Defensive Changes

[Mainefan]

Let's remember that Hobbs was really hurting last year, and probably deserves a purple heart for brave play. I expect him to be significantly better this year.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

I agree with everything, except the analysis of the corner situation.

Hobbs is the same as last year.

I do not agree that it is a slam dunk that Bryant/Wheatley/Wilhite is better than Samuel/Gay/Meriweather (or whoever else who played dime at various points last year).

I think that we still have an opportunity to get better by signing Law and Seau.

I think the depth at CB is definitely better this year than last.

We lost Samuel and Gay, but added Fernando Bryant, Wheatley, Wilhite, Jason Webster, and Lewis Sanders.

That said, I would like to see us sign Law and Seau as well.

While we the starting position may be a downgrade depending on how Wheatley does, I think the depth is vastly improved.

 

[Metaphors]

ILB
Adding Mayo and Hobson if he plays inside is an upgrade IMO, ESPECIALLY in pass defense and overall speed. I can't see that we lose a lot in taking on Gs and shedding blocks because it was an issue last year too. Ideally we are better in that area, worst case no worse.

Good stuff, AJ. Just wondering about the part in bold above. I saw just about every game last year and I don't recall blockers (G, FB, TE) getting to the 2nd level being an issue. The DL and OLBs did a fine job IMO of tying up the blockers and keeping the ILBs clean. The issue to me was that the ILBs were frequently late to the hole and one quick cut by the RB would be all that was needed to avoid them. The 3rd quarter of the Ravens game is about the only exception I can recall...and that seemed like a total run defense collapse coming out of halftime rather that one specific unit.

The reason why I bring this up is because if the real issue was speed to the hole and not shedding blockers at the 2nd level, then Mayo was an ideal pick to deal with this. There was a lot of talk that Mayo was a traditional Pats thumper...but I think the responsibilities of the Pats ILB is changing based on the passing offenses in the NFL. Single back, 3 wides, receiving TE (glorified WR) has become a base formation.

Warren, Wilfork and Seymour are more than enough to engage 4-5 lineman. Add in the OLB sealing the edge and I'm not sure where the free blocker is coming from that the ILB needs to shed. Just get the hole on time and in good form.

Not to say that teams don't ever run strong formations. I'm just saying that the West Coast Offense is much more of a threat nowadays than the power sweep.

 

[p8ryts]

Thank you for an intelligent football post. I agree with you and our team should be as good or better than last year. I only worry about the mental aspect of the super bowl loss and the team played such a pressure packed season can they sustain the edge. If any team can, this one can.

 

[richpats]

But, at 3-4 junctures this year, we will be faced with a Colt 2006 2nd half, or a Giant SB 4th quarter. I am very confident that these areas will now be a strength when they are needed.

Those situations were what the defense made of them. If we are "faced with them" then it is likely going to turn into a loss, perhaps a season-ending one. I disagree with the 3-4 junctures (unless you are speaking of each playoff game). Those situations were gutchecks of the highest order - do or die, stop them or go home- type situations. Quite honestly, you can't prepare a defense personnel-wise in the offseason to make that kind of stop. The personnel has to address the ENTIRE season, and if they find themselves in the exact same situation 3 years running, it's simply a battle of wills and the winners are crowned champions.

 

[Deus Irae]

The overall quality of this team made those weaknesses unimportant in 90% of the games we played over the last 2 years. That is, we could have been HORRIFIC in those areas (and maybe we were) and 9 games out of 10, it wouldn't matter. It has come home ot roost in the final game of the last 2 seasons, and in my opinion BB has targetted these issues this off-season.
Will these changes look dramatic on the field? No, because we are so dominant they don't matter in most games. But, at 3-4 junctures this year, we will be faced with a Colt 2006 2nd half, or a Giant SB 4th quarter. I am very confident that these areas will now be a strength when they are needed.

1.) To the best of my recall, illness and injury were the problems in the Colts AFCCG game, and not an overall personnel problem. Any real questions about that should have been put to rest after New England beat the Colts in Indianapolis last season.

