Why are people still trashing the defense?

[Oswlek]

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.

Bingo, though if there is a fan base on the planet that understands offense doesn't always translate to playoff success, it should be us.

 

[ivanvamp]

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.

LOL. No, really, Deus, it's ok. You can slip out of the conversation with a little more dignity. I mean, after you claimed that the Bucs lost their two best receivers...let's see, how did you put it... Oh here it is:

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". Before those receivers were injured, the Bucs were moving the ball against the Patriots defense

"At the start of the game"...and losing these receivers "at the start of the game" was why they were so ineffective against the Pats' D, because before then, they were moving the ball so well against the Patriots.

When, in fact, VJax played into the 3rd quarter and played nearly 60% of the Bucs' offensive snaps, and Williams missed a handful of plays but played through all four quarters, and participated in 74% of the Bucs' offensive snaps.

And then the actual game data shows that the Bucs' offense with VJax produced at only a tiny fraction better than it did without him....

But I mean, other than the fact that you were utterly, completely wrong, you had a point. I guess.

So we all get that you want to leave this conversation. It's clear why. We understand. No need to make it worse.

 

[Deus Irae]

LOL. No, really, Deus, it's ok. You can slip out of the conversation with a little more dignity. I mean, after you claimed that the Bucs lost their two best receivers...let's see, how did you put it... Oh here it is:



"At the start of the game"...and losing these receivers "at the start of the game" was why they were so ineffective against the Pats' D, because before then, they were moving the ball so well against the Patriots.

When, in fact, VJax played into the 3rd quarter and played nearly 60% of the Bucs' offensive snaps, and Williams missed a handful of plays but played through all four quarters, and participated in 74% of the Bucs' offensive snaps.

And then the actual game data shows that the Bucs' offense with VJax produced at only a tiny fraction better than it did without him....

But I mean, other than the fact that you were utterly, completely wrong, you had a point. I guess.

So we all get that you want to leave this conversation. It's clear why. We understand. No need to make it worse.

mgteich has already pointed out the Williams situation. I'll leave it at that, since you seem to have a hair across your ass this morning. Let me just note the breakdown of this thread:

"Solid defensive effort, but not as impressed as some because of the injuries"
- "Hey, that's not fair"

"I'm not bashing the defense, but I think it's fair to hold off further judgment until they play better offenses"
- "But compared to last year!"

"Points allowed was about the same through the first two games last year as this year, with game 3 exposing last year's defense against the Ravens"
- "Yeah, but yards, rankings!"

"Yards and rankings don't meaning anything at this point, and the metrics don't take a lot of variables into account"
- "But RANKINGS!"

sheesh.... all this over some people wanting to see the defense face a good offense before going all in.

:bricks:

 

[VrabelJr]

I think we need to stop letting the Broncos give us a complex just because our offense isn't the big dog in town anymore.

I foresee a similar fate for the Broncos this year as what happened to the Patriots the last 6 years. The Broncos have serious holes on defense and their run game is anemic at best. Not a good winning formula for the playoffs.

I can't wait for the KC vs Denver games. I think KC does a great job of keeping their offense on the field with both stellar defense and smart offense.

 

[ivanvamp]

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.

I'm not denying that Williams was banged up. But the Bucs were getting crushed by the fourth quarter. They had 3 other receivers on the team. Granted, those WRs aren't great players. But if Williams was "seriously injured", with the game out of reach, no competent coach would play Williams under those conditions.

And he was hurt before VJax left the game. He got hurt on the 2nd play of the 2nd quarter. He left for a play, then came back in and finished the drive. He would then miss the next two drives. He was on the field for the start of the 3rd quarter. VJax caught a pass on the first play of that drive, was out the next couple of plays, and then was back on the field for a 3rd and 15 play.

After that series, Jackson sat the rest of the game. So they put Williams back in before Jackson got hurt and came out. They didn't put Williams back in because Jackson was hurt.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

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.

As long as you're explaining things why isn't Denver's defense a concern? They were a question mark coming in and have been decidedly mediocre so far. If they don't improve before the playoffs the Broncos are going to need to score 30+ against some very sound defensive teams. You'd think most Pats fans would see the flaw in relying so heavily on an offense.

 

[VrabelJr]

You can only beat the players they put out there against you.

 

[JackBauer]

I think we need to stop letting the Broncos give us a complex just because our offense isn't the big dog in town anymore.

I foresee a similar fate for the Broncos this year as what happened to the Patriots the last 6 years. The Broncos have serious holes on defense and their run game is anemic at best. Not a good winning formula for the playoffs.

I can't wait for the KC vs Denver games. I think KC does a great job of keeping their offense on the field with both stellar defense and smart offense.

I agree. KC and Seattle worry me much more as potential future opponents than the Broncos do.

 

[ivanvamp]

mgteich has already pointed out the Williams situation. I'll leave it at that, since you seem to have a hair across your ass this morning.

