Reminder: We are 4-0 despite an all-time awful offseason and key injuries.

[Ring 6]

Andy, your posts don't prove what you think they do. Obviously we aren't going to agree.

Of course they do. They prove that the defenses you are calling awful were nowhere near awful at the most important aspect. Common sense is that being adequate or better at the most important aspect and responsibility does not equal suck. But you know that and are now trying to withdraw on a technicality.

 

[Oswlek]

Of course they do. They prove that the defenses you are calling awful were nowhere near awful at the most important aspect. Common sense is that being adequate or better at the most important aspect and responsibility does not equal suck. But you know that and are now trying to withdraw on a technicality.

If believing this makes you happy, by all means go right ahead.

 

[sb1]

Getting lit up by Grossman, Fitzpatrick, Henne, vince Young, and letting the likes of Dan Orlovsky throw for 350+ yards and put up a 113 passer rating is indefensible. That is not a good defense in any way shape or form.

"Bend but don't break" =/= a good defense. Especially when bending but not breaking is keeping an all world QB on the sidelines for long periods of time. See Super Bowl, Giants beat Patriots twice....

 

[Kontradiction]

And I don't believe yards mean ****. Neither does our coach. And he's never give a damn if fans don't agree.

They don't count on a scoreboard. How many yards a defense gives up means nothing about them begin a good or bad defense. Nada.

There's old school defenses who stop teams cold, and limit the time of posession and yards as well as points. But there's another completely different type of philosophy which will NEVER show up in traditional NFL stats, and one BB has been putting on the field, year after year, because he has the type of offense to do it.

It absolutely benefits this team to allow opposing offenses to drive 80 yards downfield and come away with either NOTHING or 3 points when our O is capable of scoring efficiently. And it makes for more exciting football. It's what you want and it's absolutely demoralizing to the other team. The defense gets to beat up on an offense for that entire time and they come away with nothing. Let them drive in short bursts, make them earn it, and you get to beat up on them and try to force a fumble and get a pick, and at worse try to keep them to 3. It's a viable strategy.

That's exactly what forces the other team's offense into being inefficient.

The idea defenses are the only ones who get gassed when they usually dish out most of the punishment is antiquated. Most defenders are true athletes who can go the distance, not just big fat guys running around like in the old days.

Except that the coach obviously cared based on the moves he's made since that season. Allowing fewer yards directly correlated into a higher ranking in regard to scoring defense through the first four games of this season.

 

[sb1]

They don't count on a scoreboard.

That is not as true as you think.

A lot of yards given up by the defense = more time off the clock = keeps Brady and the offense on the sidelines so THEY can't score points.

 

[Ring 6]

Except that the coach obviously cared based on the moves he's made since that season. Allowing fewer yards directly correlated into a higher ranking in regard to scoring defense through the first four games of this season.

No one is saying a defense doesn't try to prevent yards or that there is no value in statistics other than points, just that points are far away the most important metric.

Good yardage, good points is better than bad yardage good points.
Good yardage, bad points is not better than bad yardage good points.

 

[Kontradiction]

They don't count on a scoreboard.

That is not as true as you think.

A lot of yards given up by the defense = more time off the clock = keeps Brady and the offense on the sidelines so THEY can't score points.

Yep. It's one of the biggest reasons why we lost the Super Bowl. That defense allowed Eli to go 30-40, eat up T.O.P., and give our offenses less chances to score. They also allowed the backbreaking touchdown drive. How anybody could have watched the 2003-2007 defenses and watch this defense now and defend the 2011 version as anything other than ****ty is beyond me.

 

[Ring 6]

They don't count on a scoreboard.

That is not as true as you think.

A lot of yards given up by the defense = more time off the clock = keeps Brady and the offense on the sidelines so THEY can't score points.