2.) The defense wasn't the problem in the Super Bowl, the offense lost the game.

3.) Even if you believe that the problem in the Super Bowl was the defense, the moves made this offseason don't remedy them. If you believe the defense cost the team the Super Bowl, then you're looking at Samuel and Harrison as the problem. They are the players who 'failed' in the 4th quarter. Harrison will still be there, and Samuel will be replaced by a lesser player.

 

[BradyManny]

My overall assessment is that quality players, strong TEAM defense, and great coaching masked some issues, most obviously, the lack of man coverage skills at S, nickel corner, and LB, that were more flawed than was noticable.
The overall quality of this team made those weaknesses unimportant in 90% of the games we played over the last 2 years. That is, we could have been HORRIFIC in those areas (and maybe we were) and 9 games out of 10, it wouldn't matter. It has come home ot roost in the final game of the last 2 seasons, and in my opinion BB has targetted these issues this off-season.
Will these changes look dramatic on the field? No, because we are so dominant they don't matter in most games. But, at 3-4 junctures this year, we will be faced with a Colt 2006 2nd half, or a Giant SB 4th quarter. I am very confident that these areas will now be a strength when they are needed.

Great post. I agree 100%, and I am glad to see I am not in the minority of people that feels this defense has become stronger than last season. I will say that I feel its MUCH stronger, in fact, and that the loss of Asante will hardly be noticed - and that in a way, it will free BB/Capers/Pees to try more aggressive approaches in the secondary.

I'll say it right now - if Meriweather is in the starting rotation at FS and plays to the level at which he played in the SB or higher, then the defensive backfield will be more effective than last year.

As for LBs, I agree, it has been upgraded and infused with a great deal of depth. I am starting to think the LB corps may look like Vrabel and AD outside with Mayo starting at WILB and Hobson starting at SILB. While I didn't think this during the season, the more I've read since the SB, the more I feel Bruschi at SILB - once Colvin went down - was the weak link. Bruschi and Seau - if he returns - return to being rotational players as they were before the Colvin injury. On the outside, Crable, Woods and then Hobson if you need him, provide the ability to keep AD and Vrabel fresh by using them in pass rush situations.

On the DL, Seymour should be fully healthy and an upgrade over himself last season.

Basically, I see all 3 units, DL, LBs and DBs, improving from last season, in some areas tremendously. And I see a stronger coaching staff with the inclusion of Capers. This is a potentially dominant defense in a league currently lacking one. Couple that with an already dominant offense, and this team has - somewhat quietly - become even a scarier opponent than the one that won 18 games last season.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

I will say that I feel its MUCH stronger, in fact, and that the loss of Asante will hardly be noticed

I'm in general agreement with the thread but I do worry about losing Samuel's interceptions. He had 16 the past two years (18 including the playoffs). Hobbs and Bryant had 5 combined. Hopefully the wildcard is Wheatley who was an INT machine in college - we're going to need to make up those INT somewhere or losing Samuel will be noticed.

Does anyone know if the Left CB gets more Safety help allowing them to jump routes more ? I realize Samuel got his hands on some balls that he dropped early in his career but but it seems like a crazy coincidence that Law was an INT machine, he leaves and a guy with few INT suddenly is also an INT machine. Maybe Samuel was just developing into that kind of player but it's something I've wondered about.

 

[BradyManny]

I'm in general agreement with the thread but I do worry about losing Samuel's interceptions. He had 16 the past two years (18 including the playoffs). Hobbs and Bryant had 5 combined. Hopefully the wildcard is Wheatley who was an INT machine in college - we're going to need to make up those INT somewhere or losing Samuel will be noticed.

Does anyone know if the Left CB gets more Safety help allowing them to jump routes more ? I realize Samuel got his hands on some balls that he dropped early in his career but but it seems like a crazy coincidence that Law was an INT machine, he leaves and a guy with few INT suddenly is also an INT machine. Maybe Samuel was just developing into that kind of player but it's something I've wondered about.

Good Q, I couldn't tell you.

