Defensive Changes

[Metaphors]

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 ?!?

The SB loss was the final straw that resulted in the defensive changes this thread is about. You can make the same points using the Philly and Balt games. The 2007 was very good but had fundamental flaws that could be exposed even by weak QBs.

As AJ points out, the defensive changes were necessary to address those flaws. The players may not be as talented (given limited experience) and the statistics may not be as impressive, but the 2008 defense should be in a better position to close the deal in the playoffs assuming the newcomers progress reasonably well.

I promise not to use the SB loss as an example (the Philly game is better anyway) if everyone else promises to stop playing the "The defense doesn't need to close the deal, the offense lost the SB" card.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

Is there any doubt that the Patriots score? Of course there is, and any person not blinded by homerism knows that. The reality is that Brady and company had multiple opportunities and failed to seal the deal.

As for the notion looking deeper than the numbers, come on. The defense surrendered 17 points, which was the season average. The offense scored fewer than 20 points for the first time all season. Had the Patriots merely equaled their worse offensive output (Snow game against the Jets), they'd have won the game. As I noted above, the offense only converted on 2 of 9 drives. In no way, shape, matter or form was the defense the main issue in this game. The argument that the loss falls squarely on the shoulders of the defense is ludicrous.

 

[Ring 6]

AJ, I always appreciate your insight. I agree with most of your post, but there are a couple of points here that are debatable. Until Crable proves he's ready for prime time, I'm not ready to agree that OLB depth is "the best depth we have had in years". Hobson has replaced Colvin, and we added a 3rd rd rookie. I'll take Colvin (healthy) any day. Agreed, AD should be better on the outside, but that means we have to rely on Hobson or Mayo at ILB. I like Mayo a lot.

Also, Merriweather may yet prove that he's a stud, but he didn't do it last year. Sanders was better and earned the PT.

Good insight at the CB spots. I agree. High risk, high potential. Let's hope the O keeps the D off the field in '08 as much as they did in '07 with the long drives.

When did we have better depth at OLB?
Last year was Vrabel, colvin, Woods. Even without Crabel our depth is better.
Before that TBC was the depth, and in his last year was a starter for most of the year.
You have to go back to when McGinest, Vrabel and Colvin were all healthy and playing exclusively OLB to see more depth than we have now. That was 2004 right?

 

[Ring 6]

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 said Samuel to Bryant is a downgrade, but the depth is a huge upgrade. Sanders, Webster, Wheatley and Wilhite are a huge imporvemet at the nickel and dime spots, which overcomes the downgrade at the starter. IMO

 

[Ring 6]

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.

Well the DL and LBs arent responsible for tying up blockers and keeping them off the LBs, so I dont think they did a good job of it.
They play 2 gap on one man. The only real way that they help keep anyone else off the LB is if the G is required to chip them on the way.
I thought our ILB play vs the run was as bad as its been in a long time last year, but we were never really hurt by it. First the other 9 did a good job covering for them by playing so well, and secondly we were scoring so many points it rarely mattered. A flaw that was hard to detect because of all the wins, but a flaw nonetheless.
By the way, NIO TEAM EVER runs up the middle and puts 4-5 blockers on 3 DL and leaves a LB free in the hole. Its a common misconception, but no team would ever do that, the design of that play guarantees failure.

 

[Metaphors]

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.

I'm not going to argue with your "boxscore" analysis. It leads to stupid conclusions that thankfully Belichick and Pioli don't follow. I'm not saying the Pats D played well that day...but they shouldn't have been expected to play well in the 2nd half under those conditions. They did give up 32 points but were forced to defend 7 drives in the 2nd half.

And those 13 points the Pats scored...
Total yards on the 3 drives netting those 13 points = 83 yards.
Starting field position = Indy 21, Indy 43, NE 46

2006 led to an overhaul of the offense. It wasn't good enough to get homefield advantage or close the deal in a high scoring game.

2007 led to an overhaul of the defense. Those defensive changes mentioned in this thread were necessary to deal with the flaws exposed in the SB and a few other games during the season.

That is history in context...unrevised and plain to see for anyone willing to look beyond the boxscore.

 

[BradyManny]

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.

