in 51 of 69 offensive plays (74%) -see (Buccaneers vs. Patriots Snap Counts: Johnthan Banks replaces Johnson as starter - Bucs Nation)

VJax played nearly 60% of TB's offensive snaps (41 of 69, 59%).

In other words, you're completely wrong about this.

And the offensive rankings don't take into consideration that the teams were led by rookie QBs, so I'm not sure what the hell you're trying to say there.

Sure they do. The rankings are a relative indicator of how the offense does, regardless of what year the QB is. If the QB sucks because he's a rookie, that will be reflected in the numbers those offenses put up. Duh. And the reality is that the Pats' really haven't faced a good offense yet.

The rest of your post makes similar mistakes.

The only one making mistakes here, Deus - and ones that are actually provably wrong, as I have done above - is you. You really should stop because as you dig your heels in more on this you're looking more and more foolish.

 

[BrickPat]

i didn't know anyone was bashing our D

They're really not but it's hard to circle the wagons around compliments. The "no one appreciates /respects [fill in blank]" posts are just swell fun.

 

[randomk1]

Let them play a legit offense first. Next week should be a good test.

 

[yukon cornelius]

what i find funny is Denver lights up a B'more defense in week one with how many new starters? and follows that up with the vaunted giant and raider defenses......and they are the greatest thing since sliced bread


the patriot defense plays 3 games against obviously flawed but still NFL caliber offenses (honestly the jets and buffalo are both better than i thought)......they've done exactly what they've been asked to do and are improving each week......and "we need to see them against a good offense"



bottom line is we've had 3 weeks of play......the patriot D has done exactly what it is supposed to at this point of the season, and i have every reason to be optimistic that come post thanksgiving, when things really start to count, this D is going to be capable of taking them deep into the playoffs

 

[Ring 6]

what i find funny is Denver lights up a B'more defense in week one with how many new starters? and follows that up with the vaunted giant and raider defenses......and they are the greatest thing since sliced bread


the patriot defense plays 3 games against obviously flawed but still NFL caliber offenses (honestly the jets and buffalo are both better than i thought)......they've done exactly what they've been asked to do and are improving each week......and "we need to see them against a good offense"



bottom line is we've had 3 weeks of play......the patriot D has done exactly what it is supposed to at this point of the season, and i have every reason to be optimistic that come post thanksgiving, when things really start to count, this D is going to be capable of taking them deep into the playoffs

This is actually a very good point. The Pats have allowed 11.3ppg which would be close to an alltime record low over a full season.
If the Broncos are near a record pace for scoring against bad Ds and the Pats are near a record pace for preventing points vs bad Os, why is it being disccussed in a different light?

 

[Deus Irae]

Sure they do.

No, they don't, and the fact that you can't even admit to something that obvious makes further conversation with you on this matter a waste of time.

 

[mgteich]

Williams did play almost all the game. He was seriously injured. With VJax injured, there was no choice but to play him. He was hobbled and ineffective after the injury.

Williams caught a pass on 3rd and 3 from the TB 27 in their last drive of the 3rd quarter. He was targeted again on the last drive of the game.

I'm re-watching the game on nflrewind right now. In the second half, Williams was in on their first drive. He was in on their second drive. He was in on their third drive. And fourth drive. Every single drive of the second half, Williams was in the game.

Williams missed a handful of plays in a couple of offensive series', a few due to injury, and some due to regular substitution and formation usage. That's it. He played in 51 of 69 offensive plays (74%) -see (Buccaneers vs. Patriots Snap Counts: Johnthan Banks replaces Johnson as starter - Bucs Nation)

VJax played nearly 60% of TB's offensive snaps (41 of 69, 59%).

In other words, you're completely wrong about this.



Sure they do. The rankings are a relative indicator of how the offense does, regardless of what year the QB is. If the QB sucks because he's a rookie, that will be reflected in the numbers those offenses put up. Duh. And the reality is that the Pats' really haven't faced a good offense yet.



The only one making mistakes here, Deus - and ones that are actually provably wrong, as I have done above - is you. You really should stop because as you dig your heels in more on this you're looking more and more foolish.

 

[ivanvamp]

This is actually a very good point. The Pats have allowed 11.3ppg which would be close to an alltime record low over a full season.
If the Broncos are near a record pace for scoring against bad Ds and the Pats are near a record pace for preventing points vs bad Os, why is it being disccussed in a different light?

I think the answer to this is obvious. We *know* the Broncos' offense is outstanding. Last year, without Welker, and with Peyton Manning having just returned from a year's absence, they averaged 30.1 ppg, and were ranked #2 in points and #4 in yards. Nobody entered this year wondering if the Broncos had a good (or great) offense. We knew that they did. Welker and another year of health for Manning has just made them even better.

The Patriots, meanwhile, were considered by most to be a mediocre defense at best last year. #9 in points allowed and #25 in yards allowed, and no star addition like Welker; meanwhile, their biggest defensive FA acquisition ended up on IR (A.Wilson). It's easy to see why some people came into the season not being sold on the Patriots' defense. So seeing them perform well against bad offensive teams isn't sufficient evidence to sway them. But seeing Denver absolutely rip apart mediocre defenses simply confirms what they already knew.

Right or wrong, I think this answers the question you pose.

 

[ivanvamp]

No, they don't, and the fact that you can't even admit to something that obvious makes further conversation with you on this matter a waste of time.

In other words, you tried to rip apart my simple post (which contained the actual data), and you got completely embarrassed in front of everyone in that attempt, and so now you want to end this conversation with as much dignity as you can muster.

That's ok, Deus. Everyone here sees this. And we all understand. Have a great day.

 

[Deus Irae]

In other words, you tried to rip apart my simple post (which contained the actual data), and you got completely embarrassed in front of everyone in that attempt, and so now you want to end this conversation with as much dignity as you can muster.

That's ok, Deus. Everyone here sees this. And we all understand. Have a great day.

No, in other words, your ranking doesn't take what I noted into consideration, yet you claimed it did. When you can't even admit to something as basic as the inability of that ranking to quantify the, at least currently, unquantifiable (specific impact of player being a rookie in game one/two, etc...), further discussion of the topic becomes futile.