As for the INTs - INTs are great, but if the defense gets off the field on 3rd downs, then I'm happy. This offense doesn't need a short field, it just needs the ball in Brady's hands. In fact, the best way to ensure this offense stays as explosive or gets more explosive is getting 3 and outs.

This D last season might technically have had success on 3rd downs, but I think its a really misleading stat when looking at this Pats D. Teams at times drove the ball on it (gaining first downs on other downs besides 3rd) only to be stifled in the red zone on 3rd down. In the past, when the Pats were a little more about ball control, this wasn't a problem. But now, you're letting a historically explosive offense sit on the sidelines as this "bend don't break" defense waits for the field to shorten before stopping the opposing offense.

Just look at the SB, the offense - despite the O-line being a sieve and despite being blamed for the loss - was generally effective at moving the ball, and just failed to capitalize in a few opportunities (Brady sacked/fumble at the end of 2nd quarter, the 4th & 13, Maroney stopped on 3r & 1). If they had a few more possessions, odds are they do capitalize, and we end up winning by a couple of touchdowns. The sustained drives by the Giants - even when they didn't yield points like the Hobbs INT - limited Brady and Moss chances to do damage.

 

[Metaphors]

1.) To the best of my recall, illness and injury were the problems in the Colts AFCCG game, and not an overall personnel problem. Any real questions about that should have been put to rest after New England beat the Colts in Indianapolis last season.

The problem in the 2006 AFCC game was the Pats failure to make key offensive plays in the 2nd half. The Pats were on the road for the 4th time in 5 weeks. The Colts were going to mount a comeback in the 2nd half and the Pats defense was going to be gassed. The issue was an inability to convert key first downs and get into the end zone after the Colts tied the score. The Pats longest drive after taking a 21-3 lead? 6 plays and 2:44 off the clock.

Belichick's response? Assemble the most prolific offense in NFL history

2.) The defense wasn't the problem in the Super Bowl, the offense lost the game.

Again, you have to look a little deeper. The offense had its worst game of the season (thanks in great part to the Giants defense), but it is fairly easy to see that is was an off day and not a fundamental flaw that needed to be addressed.

Belichick's response? Retaining Moss, letting a significant amount of the defense walk and focusing almost exclusively on the defense in FA and the draft. No OG or OT. No RB. No significant WR or TE. Just a developmental QB.

3.) Even if you believe that the problem in the Super Bowl was the defense, the moves made this off-season don't remedy them. If you believe the defense cost the team the Super Bowl, then you're looking at Samuel and Harrison as the problem. They are the players who 'failed' in the 4th quarter. Harrison will still be there, and Samuel will be replaced by a lesser player.

The 4th quarter wasn't pretty, but it still was right in the Pats sweet spot. Manning vs. Brady having to make key plays to win the game. What they couldn't predict was the fortunate turn of events for the Giants (the dropped picks and the Tyree play have been described ad nauseam).

However, what didn't follow the script was the opening drive of the game. The Pats made every team battle them for 60 minutes and nobody could quite pull it off. The Giants had the luxury of only having to really play 50 minutes. From the week 17 game, they were confident they could handle that.

16 plays. 63 yards. Under 4 ypp!!!!! 4 of 5 converting 3rd downs...including distances of 5, 6 and 7 yards to go. The people who say "Well they only gave up a field goal" are missing the point. Eli's confidence skyrocketed. The Pats offense had about 30 minutes of adrenalin drain from their bodies. The Giants defense knew they would have to defend about 10 fewer plays than they might normally expect. All of these things set the tone well before the 4th quarter.

Belichick's response? Bring in players who can force the action. Turn the ball over and bring pressure...not just wait for the other team to make a mistake. Take chances and live with the occasionally big play (would anyone have batted an eye if the Giants were up 7-0 after 3 minutes of play?). Bring in a respected coach to help put in a more attacking scheme.

You can go back to 2002 and our good friend Steve Martin to see that certain situations really bother Belichick greatly. He will stick with his guys during the season, but in the off-season he will make sure that those situations are dealt with and don't come up again.