The best defense ever would not allow any yards or points. They would never allow a first down, and would score on defense. They would force a bunch of turnovers.
No one is saying that allowing yardage is good, or even irrelevant.
The point is that the PRIMARY role of the defense is to keep points off the board. ANY method that accomplishes that is better than any that does not.
The first and by far most important criteria is points allowed. The second is takeaways. All other defensive statistics are already included to a large extent in those results, and they are only extenuating facts beyond what is most important.
Yes, it would be better to allow just as few points and also less yardage, but it is not better to allow more points and less yardage. This is where the rubber meets the road. A defense that is adequate or better at keeping points off the board, as well as taking the ball away cannot suck because of the numbers in less important areas.

 

[BradyFTW!]

The best defense ever would not allow any yards or points. They would never allow a first down, and would score on defense. They would force a bunch of turnovers.
No one is saying that allowing yardage is good, or even irrelevant.
The point is that the PRIMARY role of the defense is to keep points off the board. ANY method that accomplishes that is better than any that does not.
The first and by far most important criteria is points allowed. The second is takeaways. All other defensive statistics are already included to a large extent in those results, and they are only extenuating facts beyond what is most important.
Yes, it would be better to allow just as few points and also less yardage, but it is not better to allow more points and less yardage. This is where the rubber meets the road. A defense that is adequate or better at keeping points off the board, as well as taking the ball away cannot suck because of the numbers in less important areas.

I think we can all agree with the following:

1) A defense that allows zero points is basically perfect, regardless of how many yards it gives up. Points are ultimately what matter.
2) There is no such thing as a defense that allows zero points
3) Therefore, yards allowed does matter. It plays a significant role in determining time of possession and field position for the offense, and also typically correlates with points allowed.

A defense that gives up fewer yards will provide the offense with more possessions and superior field position. Therefore, yardage is important, albeit not as important as points allowed.

 

[Uncle Rico]

Pretty cool pic from Pats Facebook:

 

[sb1]

The best defense ever would not allow any yards or points. They would never allow a first down, and would score on defense. They would force a bunch of turnovers.
No one is saying that allowing yardage is good, or even irrelevant.
The point is that the PRIMARY role of the defense is to keep points off the board. ANY method that accomplishes that is better than any that does not.
The first and by far most important criteria is points allowed. The second is takeaways. All other defensive statistics are already included to a large extent in those results, and they are only extenuating facts beyond what is most important.
Yes, it would be better to allow just as few points and also less yardage, but it is not better to allow more points and less yardage. This is where the rubber meets the road. A defense that is adequate or better at keeping points off the board, as well as taking the ball away cannot suck because of the numbers in less important areas.

I would say that the 2011 Patriots defense (and 09-10 for that matter) fell quite a bit short of "adequate or better at keeping points off the board". Hence the result of allowing what should have been the game losing drive in the 2011 AFC Championship game and what in fact was the game losing drive in the Super Bowl. THe two biggest tests of the season and they flunked both times.

And if they actually played a tough schedule in 2011 their points allowed probably would have sucked too. They played only 4 winning teams all year, lost 3 and arguably should have lost all 4.

 

[sb1]

Reminds me of the Tebow fans pounding their chests about Tebow beating the "#1 defense" in the playoffs.

Sure the Steelers were #1 in points and yards. So the fact he beat them sounds impressive.

Except that achievement is not nearly as impressive when you see they played 8 games against the 10 worst passing teams in the NFL, only 1 game vs a top 10 pass offense, and they ranked near the bottom of the league in interceptions, at the bottom of the league in forced fumbles, and in the bottom half of the league in sacks.

And the fact Tebow threw for 316 yards against them speaks for itself. That to me is not a good D despite their "#1 ranking" in points and yards.

 

[Ring 6]

I would say that the 2011 Patriots defense (and 09-10 for that matter) fell quite a bit short of "adequate or better at keeping points off the board".

They were 15th in the NFL, which is above average, hardly quite a bit short of adequate.
In 09 and 10 they were 8th and 5th.

Hence the result of allowing what should have been the game losing drive in the 2011 AFC Championship game and what in fact was the game losing drive in the Super Bowl. THe two biggest tests of the season and they flunked both times.

So a stop is failure?
Your gauge of 'adequate at keeping points off the board' is 2 drives?