As I pointed out in post #125 above, mgteich was wrong about that. I've just re-watched this on nflrewind. I'm looking at exactly what plays these guys were in and the sequence of events. mgteich was closer to correct; you, on the other hand, were hilariously, colossally, wrong.

And the "hair across my ass" came about because YOU decided to "correct" my post with stupid stuff that has been shown to be completely off the mark. If you hadn't done that, I wouldn't be responding by kicking your ass all over this thread. You brought this on yourself, Deus. And it's no wonder you want this conversation to end.

(Yet, strangely, you insist on keeping it going....)

Let me just note the breakdown of this thread:

"Solid defensive effort, but not as impressed as some because of the injuries"
- "Hey, that's not fair"

"I'm not bashing the defense, but I think it's fair to hold off further judgment until they play better offenses"
- "But compared to last year!"

"Points allowed was about the same through the first two games last year as this year, with game 3 exposing last year's defense against the Ravens"
- "Yeah, but yards, rankings!"

"Yards and rankings don't meaning anything at this point, and the metrics don't take a lot of variables into account"
- "But RANKINGS!"

sheesh.... all this over some people wanting to see the defense face a good offense before going all in.

:bricks:

Yeah, I don't know what you're getting at here. Maybe you're mixing me up with other people. Because I've said the whole way through that the Pats' D hasn't played good offenses yet and that I want to see them play a good offense before I get too excited. And all I did was compare the first three games of this year with the first three games of last year, and the comparison, through three games, is very encouraging.

In post #89, I said, "The offenses they faced in the first three games of 2012 were a little better than what they've faced this year, but not a lot better. Somewhat better in pts scored ranking, but a little worse in yds gained ranking. But what the Pats' defense has done is significantly better than through three games in 2012. So at this point, it's safe to say that the three-game sample in 2013 represents a much better performance than the first three games in 2012. Who knows what will happen from here on out. But so far, so good."

You and I don't disagree on the idea that none of this means that they'll actually be able to stop Atlanta or, my goodness, Denver.

 

[Kontradiction]

As long as you're explaining things why isn't Denver's defense a concern? They were a question mark coming in and have been decidedly mediocre so far. If they don't improve before the playoffs the Broncos are going to need to score 30+ against some very sound defensive teams. You'd think most Pats fans would see the flaw in relying so heavily on an offense.

Most do. Look at the Broncos thread. Most are admitting that they look solid while, at the same time, taking a wait and see approach in regard to their offense before calling them great. That's how it should be because, when you look at it, they really haven't played a decent team as of yet (Baltimore had a lot of defensive turnover, some injuries on offense during that game, and looked gassed by halftime). That's what I would call applying logic. It's easy to do when you're talking about other teams and rivals. When most people begin talking about their own teams, logic flies out the window.

 

[chasa]

I like our team better right now, then i did last year.

 

[ivanvamp]

As long as you're explaining things why isn't Denver's defense a concern? They were a question mark coming in and have been decidedly mediocre so far. If they don't improve before the playoffs the Broncos are going to need to score 30+ against some very sound defensive teams. You'd think most Pats fans would see the flaw in relying so heavily on an offense.

I was just commenting there with respect to why people are high on Denver's offense but skeptical of New England's defense.

To answer your question, I think that Denver's defense should be a concern. Their D is pretty good when everyone is there, but when they're not, I think they can be had.

 

[Huckleberry1]

You can only beat the players they put out there against you.

That's reality, you are not allowed to use it in arguments that are based on something else altogether. The truth is that if the other teams were completely healthy, much better, and made every play then the Patriots defense would be much worse and they would be 0-3, and that is what really matters..........

 

[Huckleberry1]

While i can understand the argument that the Patriots haven't faced a high powered offense yet so we have to wait to see how good they really are i also think there is a clear agenda by those taking that tack, as it is really the people who love to trash Belichick's drafts who are making this argument, and it's almost as if they want them to fail so they will be right and can continue to trash Belichick for his drafts. That said the Patriots defense really has a chance to demonstrate that they have taken the next steps and are now one of the leagues better defenses. If their defense performs well against the Falcons, Bengals, and Saints then it is going to be really hard to claim they are just feasting on weak offenses, although the pessimists will almost certainly claim that the Falcons aren't very good, Dalton sucks, and the Saints are no longer an elite offense. They just can't help themselves, if Jessica Alba offered herself up to them they would turn her down and say that she just isn't the same now that she has a stretch mark.

 

[Nunchucks]

While i can understand the argument that the Patriots haven't faced a high powered offense yet so we have to wait to see how good they really are i also think there is a clear agenda by those taking that tack, as it is really the people who love to trash Belichick's drafts who are making this argument, and it's almost as if they want them to fail so they will be right and can continue to trash Belichick for his drafts. That said the Patriots defense really has a chance to demonstrate that they have taken the next steps and are now one of the leagues better defenses. If their defense performs well against the Falcons, Bengals, and Saints then it is going to be really hard to claim they are just feasting on weak offenses, although the pessimists will almost certainly claim that the Falcons aren't very good, Dalton sucks, and the Saints are no longer an elite offense. They just can't help themselves, if Jessica Alba offered herself up to them they would turn her down and say that she just isn't the same now that she has a stretch mark.