The Pats 2008 defense likely won't be record-setting and may not be statistically as good as 2007. However, when some noodle-armed QB is faced with a 3rd-and-5, I betcha he won't be able to throw an easy 6 yard slant for a first down. And if he tries to go deep, I betcha he won't be vertical when (or if) the ball reaches the receiver.

 

[bradmahn]

I'm in general agreement with the thread but I do worry about losing Samuel's interceptions. He had 16 the past two years (18 including the playoffs). Hobbs and Bryant had 5 combined. Hopefully the wildcard is Wheatley who was an INT machine in college - we're going to need to make up those INT somewhere or losing Samuel will be noticed.

Does anyone know if the Left CB gets more Safety help allowing them to jump routes more ? I realize Samuel got his hands on some balls that he dropped early in his career but but it seems like a crazy coincidence that Law was an INT machine, he leaves and a guy with few INT suddenly is also an INT machine. Maybe Samuel was just developing into that kind of player but it's something I've wondered about.

Interceptions have a great deal to do with the circumstances that surround the actual pick. I think a more full time rush of Vrabel and Thomas, a healthy trio of Seymour, Wilfork, and Warren, and improved OLB reserves will create more havoc for the passer. The added speed and aggression in the secondary could also equal more hits that create tipped ball scenarios - which can also lead to INTs. Meriweather was constantly around the ball later in the year and (I hope he's already working on this) with some extra time with the Jugs machine he should improve his hands. Wheatley looks to have some impressive balls skills already.

You're right, though... as of right now, last year's top three defenders in terms of interceptions are all not with the team anymore (Samuel, Gay, Seau) or 12 of the team's 19 interceptions. Do with that what you please... but it doesn't worry me too much at the moment.

 

[Kontradiction]

I have seen several posts in various threads that imply this. Where does this idea come from? I am not saying Thomas S_cks or something like that but I also was not impressed with him as a pass rusher - unless you just want someone that gets close but does not actually disrupt the QB.

He had two sacks in the Super Bowl. The most out of anyone on our defense. I'd say he's pretty well suited to play the outside.

 

[Deus Irae]

Just look at the SB, the offense - despite the O-line being a sieve and despite being blamed for the loss - was generally effective at moving the ball, and just failed to capitalize in a few opportunities (Brady sacked/fumble at the end of 2nd quarter, the 4th & 13, Maroney stopped on 3r & 1). If they had a few more possessions, odds are they do capitalize, and we end up winning by a couple of touchdowns. The sustained drives by the Giants - even when they didn't yield points like the Hobbs INT - limited Brady and Moss chances to do damage.

In the Super Bowl (counting every drive), the Giants had only 2 drives that lasted longer than 4 minutes, and had 3 other drives that lasted for between 3 and 4 minutes. They had 4 drives of 3 plays or less (2 ending the halves), and 6 drives which netted fewer than 30 yards. Time of possession only went to the Giants by 1 minute.

The problem was on the other side. New England had 2 3-and-outs, and 2 4-and-outs. They had 3 drives of 5 minutes or longer, but only converted on 2 of them. The Patriots had a 14 play, 8:17 drive which ended on downs. Toss in the fumble, and you've got a total of only 14 points.

 

[BradyManny]

In the Super Bowl (counting every drive), the Giants had only 2 drives that lasted longer than 4 minutes, and had 3 other drives that lasted for between 3 and 4 minutes. They had 4 drives of 3 plays or less (2 ending the halves), and 6 drives which netted fewer than 30 yards. Time of possession only went to the Giants by 1 minute.

The problem was on the other side. New England had 2 3-and-outs, and 2 4-and-outs. They had 3 drives of 5 minutes or longer, but only converted on 2 of them. The Patriots had a 14 play, 8:17 drive which ended on downs. Toss in the fumble, and you've got a total of only 14 points.

You can toss out the drives ending the halves, they were kneeldowns. 2 drives over 4 minutes and 3 drives between 3-4 minutes isn't bad, time of possession wise. The Patriots drive which ended on downs was the killer, but my point was if they had one or two more possessions, they likely don't fail to convert again.