Maybe, maybe not...The Giants made the big plays - Brady getting sacked on 3rd & 6 (forcing the brutal 4th & 13 call), Brady getting sacked at the end of the 2nd quarter, Maroney getting stopped on the 3rd & 1. Those were the key plays of the game, would the Giants have made the big plays had the Pats had a couple more chances at it? We're both guessing, I'm basing my guess on the Pats offense's body of work over the season, you are basing it on how the game itself was going. Unfortunately, we'll never know which one of us would be right.

 

[Metaphors]

Well the DL and LBs arent responsible for tying up blockers and keeping them off the LBs, so I dont think they did a good job of it.
They play 2 gap on one man. The only real way that they help keep anyone else off the LB is if the G is required to chip them on the way.
I thought our ILB play vs the run was as bad as its been in a long time last year, but we were never really hurt by it. First the other 9 did a good job covering for them by playing so well, and secondly we were scoring so many points it rarely mattered. A flaw that was hard to detect because of all the wins, but a flaw nonetheless.
By the way, NIO TEAM EVER runs up the middle and puts 4-5 blockers on 3 DL and leaves a LB free in the hole. Its a common misconception, but no team would ever do that, the design of that play guarantees failure.

I did a lousy job of explaining my point. I didn't mean that Warren, Wilfork and Seymour have the explicit goal of eating up blockers to keep the LBs clean. I just haven't seen teams line up 1-on-1 with the Pats DL (especially Wilfork) and send multiple blockers into the second level. I don't believe there would be much of a hole to exploit if they did.

Maybe I'm just missing something but I have crystal clear images of Bruschi and AD showing up late in the hole and breaking their ankles after a hard cut by the RB. I don't recall seeing too many RBs making cuts off the back of a guard or FB 5 yards downfield (the 3rd quarter in Baltimore aside. yuck.) Maybe you're right that the RB was covered up before it got to that point.

In any case, I'll gladly accept an occasional 15 yard gashing up the middle vs. the slow death suffered by the cuts of a thousand AJ Feeley's...

 

[patsox23]

GREAT thread, aj and everyone else. My only nitpick is the idea that Meriweather is better than Sanders. I suppose that's the hope, but until I see it, I'd say Sanders is the best safety on the roster.

Thoughts?

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm not going to argue with your "boxscore" analysis. It leads to stupid conclusions that thankfully Belichick and Pioli don't follow. I'm not saying the Pats D played well that day...but they shouldn't have been expected to play well in the 2nd half under those conditions. They did give up 32 points but were forced to defend 7 drives in the 2nd half.

They only needed to hold the Colts to fewer than 34 points and couldn't get it done. That same basic defense, a year older and less talented by most accounts, was able to get it done this season.

And those 13 points the Pats scored...
Total yards on the 3 drives netting those 13 points = 83 yards.
Starting field position = Indy 21, Indy 43, NE 46

So, the real reason the Patriots lost must be that Ellis Hobbs had an 80 yard return and the team took advantage of short fields. It had nothing to do with the Colts exploiting Alexander (10 tackles, Clark going off for 137 yards receiving) and the center of the field, for example.

2006 led to an overhaul of the offense. It wasn't good enough to get homefield advantage or close the deal in a high scoring game.

Did it really? It seems to me that 2006 led to the team returning the same players across the line of scrimmage, in the backfield, one of the two starting tight ends, and one of the two starting wide receivers. Yes, the team added 3 new receivers, but it was understood that the receiving corps was not a team strength even as the team was making it to the AFCCG. That doesn't somehow mean that it was the offense that cost the team the game. That makes no more sense than saying Samuel dropping the int led to a linebacker being drafted in the first round.

2007 led to an overhaul of the defense. Those defensive changes mentioned in this thread were necessary to deal with the flaws exposed in the SB and a few other games during the season.

That is history in context...unrevised and plain to see for anyone willing to look beyond the boxscore.

Again, what overhaul? The entire D-line is back, along with all the secondary except Samuel. Thomas, Vrabel and Bruschi are back, and Seau may or may not return. The only 'overhaul' is at Colvin's position. How many new starters do you expect to play that wouldn't have played under 'normal' progressions?

Seymour
Wilfork
Warren
Thomas
Vrabel
Hobbs
Meriweather (I think he'll get a spot, but it's not an 'overhaul')
Sanders/Harrison

That's 8 of 11 positions guaranteed to be filled with players who have nothing to do with this 'overhaul'. Samuel was going to need to be replaced in any event due to contractual status, and not due to his play.