And if they actually played a tough schedule in 2011 their points allowed probably would have sucked too. They played only 4 winning teams all year, lost 3 and arguably should have lost all 4.

They probably would have allowed less if they played a tougher schedule because they wouldn't have had big leads and played prevent.

 

[Ring 6]

Reminds me of the Tebow fans pounding their chests about Tebow beating the "#1 defense" in the playoffs.

Sure the Steelers were #1 in points and yards. So the fact he beat them sounds impressive.

Except that achievement is not nearly as impressive when you see they played 8 games against the 10 worst passing teams in the NFL, only 1 game vs a top 10 pass offense, and they ranked near the bottom of the league in interceptions, at the bottom of the league in forced fumbles, and in the bottom half of the league in sacks.

And the fact Tebow threw for 316 yards against them speaks for itself. That to me is not a good D despite their "#1 ranking" in points and yards.

So all those defenses that were out allowing more points were better because they did what?

 

[Ring 6]

I think we can all agree with the following:

1) A defense that allows zero points is basically perfect, regardless of how many yards it gives up. Points are ultimately what matter.
2) There is no such thing as a defense that allows zero points
3) Therefore, yards allowed does matter. It plays a significant role in determining time of possession and field position for the offense, and also typically correlates with points allowed.

A defense that gives up fewer yards will provide the offense with more possessions and superior field position. Therefore, yardage is important, albeit not as important as points allowed.

Which is what I am saying. Points are most important, takeaways second and the rest is just a supporting argument.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Not to be negative but we're suppose to beat these teams anyway. Even Atlanta, Brady has no history of losing to the Falcons. I'll even write off the Bengals because Brady just doesn't lose to them, similar to the Falcons. The real test starts with New Orleans. Brees historically has own the pats, and if we lose to him (i think we will) we'll probably lose to Manning (see 2005 and 2009 season,not pretty).Our offense has lost too many steps and we still lack a strong defensive line. Not saying this will be another 10-6 season, but I just think that it's too early to gloat when the real test hasn't even begun.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Not to be negative but we're suppose to beat these teams anyway. Even Atlanta, Brady has no history of losing to the Falcons. I'll even write off the Bengals because Brady just doesn't lose to them, similar to the Falcons. The real test starts with New Orleans. Brees historically has own the pats, and if we lose to him (i think we will) we'll probably lose to Manning (see 2005 and 2009 season,not pretty).Our offense has lost too many steps and we still lack a strong defensive line. Not saying this will be another 10-6 season, but I just think that it's too early to gloat when the real test hasn't even begun.

You may find internet penis enlargement ads helpful for your issues

 

[DeutschlandPats]

We have most signifigant injeries of all brother. It is clear this is why games our close. Competition so far have been decent opponents. Divishun games always tough are. So back ups getting better, will still help when gronk and ammendolia healthy are once again.

GO PATS!! :rocker:

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

We have most signifigant injeries of all brother. It is clear this is why games our close. Competition so far have been decent opponents. Divishun games always tough are. So back ups getting better, will still help when gronk and ammendolia healthy are once again.

GO PATS!! :rocker:

Welkommen to the board bruder!

 

[fnordcircle]

Not to be negative but we're suppose to beat these teams anyway. Even Atlanta, Brady has no history of losing to the Falcons. I'll even write off the Bengals because Brady just doesn't lose to them, similar to the Falcons. The real test starts with New Orleans. Brees historically has own the pats, and if we lose to him (i think we will) we'll probably lose to Manning (see 2005 and 2009 season,not pretty).Our offense has lost too many steps and we still lack a strong defensive line. Not saying this will be another 10-6 season, but I just think that it's too early to gloat when the real test hasn't even begun.

This would be a great post if this thread was titled '2013 patriots are the greatest team of all time' or something.

Tebow, Hernandez, losing Welker, Lloyd and Woodhead, Gronk's injuries - with the disparity in this league razor thin the fact that we have weathered these things and are not in shambles but are, instead, 4-0, means something to me because I don't evaluate the NFL like it's a game of Madden.