Why are people still trashing the defense?

[Huckleberry1]

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.

I think most here are wait and see, however when you look at who is the most negative it coincides neatly with those who routinely trash Belichick's drafts.

 

[Huckleberry1]

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.

Again, agreed, which is why I said that it is about making the most important plays. numbers alone never tell the tale, as a big stop means everything and garbage points and yards nothing.

 

[Rob0729]

I think most here are wait and see, however when you look at who is the most negative it coincides neatly with those who routinely trash Belichick's drafts.

It is a lot of the "I would rather be right by seeing the team fail than be wrong by seeing the team succeed" crowd. I just don't get how you can be a fan of a team with that mindset, but there are a few people on this board like that.

 

[manxman2601]

I think most here are wait and see, however when you look at who is the most negative it coincides neatly with those who routinely trash Belichick's drafts.

I'd say that a "wait and see" approach is not a negative perspective - in fact, as it relates to BB's drafting it's quite the opposite. Unfortunately, it's often a patience left unrewarded (Ras-I).

 

[Kontradiction]

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.

So, basically, this thread has boiled down into personal attacks on those that want to see that things have changed on this side of the ball first? That's fine. The doctor is in...

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,

Point to one example of a whole Belichick draft that I have trashed. You have seven years of evidence and draft threads as well as posts in the draft forum, so it shouldn't be that difficult for you.

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.

20,000+ posts and days of my life spent at this forum on top of literally donating money to it... yeah, I guess I want to see the Pats fail. I guess that would make sense. Or, you can look at it from a logical perspective and see my complaints about the defense from 2009 all the way up to the halfway point of last season in regard to yards surrendered, completion percentage, T.O.P., and quarterback rating and look at how the defense has improved in those areas. Or you could look at my post in this thread where I stated the defense has played solid and about how I'm not looking for them to shut down the Falcons or the Saints (but merely slow them down). Or you could take a look at my posts in other threads...

Atlanta is going to be the first real test for this defense. That said, back in 2011 and early 2012, the defense would have given up 300+ yards passing and 17-24 points to these offenses. So it's definitely a step up from where they were. Whether it's good enough remains to be seen.

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,

And, to top it all off, you just said, literally, the exact same thing!

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.

The people saying that haven't been the people that you're directing this post to. So either you're on my side after all, or you simply haven't read the entire thread.

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

Actually, I'd turn her down because of the herpes.

 

[lamafist]

I think a lot of folks have rosey-eyed recollections of what it's like to have an elite defense. For some perspective:

The 2003 Patriots, who had the best defense of the Belichick era, were rung up for 34 points by the Manning-led Colts, 31 points by Bledsoe and the Bills, and 30 points against the McNair-era Titans. Heck, they had 26 points scored on them by the Broncos and the immortal Danny Kannel.

At no point in the 2003 season did the Patriots play an offense in the top ten in points scored and manage to hold that team below its average points scored per game.

Keep that in mind should the Pats' D gets roughed up a bit by Falcons and Saints.

 

[Kontradiction]

I think most here are wait and see, however when you look at who is the most negative it coincides neatly with those who routinely trash Belichick's drafts.

Happy hunting.

 

[mb6592]

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.

This notion that Deus is a pessimist is kind of comical. I've been reading this forum a long time and never had the thought. His main beefs are losing Welker and replacing him with Amendola was a bad idea, relying so heavily on unproven rookie receivers is a bad idea and not quite believing in this defense yet. And for this he joins the ranks of the chicken littles? For years when people have bashed rookie receivers you all would be relentless in your mockery suggesting that expecting a first year receiver (especially in this offense) to contribute was foolish and proved the poster's stupidity. Now that the Pats have chosen to enter the season having to rely on several rookies these same "elders" are preaching for patience. Why shouldn't we consider the very real possibility that these rookies may have growing pains that extend - maybe the whole season. As for the Welker/Amendola debate? Well, we see how that has played out. And the defense? Please. Let's just say having a feeling of trepidation is certainly warranted.

 

[mb6592]

I think most here are wait and see

As far as the defense is concerned, how the hell can you not be?