That leaves a maximum of 2 starters as part of the 'overhaul', and that's only should Bruschi be relegated to the bench. I don't need to look at the box score. I can look at what was known before and during the seasons, and what was known after the seasons, and see that nothing surprising has happened based upon those last games.

 

[BradyManny]

GREAT thread, aj and everyone else. My only nitpick is the idea that Meriweather is better than Sanders. I suppose that's the hope, but until I see it, I'd say Sanders is the best safety on the roster.

Thoughts?

I think we saw it in the Super Bowl. Meriweather started at FS as best as I could see, and made a difference. Meriweather is a huge improvement in speed and coverage over Sanders at FS. Sanders really is a SS anyway.

 

[Deus Irae]

Maybe, maybe not...The Giants made the big plays - Brady getting sacked on 3rd & 6 (forcing the brutal 4th & 13 call), Brady getting sacked at the end of the 2nd quarter, Maroney getting stopped on the 3rd & 1. Those were the key plays of the game, would the Giants have made the big plays had the Pats had a couple more chances at it? We're both guessing, I'm basing my guess on the Pats offense's body of work over the season, you are basing it on how the game itself was going. Unfortunately, we'll never know which one of us would be right.

It is unfortunate, and I'm not trying to say that the Giants would definitely have stopped the Patriots if that last drive had been with, say, 2+ minutes on the clock rather than 35 seconds. We just don't know, and the reality is that the Giants stopped the Patriots far more often than they failed to on that day. I'm not saying that the defense was perfect, just that the blame for the loss belongs on the other side of the ball. As I noted earlier, the last two seasons ended with games where the team's strength let them down, and the weaker units played well enough to win.

 

[BradyManny]

It is unfortunate, and I'm not trying to say that the Giants would definitely have stopped the Patriots if that last drive had been with, say, 2+ minutes on the clock rather than 35 seconds. We just don't know, and the reality is that the Giants stopped the Patriots far more often than they failed to on that day. I'm not saying that the defense was perfect, just that the blame for the loss belongs on the other side of the ball. As I noted earlier, the last two seasons ended with games where the team's strength let them down, and the weaker units played well enough to win.

I'd say I agree with pretty much all of the above. But taking a look at the entire season, I agree with AJ's original post that the flaws of the defense were somewhat covered up by the efficiency and explosiveness of the offense, and that the priority for this offseason was fixing those issues. And BB/Pioli have done just that.

And in terms of the offense, I also agreed with the point you've been making about the OLine and the draft - I thought they would address either RG or RT in the draft, and the fact that they didn't tells me that a) Neal is healthy b) they felt the SB was a huge aberration c) they have a general confidence in the line. All three things are good enough reasons for me feeling comfortable with the OL at this point and basically going into next season with the same offense that both set records and lost the SB.

 

[SavioKid]

The SB loss was the final straw that resulted in the defensive changes this thread is about. You can make the same points using the Philly and Balt games. The 2007 was very good but had fundamental flaws that could be exposed even by weak QBs.

As AJ points out, the defensive changes were necessary to address those flaws. The players may not be as talented (given limited experience) and the statistics may not be as impressive, but the 2008 defense should be in a better position to close the deal in the playoffs assuming the newcomers progress reasonably well.

I promise not to use the SB loss as an example (the Philly game is better anyway) if everyone else promises to stop playing the "The defense doesn't need to close the deal, the offense lost the SB" card.

Again, my point was that this thread was not about whose to blame for the SB loss. Not matter the origin for this thread, the purpose is to ask the question whether the Defensive changes for 2008 would be enuf to get us a trophy?!? (assuming the offense performs like it did 99% of the time last year in the SB which is most likely ...but I question the OL still a little bit).
So, I agree with AJ that yes it has most likely with the scenarios - Mayo becomes a full time ILB / Seau comes back part time / the DL is at its healthiest and our CB coverage maintains (Harrison stays healthy!) with more speed despite no Samuels. And I see you agree too ... so thanks for putting the SB blame game in a new bin like 'last years stuff'!

 

[patsox23]

I think we saw it in the Super Bowl. Meriweather started at FS as best as I could see, and made a difference. Meriweather is a huge improvement in speed and coverage over Sanders at FS. Sanders really is a SS anyway.