 

[Deus Irae]

The problem in the 2006 AFCC game was the Pats failure to make key offensive plays in the 2nd half. The Pats were on the road for the 4th time in 5 weeks. The Colts were going to mount a comeback in the 2nd half and the Pats defense was going to be gassed. The issue was an inability to convert key first downs and get into the end zone after the Colts tied the score. The Pats longest drive after taking a 21-3 lead? 6 plays and 2:44 off the clock.

Belichick's response? Assemble the most prolific offense in NFL history

This is such a revisionist view of what happened. That team put up 34 points, and 27 of them were on offense. The offense scored 3 times in the second half, which was one time more than it scored in the first half. Unfortunately for the final score, 2 of those scores were field goals. In fact, that team put up more points against the Colts than the "most prolific offense in NFL history" did.

The offense didn't surrender 32 points in the second half. That's on the defense. The offense put up 13 points, which was nothing special, but certainly not horrible.

Again, you have to look a little deeper. The offense had its worst game of the season (thanks in great part to the Giants defense), but it is fairly easy to see that is was an off day and not a fundamental flaw that needed to be addressed.

Belichick's response? Retaining Moss, letting a significant amount of the defense walk and focusing almost exclusively on the defense in FA and the draft. No OG or OT. No RB. No significant WR or TE. Just a developmental QB.

I never said the offense needed to be overhauled. In each of the past two seasons, the team's stronger side has failed in the final game of the season, while the weaker side has done a good enough job to win. The irony is that is was a different side each time and people here blame the side that played better for both losses.

 

[Deus Irae]

You can toss out the drives ending the halves, they were kneeldowns. 2 drives over 4 minutes and 3 drives between 3-4 minutes isn't bad, time of possession wise. The Patriots drive which ended on downs was the killer, but my point was if they had one or two more possessions, they likely don't fail to convert again.

New England only converted on 2 of 9 drives. The notion that they would probably not have failed to convert with another drive or two defies the statistics, as well as what most people were seeing with their eyes.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

New England only converted on 2 of 9 drives. The notion that they would probably not have failed to convert with another drive or two defies the statistics, as well as what most people were seeing with their eyes.

Not to mention that the last TD was with the Giants' defense exhausted and subbing starters off the field.

That said, I have no concerns about the offense this year assuming they get the OL back to how it was in almost every other game.

 

[SavioKid]

The problem in the 2006 AFCC game was the Pats failure to make key offensive plays in the 2nd half. The Pats were on the road for the 4th time in 5 weeks. The Colts were going to mount a comeback in the 2nd half and the Pats defense was going to be gassed. The issue was an inability to convert key first downs and get into the end zone after the Colts tied the score. The Pats longest drive after taking a 21-3 lead? 6 plays and 2:44 off the clock.

Belichick's response? Assemble the most prolific offense in NFL history



Again, you have to look a little deeper. The offense had its worst game of the season (thanks in great part to the Giants defense), but it is fairly easy to see that is was an off day and not a fundamental flaw that needed to be addressed.

Belichick's response? Retaining Moss, letting a significant amount of the defense walk and focusing almost exclusively on the defense in FA and the draft. No OG or OT. No RB. No significant WR or TE. Just a developmental QB.



The 4th quarter wasn't pretty, but it still was right in the Pats sweet spot. Manning vs. Brady having to make key plays to win the game. What they couldn't predict was the fortunate turn of events for the Giants (the dropped picks and the Tyree play have been described ad nauseam).

However, what didn't follow the script was the opening drive of the game. The Pats made every team battle them for 60 minutes and nobody could quite pull it off. The Giants had the luxury of only having to really play 50 minutes. From the week 17 game, they were confident they could handle that.

16 plays. 63 yards. Under 4 ypp!!!!! 4 of 5 converting 3rd downs...including distances of 5, 6 and 7 yards to go. The people who say "Well they only gave up a field goal" are missing the point. Eli's confidence skyrocketed. The Pats offense had about 30 minutes of adrenalin drain from their bodies. The Giants defense knew they would have to defend about 10 fewer plays than they might normally expect. All of these things set the tone well before the 4th quarter.