 

[Rob0729]

This notion that Dues is a pessimist is kind of comical. I've been reading this forum a long time and never had the thought. His main beefs are losing Welker and replacing him with Amendola was a bad idea, relying so heavily on unproven rookie receivers is a bad idea and not quite believing in this defense yet. And for this he joins the ranks of the chicken littles? For years when people have bashed rookie receivers you all would be relentless in your mockery suggesting that expecting a rookie to contribute was foolish and proved the posters stupidity. Now that the Pats have chosen to enter the season having to rely on several rookies these same "elders" are preaching for patience. Why shouldn't we consider the very real possibility that these rookies may have growing pains that extend - maybe the whole season. As for the Welker/Amendola debate? Well, we see how that has played out. And the defense? Please. Let's just say having a feeling of trepidation is certainly warranted.

I never said Deus is a pessimist. He is optimistic that the Welker thing will blow completely up in the Pats' face so he can win his own personal Super Bowl - or "I Told You So" Bowl. He is a contrarian. Not a pessimist.

If you have been reading this board even longer, you would see that when one of Deus' binkies get dumped by the Pats he turns on Belichick the GM and gears all his arguments to support his agenda no matter how peripheral. This happened several years ago when Deus went off the deep end when the Pats traded Richard Seymour which Deus has pointed to in the past as the main reason the Pats have never won another Super Bowl.

I don't know who "we" mocked? I don't have any expectations for any rookie WR to be a stud right off the bat, but to expect a high draft pick to be a solid #2 or #3 WR in his rookie season is not out of the question.

My guess you are confusing WRs that many of us think are bad scheme fit that many of us were happy the Pats passed on like say Torrey Smith. But that is different. Smith is inconsistent in a simple offense like the Ravens run. He would be lost in this defense.

I wasn't happy that Welker's gone. But I don't sit there and dwell on it either. I am a person who says move on and work with what you have and spending the entire season biatching about Welker is not very productive.

 

[mb6592]

It is a lot of the "I would rather be right by seeing the team fail than be wrong by seeing the team succeed" crowd. I just don't get how you can be a fan of a team with that mindset, but there are a few people on this board like that.

You're just being silly. Realist/Pessimist vs Homer/Fanatic just difference personality types. If it makes you feel better to call yourself a better fan - have at it. I'm a half empty personality type who loves the Pats more than my wife and kids. I am destroyed when they lose - ruins my week.

 

[Rob0729]

You're just being silly. Realist/Pessimist vs Homer/Fanatic just difference personality types. If it makes you feel better to call yourself a better fan - have at it. I'm a half empty personality type who loves the Pats more than my wife and kids. I am destroyed when they lose - ruins my week.

First, did I say you? Or did I say every fan who is pessimistic?

Second, I specifically said it was "a few" posters.

Third, you are being silly to say that the pessimists are realistic while the homers (optimists?) are fanatical. If anything, history has shown the homers are far closer to being realistic with this team than the pessimists. If this team were the Jags, the pessimists would be classified as the realists. On this team, pessimists tend to be wrong more than they are right.

Fourth, so anyone who is optimistic is a homer and a fanatic? That is what you are saying if the realistic pessimists are going against the fanatical homers.

Your classifications of pessimists and "homers" clearly shows your biases.

 

[JackBauer]

I am destroyed when they lose - ruins my week.

I believe this is what is referred to as a first world problem.

 

[Huckleberry1]

So, basically, this thread has boiled down into personal attacks on those that want to see that things have changed on this side of the ball first? That's fine. The doctor is in...



Point to one example of a whole Belichick draft that I have trashed. You have seven years of evidence and draft threads as well as posts in the draft forum, so it shouldn't be that difficult for you.





20,000+ posts and days of my life spent at this forum on top of literally donating money to it... yeah, I guess I want to see the Pats fail. I guess that would make sense. Or, you can look at it from a logical perspective and see my complaints about the defense from 2009 all the way up to the halfway point of last season in regard to yards surrendered, completion percentage, T.O.P., and quarterback rating and look at how the defense has improved in those areas. Or you could look at my post in this thread where I stated the defense has played solid and about how I'm not looking for them to shut down the Falcons or the Saints (but merely slow them down). Or you could take a look at my posts in other threads...





