Atlanta's Defense

[RayClay]

If they kicked the field goal instead of allowing the sack, the defense would have seemed pretty good in retrospect.

Or maybe the plan was to score three points 6 minutes into the third quarter?

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Guys, it's not black and white whether Atlanta's D sucked or not. Brady did a great job getting the ball off before suffering a game ending safety on the first play of the game tying drive. He still got sacked 3 times in the 4th quarter. He threw frozen ropes on sideline comeback routes at the sticks several times...dangerous passes that require excellent timing and arm strength. On the crazy catch by Edelman, Alford did the next best thing to his almost-interception...tip drill to his two converging safeties. Bennett snagged a sure pick on a crossing route. Amendola had to fight for his 2pt conversion as did White for his game winner.

Saying Atlanta's D sucked kind of discredits some amazing stuff the Pats had to do on offense, particularly Brady.

Regards,
Chris

 

[deroc5050]

Then what's the point? The worst defenses in NFL history create a few 3 and outs .... doesn't make them good

They threw everything including the kitchen sink out there and it worked until they could not make a stop.... that does not make them good

My point was just that everyone well a **** load of people said New England would go up and down the field all day and put up a lot of points. If you watch the game it didn't exactly go that way. In fact the Patriots were in such a hole in the 4th quarter that they needed everything to go perfectly, not just 1 2 point conversion but 2! And that was just to tie the game. And they had to stop Atlanta from scoring any more points. If Atlanta kicked that FG instead of getting sacked and then the penalty I am sure it would have been a different story.

Regardless of how many yards they got just watch the game and tell me the Patriots were slicing up that Atlanta D. It took a borderline miracle to win that game.

But anyway I am ****ing pumped they did, regardless if it took a little luck.

 

[Ring 6]

Put me on ignore then I won't cry. I know your homer central and you never thought the Pats were gonna lose when they went down 28-3. The Patriots made 2 incredible drives and 2 2 point conversions to tie the game.. It definitely wasn't the biggest mis match in Super Bowl history like you said. If it was the Patriots would have blown them out.


The game is on again tonight just re watch and tell me the Falcons defense was the biggest mis match in Super Bowl history. Everyone and there mother thought the game was over even after they scored the FG to put up 12 points on the board around 10 minutes left in the game.

I have seen the Patriots dominate a defense like they did against Pittsburgh in the AFC championship.. I don't give a **** what the stats say.

Again it's not worth my time to teach you when you aren't willing to learn.
Keep thinking allowing 31 points in 5 drives without a stop is good defense.
Can't wait til next year when you try to say the patriot defense sucks when it allows 17 in a game.

 

[pherein]

yeah though I agree the debate is fun, and I side on some. I really dont know where this is going at this point. Everyone has there own opinion about it . I have mine and that could be totally wrong . So theres no way to find out whos wrong, isnt that correct ?
I mean unless your SS or BB your not in that room. I might be crazy but what Im thinking is even if you do win the argument, its still a waste of time because your not there, so impossible for you to know the facts.
Everything I said came from Brees , not me. I have no idea what the atlanta defense is like unless Im on the field.

 

[patsfanincleveland]

yeah though I agree the debate is fun, and I side on some. I really dont know where this is going at this point. Everyone has there own opinion about it . I have mine and that could be totally wrong . So theres no way to find out whos wrong, isnt that correct ?
I mean unless your SS or BB your not in that room. I might be crazy but what Im thinking is even if you do win the argument, its still a waste of time because your not there, so impossible for you to know the facts.
Everything I said came from Brees , not me. I have no idea what the atlanta defense is like unless Im on the field.

in

In order to properly evaluate this you have to take a strategic or tactical perspective.

Andy is 100% correct that that was terrible defense.

However, the reality is the vast majority of defenses in the NFL are terrible against the Patriots offense.

The debate is whether that defense should have ever been put in the position it found itself.

With the exception of the Patriots, the teams in the league will have to decide what type of team they will be due to the limitations of a salary cap.

In Atlanta's case, they had the #1 offense and have invested heavily in offense. Therefore, the offense needs to win the game. The defense plays complimentary football. (which they did).

This is exactly what happened in Indy when Polian used to invest 75% into the offense and have a fast, defense to play with a lead. It's complimentary but limiting.

Then when his 75% offense sputtered and the defense gets blamed.

The genius of BB is he NEVER puts players in a position where they would fail.

Seattle and Denver are exact opposite since they have all the money on defense.

That's why Talib's complaining after they lost to us this year is BS. If Denver's resources are all tied up in the defesne.....they need to do a whole lot better than zero turnovers and 16 points.

Where the real question is on the coaching.

Vereen had 10 catches in SB 49 and was probably the MVP. How exactly that was never noticed and James White has 14 is rather curious.

Now that every NFC team will be pursuing that of RB, we may somehow get the answer.

 

[PlanB]

Atlanta fired both DC and OL coach. Couldn't fire OC because he was already gone.

 

[brdmaverick]

Going into the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl the Falcons really had a storybook playoff season on there hands.