Belichick's response? Bring in players who can force the action. Turn the ball over and bring pressure...not just wait for the other team to make a mistake. Take chances and live with the occasionally big play (would anyone have batted an eye if the Giants were up 7-0 after 3 minutes of play?). Bring in a respected coach to help put in a more attacking scheme.

You can go back to 2002 and our good friend Steve Martin to see that certain situations really bother Belichick greatly. He will stick with his guys during the season, but in the off-season he will make sure that those situations are dealt with and don't come up again.

The Pats 2008 defense likely won't be record-setting and may not be statistically as good as 2007. However, when some noodle-armed QB is faced with a 3rd-and-5, I betcha he won't be able to throw an easy 6 yard slant for a first down. And if he tries to go deep, I betcha he won't be vertical when (or if) the ball reaches the receiver.

Way to stick with the subject....we still haven't beat that 'who's to blame O or D' thread for the SB loss yet ?!?

Even though I disagree with the SB assessment, the main point to make in this thread are the changes to the Defense enough currently to obtain a Lombardi trophy? This is probably too early to tell before TC begins but to take a stab at it I say no.

The main sticking point being that, right now, Hobson and to a lesser extent Bruschi will be relied upon as a full-time ILB. This of course is stating a worst case scenario that Mayo doesn't 'pan out' as a full-time ILB stud this year (he will be just a rookie). So, without a Seau, the weakness being a Bruschi or a Hobson stuck out there with there pants down in a 'not so obvious' passing offense attack. I love Bruschi as a player & competitor in life, he's probably an ultimate Patriot in the last 10 years, but he has weakness and that is his coverage skills. Now Hobson is just too unknown in the passing coverage area but his recognition skills before a play happens are probably subpar to Bruschi.

I agree with AJ that losing Samuel is not going to hurt as much since speed / system playing / etc. are there with the FA & rookie pickups and (most likely) a big Merriweather improvement. Plus, a major plus, is that our pass rush should be better with A Thomas / Vrabel on the outside along with a healthy Seymour / DLine (but I would like to see Colvin as a vet backup if he his healthy). Overall, the D definitely got better and I don't believe (even though I have no factual reasons) that Mayo will not be a factor so hence the worst case scenario shouldn't happen.

 

[Metaphors]

In the Super Bowl (counting every drive), the Giants had only 2 drives that lasted longer than 4 minutes, and had 3 other drives that lasted for between 3 and 4 minutes. They had 4 drives of 3 plays or less (2 ending the halves), and 6 drives which netted fewer than 30 yards. Time of possession only went to the Giants by 1 minute.

The problem was on the other side. New England had 2 3-and-outs, and 2 4-and-outs. They had 3 drives of 5 minutes or longer, but only converted on 2 of them. The Patriots had a 14 play, 8:17 drive which ended on downs. Toss in the fumble, and you've got a total of only 14 points.

Pass rushers tend to get less effective after 50 plays and are pretty much spent after 60. Indy. Philly. Baltimore. Giants (week 17). All those games saw Brady standing tall and delivering big throws in the 4th quarter after being banged around (remember the "blueprint"?) earlier in the game.

After taking the field for the first time 10 minutes into the game, the Giants defense had an edge that they could exploit. They could pin their ears back and go 100% without fear of blowing their wad by the end of the 3rd quarter. Even then, the Giants were much less effective in the 4th quarter. The problem was that Brady only got one drive to take advantage of this situation. Is there any doubt that the Pats score if Brady had one more drive with reasonable time remaining?

You are focusing on numbers and it is hard to place blame on the defense in a 14-17 loss. Look a little deeper and a good number of the reasons for the low score fall squarely on the shoulders of the defense.

 

[RoughingthePasser]

A better pass rush would help this considerably
as would having better players in the secondary.

That's very true and I'm projecting we will this year. We switched it up alot last year and I think Adalius and Mike will have a great year. Remember who these cats are playing with...
Richard Seymour, Vince Wilfork, Ty Warren and the gang...

I hope that we evolve into a team that can punch bigger leads, hold em down and grind the clock. We have a good formula this year.