Right, Falcons did not have Stephen Jackson and Roddy White was hobbled, Saints do not have a running game, and the Bengals are called the Bungles for a reason.

 

[Ring 6]

That's reality, you are not allowed to use it in arguments that are based on something else altogether. The truth is that if the other teams were completely healthy, much better, and made every play then the Patriots defense would be much worse and they would be 0-3, and that is what really matters..........

The other side of the coin is if they played this well vs top 10 offenses they would be the 1985 Bears.

The point is that they played tremendous defense vs average or less than average offenses. They play MUCH better than an average defense would against those teams.
If they faced a better offense they would likely have not done as well.
I don't think anyone feels allowing 9 points a game to these 3 teams means they will allow 9 to the top 3 offenses in the NFL as well, but doing better than most against anyone is typically a good indication you are more likely to better than most against everyone.
For some reason that is difficult for people to admit.

 

[Huckleberry1]

The other side of the coin is if they played this well vs top 10 offenses they would be the 1985 Bears.

The point is that they played tremendous defense vs average or less than average offenses. They play MUCH better than an average defense would against those teams.
If they faced a better offense they would likely have not done as well.
I don't think anyone feels allowing 9 points a game to these 3 teams means they will allow 9 to the top 3 offenses in the NFL as well, but doing better than most against anyone is typically a good indication you are more likely to better than most against everyone.
For some reason that is difficult for people to admit.

Agreed, and I fully expect the better offenses to make more plays and score more points, the real question is whether they are going to be able to make the most important plays and continue to play in concert with the offense and help them win games, which they hadn't really been doing over the past few years. Belichick has rebuilt most of this defense and it is paying off, they have played really well to this point but bigger challenges are coming up, they need to keep the coming opponents to 20-24 points a game and the offense has to step it up, they also need to continue playing the field position games they have played to this point so each aspect of the team works together. I don't expect them o hold the Falcons, Bengals, and Saints to 10 points a game, but if they can be in the low 20's then they have given the offense a chance to win the game. 15-18 points a game defensively is a good place to be, and holding bad offenses under fourteen and good ones under 24 is the way to achieve that.

 

[manxman2601]

While i can understand the argument that the Patriots haven't faced a high powered offense yet so we have to wait to see how good they really are i also think there is a clear agenda by those taking that tack, as it is really the people who love to trash Belichick's drafts who are making this argument, and it's almost as if they want them to fail so they will be right and can continue to trash Belichick for his drafts. That said the Patriots defense really has a chance to demonstrate that they have taken the next steps and are now one of the leagues better defenses. If their defense performs well against the Falcons, Bengals, and Saints then it is going to be really hard to claim they are just feasting on weak offenses, although the pessimists will almost certainly claim that the Falcons aren't very good, Dalton sucks, and the Saints are no longer an elite offense. They just can't help themselves, if Jessica Alba offered herself up to them they would turn her down and say that she just isn't the same now that she has a stretch mark.

I disagree. I'm of the "wait and see" crowd (don't know how anyone cannot be) and I've never trashed a BB draft. I'm not sure how taking a common-sense approach necessarily means an ulterior agenda.

 

[Ring 6]

Agreed, and I fully expect the better offenses to make more plays and score more points, the real question is whether they are going to be able to make the most important plays and continue to play in concert with the offense and help them win games, which they hadn't really been doing over the past few years. Belichick has rebuilt most of this defense and it is paying off, they have played really well to this point but bigger challenges are coming up, they need to keep the coming opponents to 20-24 points a game and the offense has to step it up, they also need to continue playing the field position games they have played to this point so each aspect of the team works together. I don't expect them o hold the Falcons, Bengals, and Saints to 10 points a game, but if they can be in the low 20's then they have given the offense a chance to win the game. 15-18 points a game defensively is a good place to be, and holding bad offenses under fourteen and good ones under 24 is the way to achieve that.

But it is also about the stop when you need the stop. A defense can win you a 37-35 game if they make the key stops that result in a win.
The most encouraging thing this defense has done, IMO, was in the Jets game when the offense was putrid, and they took the field 5 straight times with a 3 point lead and while the offense did nothing whatsoever to help even with field position, they allowed nothing.
If they had played a poor first half, and the lead they were protecting was 27-24 instead of 13-10, I would still consider that excellent defense to protect a 3 point lead on the last 5 drives of a game.

 

[Ring 6]

I disagree. I'm of the "wait and see" crowd (don't know how anyone cannot be) and I've never trashed a BB draft. I'm not sure how taking a common-sense approach necessarily means an ulterior agenda.

Because professing a 'wait and see' approach about something positive coming from the same people that scream from the rafters about anything negative makes it something different.
Many of the same people arguing you have to wait and see have decreid that the offense stinks and will all year, that the team looks like it will be 8-8, that Amendola will be lucky to play 3 games, etc, etc.