And, to top it all off, you just said, literally, the exact same thing!



The people saying that haven't been the people that you're directing this post to. So either you're on my side after all, or you simply haven't read the entire thread.



Actually, I'd turn her down because of the herpes.

Actually I wasn't referring to you at all and haven't seen anything from you that would make me take that position about you, however there is definitely a contingent of Patriot fans who routinely trash Belichick's drafts who also regard any improvements by the Patriots defense as illusory and insist that it is really a product of the other team sucking than the patriots defense playing well. you can include yourself in that faction if you want but I have always considered you reasonable and intelligent. I have no problem with anyone being critical about the Patriots and do it myself when i feel it is accurate, but there are definitely those who choose to look at everything in the most negative light and that's who i was referring to.

 

[Huckleberry1]

I'd say that a "wait and see" approach is not a negative perspective - in fact, as it relates to BB's drafting it's quite the opposite. Unfortunately, it's often a patience left unrewarded (Ras-I).

I have no problem at all with wait and see, and I need more evidence to be convinced that this is one of the better defenses in football, even though I tend to believe they are, but once again I am actually referring to those who always insist that their good defensive performances are a result of the other team being injured, missing plays, or simply bad, as opposed to acknowledging the actual defensive performance or improvements. i like what i have seen so far and hope they will continue to play well and improve over the course of the season, however it takes an entire season to really judge a defense, and as much as I want them to be a top five defense and believe they can be it will still taske a season to actually prove it.

 

[Huckleberry1]

And to be clear about it, i don't believe that Belichick is perfect in terms of player personel and drafting and i think his record at WR and CB is pretty shaky, however when taken in context and comprehensively I don't see how anyone can come away with any other conclusion that that he is really strong in both areas, and cherrypicking to try and prove otherwise is stupid.

 

[ivanvamp]

And to be clear about it, i don't believe that Belichick is perfect in terms of player personel and drafting and i think his record at WR and CB is pretty shaky, however when taken in context and comprehensively I don't see how anyone can come away with any other conclusion that that he is really strong in both areas, and cherrypicking to try and prove otherwise is stupid.

There are many reasons why the Patriots have been on this unbelievably great run since 2001. One of them is the emergence of Tom Brady. That's a big one, but it's not the only one. Another is that Belichick is, on the whole, very good at judging and acquiring talent. He's not perfect at it, but he's very good.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think most here are wait and see, however when you look at who is the most negative it coincides neatly with those who routinely trash Belichick's drafts.

Unless you count Snake Eyes second post

We know that the opposing offense have had plenty of opportunity to score and there was a LOT of really bad play by them, with competent players many of those opportunities won't be missed.

Sometimes you succeed not because you're good but because your opponent really sucks.

or ATippett's jibe aimed specifically at Bequette

Why are people still trashing the defense?

Two words:

Joke Bequette

as 'negative' attacks on the defense, I can't recall seeing a single negative post about the defense in this thread.

 

[manxman2601]

I have no problem at all with wait and see, and I need more evidence to be convinced that this is one of the better defenses in football, even though I tend to believe they are, but once again I am actually referring to those who always insist that their good defensive performances are a result of the other team being injured, missing plays, or simply bad, as opposed to acknowledging the actual defensive performance or improvements. i like what i have seen so far and hope they will continue to play well and improve over the course of the season, however it takes an entire season to really judge a defense, and as much as I want them to be a top five defense and believe they can be it will still taske a season to actually prove it.

Fair enough.

 

[Rob0729]

And to be clear about it, i don't believe that Belichick is perfect in terms of player personel and drafting and i think his record at WR and CB is pretty shaky, however when taken in context and comprehensively I don't see how anyone can come away with any other conclusion that that he is really strong in both areas, and cherrypicking to try and prove otherwise is stupid.

I would say Belichick is an above average GM, but not a great GM. Belichick the coach makes up for the mistakes of Belichick the GM. He clearly has made his fair share of mistakes. But he has brought about 4 very different rosters to the Super Bowl.

Yes, he hasn't been the best drafter at certain positions, but to think since he sucked at drafting WRs or CBs during stretches that he will always suck at it. Early results on Dobson and Thompkins (although Thompkins is an UDFA) are promising.