Hm. I hope you're right. I still would consider Sanders "the best safety on the team" (until proven otherwise ON THE FIELD) which is what the comment seemed to be. In any case, like I said, I'd love it if you were on the mark when it comes to Meriweather. If he can make a big leap and be "starter good," that will be a significant deal.

 

[BradyManny]

Hm. I hope you're right. I still would consider Sanders "the best safety on the team" (until proven otherwise ON THE FIELD) which is what the comment seemed to be. In any case, like I said, I'd love it if you were on the mark when it comes to Meriweather. If he can make a big leap and be "starter good," that will be a significant deal.

I hope I'm right, too Of course, I also hope I'm right about Chad Jackson, but we'll see. Worst case scenario, the team is back where it was last year with a Sanders-Harrison combo - or in my reference to Chad Jackson, with Gaffney at the #3 spot, which he usurped from Stallworth by mid season anyway. Those are two areas where the team should see an upgrade in 08 but at the very least should find the same production as last season.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'd say I agree with pretty much all of the above. But taking a look at the entire season, I agree with AJ's original post that the flaws of the defense were somewhat covered up by the efficiency and explosiveness of the offense, and that the priority for this offseason was fixing those issues. And BB/Pioli have done just that.

AJ makes some good points, in my opinion, although I don't agree with all that he posted. Having said that, here are some ruminations on this defense:

1.) It was a good enough defense to win the Super Bowl last year, and I expect it will be good enough this year as well.

2.) This team is not predicated on speed at linebacker, although speed is always a nice plus. I'm sure that having more speed in there will help on some plays, but not having the experience in there will likely result in some pretty big plays as the new guys try to learn the system.

3.) The lack of team speed has seemed to me to be a bigger problem in the secondary than with the linebackers. With Samuel, Harrison and Sanders, this has been one of the slowest secondaries in the NFL, and it's limited the sorts of coverages the team's been able to call. Putting Meriweather in for Sanders or Harrison will make the D-backfield much quicker, and will allow for something we haven't seen in 2 years: we may actually see a safety recover after being beaten. I'm sure Hobbs is thrilled with the prospect of not being hung out to dry when a safety misses coverage and Hobbs is forced to try to make up for that mistake.

4.) Seymour's leg should be 100% for the first time in 3 seasons, and that should make a major difference on the line. Having him 100% healthy will limit the exposure of the ILBs on inside runs, which is something we haven't seen in 2 years. Will not be able to just double Wilfork and then single Warren and Seymour on runs inside the tackles. Having to double Seymour as well as Wilfork will mean that the ILBs won't have to take on guards prior to getting to the ball carrier. They'll be able to take on tight ends and fullbacks instead.

 

[Metaphors]

2.) This team is not predicated on speed at linebacker, although speed is always a nice plus. I'm sure that having more speed in there will help on some plays, but not having the experience in there will likely result in some pretty big plays as the new guys try to learn the system.

That is the operative question for me. Will the team defense have the same "feel" as previous years? It will be a 3-4 base with pretty much the same responsibilities as many have pointed out. But will there be a new premium on speed in the back 8 that traditionally wasn't required? Don't know but it will be interesting to see the results on the field in the preseason.

I don't think you bring Capers on board if you are just looking to keep the same defensive playcalling in place. If the new players progress quickly, I'm really hopeful that the Pats defense will have a more aggressive nature than last year. If they struggle to earn playing time and Bruschi, Hobson, Rodney and the short-timer CBs have to take a bigger role, then we are likely to see more of the same. Plenty good enough to be wildly successful, but I will personally be disappointed.

 

[RoughingthePasser]

4.) Seymour's leg should be 100% for the first time in 3 seasons, and that should make a major difference on the line. Having him 100% healthy will limit the exposure of the ILBs on inside runs, which is something we haven't seen in 2 years. Will not be able to just double Wilfork and then single Warren and Seymour on runs inside the tackles. Having to double Seymour as well as Wilfork will mean that the ILBs won't have to take on guards prior to getting to the ball carrier. They'll be able to take on tight ends and fullbacks instead.

I hope we see some great ILBplay from Hobson and Mayo

 

[RoughingthePasser]

I thought our ILB play vs the run was as bad as its been in a long time QUOTE]

I hope we see some great ILBplay from Hobson and Mayo