No, really. Think about it.

We all care about the end result of winning a championship, but let's review the manner in which they would have won a championship.

They weren't playing against any 'johnny come lately' teams who were just 'happy to be there' no, they played the annual favorites Seahawks, Packers, and Patriots.

Oh and those all have top tier QBs in Russell Wilson, Aaron Rodgers, and Tom Brady (the latter two will go down as two of the greats in the history of the game).

So to win is one thing, but to win against THOSE QBs by rattling them is another.

Of course, Tom Brady just wouldn't play along and showed once again why he is the greatest of all time.

 

[TommyD4207]

My point was just that everyone well a **** load of people said New England would go up and down the field all day and put up a lot of points. If you watch the game it didn't exactly go that way.

1) They put up 200 yards in the first half, despite the turnovers.

2) Giving up 31 unanswered points on the final 5 drives of the game, is the definition of 'going up and down the field all day'.

37 first downs to 17. Each team had 104 rushing yards. 40+ min of TOP to 22. 7/14 on 3rd down to 1/8.

They went up and down the field all day. They put up 34 points, and it should have been more, if it weren't for the turnovers. That's 'a lot' no matter how you look at it.

The game went exactly "that way", I guess just not in the proper order for you, or something, I guess?

 

[brdmaverick]

This certainly was the Super Bowl in which we were supposed to score at ease, and Atlanta opened up some eyes with their defensive play.

 

[yukon cornelius]

we knew ahead of time, that on paper the Atlanta D was young, fast, and, well, vulnerable


they played ABOVE their skill level and their measurables from the season.....they were better than they really are

they schemed well early, they just couldn't sustain the constant man coverage and pinned ears pass rush......but even when they wore down and became the D we expected, they still made some plays

thing is they wore down and settled down against the GOAT, and he carved them up.....as much as it wasn't in doubt, Pats still had to work to get it done, and they still made some plays right until the last drive, when the Pats were pretty much unstoppable

there's a lot of offenses amongst the playoff teams that the Falcon effort that night would have shut down and won against

 

[yukon cornelius]

1) They put up 200 yards in the first half, despite the turnovers.

2) Giving up 31 unanswered points on the final 5 drives of the game, is the definition of 'going up and down the field all day'.

37 first downs to 17. Each team had 104 rushing yards. 40+ min of TOP to 22. 7/14 on 3rd down to 1/8.

They went up and down the field all day. They put up 34 points, and it should have been more, if it weren't for the turnovers. That's 'a lot' no matter how you look at it.

The game went exactly "that way", I guess just not in the proper order for you, or something, I guess?

take away those two turnovers, not unheard of for the pats O this year to play mistake free, and this one might have been entirely different....Atlanta would have been forced to play catch up, and our D may have exploited them even more

 

[luuked]

I honesty don't get the discussion.

Atlanta had a crap defense all year, schemed up pretty well to slow us somewhat in the first few possessions then we shot ourselves in the foot a couple of times (fumble, pick 6, Marty holding before HT) but we were moving the ball. Then when their players became tired because of running a ****ton of man coverage and showed more of the usual outside zone stuff we started to move the ball totally at will to the point where the OT drive was almost anticlimatic in how easy it was.

This was exactly the same crap defense they had all year except they put a lipstick on it for a bit using a good but extremely tiring scheme. That gambit could have worked if their offense would have kept scoring but our defense did what they were doing all year. Keeping teams out of the endzone when it counted the most.

 

[Ring 6]

we knew ahead of time, that on paper the Atlanta D was young, fast, and, well, vulnerable


they played ABOVE their skill level and their measurables from the season.....they were better than they really are

they schemed well early, they just couldn't sustain the constant man coverage and pinned ears pass rush......but even when they wore down and became the D we expected, they still made some plays

thing is they wore down and settled down against the GOAT, and he carved them up.....as much as it wasn't in doubt, Pats still had to work to get it done, and they still made some plays right until the last drive, when the Pats were pretty much unstoppable

there's a lot of offenses amongst the playoff teams that the Falcon effort that night would have shut down and won against

I don't get this thinking.
Do people really think that a bad defense just lets you walk down the field doing whatever you want and never makes a play?

Lets look at it this way.
Per Drive. That covers the whole game.

Atlanta faced 12 drives, plus the fake kneel down, but I will count that one anyway.
In 13 drives they allowed 34 points and 546 yards. That is 2.61 points and 42 yards per drive.

The worst ranked defenses in the NFL this year allowed 2.43 points (Cleveland) and 35.7 yards per drive.(Detroit)
Atlanta's D was worse in this game than the worst defenses in the NFL. Those defenses also had times where they stopped teams.
The Patriots scored on 6/13 drives, and that is 46%. The lowly Browns only allowed scores on 40.8% of drives.

In contrast, the Patriot defense allowed 28.8 yards and 1.42 points per drive in the regular season. So it is interesting that those fans who saw great defense all year *****ed about it and are now defending terrible defense.

Oh and the concept of it was the offenses fault because the defense was on the field so much?
Atlantas defense faced 208 drives this season, which is 13 per game, exactly the number they faced in the SB, so it seems it is their own fault if they played so poorly they were on the field for a lot more plays in a normal number of drives.

 

[Ring 6]

I honesty don't get the discussion.

Atlanta had a crap defense all year, schemed up pretty well to slow us somewhat in the first few possessions then we shot ourselves in the foot a couple of times (fumble, pick 6, Marty holding before HT) but we were moving the ball. Then when their players became tired because of running a ****ton of man coverage and showed more of the usual outside zone stuff we started to move the ball totally at will to the point where the OT drive was almost anticlimatic in how easy it was.

This was exactly the same crap defense they had all year except they put a lipstick on it for a bit using a good but extremely tiring scheme. That gambit could have worked if their offense would have kept scoring but our defense did what they were doing all year. Keeping teams out of the endzone when it counted the most.

Belichick, at some point this season, commented on this saying you can't play man all day long, even though you want to, because you will wear your players out.

 

[Ring 6]

In NFL Playoff history 546 yards of offense is the 8th most ever, and the 3rd most in the last 29 years.

In NFL playoff history 37 first down is the most EVER.
In the entire history of the NFL regular season and post season 37 first downs is the 7th most ever in a game.

43 pass completions is the 2nd highest in any game in NFL history (we should all remember #1) and the most ever in a playoff game.

How that can be called good defense is incomprehensible to me.

 

[Ring 6]

So I think we can some it up this way.
In this game Atlanta's defense played worse than any defense in the NFL did on average, pretty much across the board, points, points and yards per drive, yards, first downs, failing when it mattered most.
They allowed HISTORICALLY poor amounts of yards and first downs.
They had a big lead with 5 drives to go and proceeded to allow 4 TDs and a FG.

BUT, we didn't score a TD on every play, so they played really good defense.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

So I think we can some it up this way.
In this game Atlanta's defense played worse than any defense in the NFL did on average, pretty much across the board, points, points and yards per drive, yards, first downs, failing when it mattered most.
They allowed HISTORICALLY poor amounts of yards and first downs.
They had a big lead with 5 drives to go and proceeded to allow 4 TDs and a FG.

BUT, we didn't score a TD on every play, so they played really good defense.

Can't argue against those #s because it is what it is - #s based on the TOTAL game, not just specific parts.

I think the issue some (including the OP) were trying to flush out: ATL's D was stifling in the first 3Qs and hence quite different from what a few (like you ) were predicting.

Since points scored is my key measure, I am comfortable with my opinion that ATL's D was great in the first three quarters, but sad in the second half of the 4Q and the OT - when it mattered.

 

[Ring 6]

Can't argue against those #s because it is what it is - #s based on the TOTAL game, not just specific parts.

I think the issue some (including the OP) were trying to flush out: ATL's D was stifling in the first 3Qs and hence quite different from what a few (like you ) were predicting.

Since points scored is my key measure, I am comfortable with my opinion that ATL's D was great in the first three quarters, but sad in the second half of the 4Q and the OT - when it mattered.

But that's exactly my point.
A bad defense isn't bad on every play or every drive. The worst defenses in the league get a stop 60% of the time.
To point to pieces of an overall awful game to say it isn't awful just makes no sense.
Look at it this, kind of in reverse. Bad defenses allow points on 40% of drives, and good offenses score points on 40% of drives.

So lets say before those final 5 drives and the kneel down, the Pats had scored on 43% of their drives. For 7 drives, and almost 3 quarters, the offense would have been doing well, lets say 2 TDs and a FG. and would have 17 points, that's 2.4 points per drive and is very good. . Then they never score another point, was that good offense?

Football is about an entire game.

However much they were good was overwhelmed by how much they were bad, and equals bad.

 

[deroc5050]

1) They put up 200 yards in the first half, despite the turnovers.

2) Giving up 31 unanswered points on the final 5 drives of the game, is the definition of 'going up and down the field all day'.

37 first downs to 17. Each team had 104 rushing yards. 40+ min of TOP to 22. 7/14 on 3rd down to 1/8.

They went up and down the field all day. They put up 34 points, and it should have been more, if it weren't for the turnovers. That's 'a lot' no matter how you look at it.

The game went exactly "that way", I guess just not in the proper order for you, or something, I guess?

I guess.. I mean it was 28-9 in the 4th quarter. Those turn overs were defensive plays.. a strip sack that was earned and since they sacked and pressured Brady quite a bit in the 1st half.. and felt the momentum going Atlanta's way he forced a bad throw for a pick 6. Thats a credit to Atlanta's defense.

I think Atlanta's defense did enough to win. You have to look at Atlanta's offense.. I mean they let the team down. After New England tried and failed the onsides kick and Atlanta went 3 and out was huge.. Then again at the 22 yard line late in the 4th quarter Atlanta totally ****ed up.

After the failed onsides kick the Patriots needed some luck and to play almost perfect just to tie the game at that point.