“defense is full of bad players“

[Soul_Survivor88]

Again, it isn't that they lost. They lost to Seattle last year but fought to the very end. They lost to KC in '14 but fought until the end.

There was no fight at the end of this one. None. That's the difference and why it's so alarming.

Edit: I almost forget. The AFCCG in Denver. Fought until the very, very end even though they were getting their teeth kicked in.

I agree. Unlike previous losses, something really seemed off about the Pats during this game. They seemed to basically give up towards the end of the game, in a way I've rarely seen before.

 

[Oswlek]

Read option is high school and as simple as you get, but that's not the point. Reid is a West Coast guy, he's not into motions, but this game, he practically used it every snap to force coverage adjustments. That's the equivalent of the Cable Guy suddenly abstaining from BBQ and eating tofu and kale.

I think it's pretty obvious that the defense was completely unprepared for this, but despite that it wasn't too bad until Hightower went out of the game.

That's always been the way to beat BB. Be surpringly good at something that you don't use often and spring it on him. Do that and you turn his film junky strength into a weakness.

Of course, it only works once, barring numerous cards up your sleeve.

 

[PatriotReign]

I agree. Unlike previous losses, something really seemed off about the Pats during this game. They seemed to basically give up towards the end of the game, in a way I've rarely seen before.

Maybe with how banged up the team is so early they were willing to wave the white flag on this one.

 

[Uptown]

....The NFL is full of bad players..

 

[SammyBlueCat]

Even though we were short handed and our players are not track stars, (I believe in Cat like quickness) the scheme and play calling seemed a little odd.

 

[dafoe2016]

I'm not going to draw any conclusions based on one game. Or even four. This team has bounced back from these types of games before. I will be shocked if we are not 12-14 win team and in the Super Bowl again at the end of the year.

Do I love all the decisions made in the offseason? No. Do I pray for Josh McDaniels to be kidnapped by aliens? Every damned day. Am I relatively confident that Gronk will go down to injury at some point and the board will completely freak out over it? Of course. But football is a 16 week war of attrition. We have been the last team standing 5 times in the Brady era. I wasn't expecting this to be easy. I may get upset in the moment, temporarily insane, but it usually passes after a day or two.

We're the world champs. Relax. If you want to complain about something, direct your attention to the painfully mediocre lineup the Red Sox have managed to construct. No garbage hitters. All solid players, but not a single above average hitter in the entire lineup. It's quite remarkable, actually. It should be interesting to see if they panic and do something stupid like go after Giancarlo Stanton and his comically stupid contract or overpay their grossly overrated outfield. Worry about the Celtics and their clown of a GM. How many different ways he's going to inflict wounds on his own team with his stupidity. Or the Bruins just being the Bruins. The Patriots will continue with their boring, Spurs like competence. Enjoy the ride. Bill wont be here forever.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Bashing the team after “unexpected“ loss is “business as usual“. But I was really surprised about some statements from experienced posters saying that besides “lack of speed“ etc - this defence is “full of bad players“. Now here I am confused. I understand there is a big difference in players “evaluations“ among fans let alone NE FO but its really strange how this came from one of the “best/deepest rosters in cap era“ (where rookies and esp. udfas have something like zero chance to make it) to the D roster “full of bad players“.

While it is true that “DE“ or edge position didn't go according to expectations, and there were some questions about LB speed and 3-down players, the rest of D made people pretty excited IIRC.

I guess we just came full circle: after being excited about new D last preseason, bashing it for most of the year despite results and stats and finally excepting that the #1 scoring D was not so bad after all . we got even more excited this offseason with the additions of Gilmore (and some also about Guy), keeping Hightower and Butler, drafting of Rivers and Wise, and adding top udfa Langi (afterwards bit by bit also about emergence of another Butler) only to come to the quick conclusion that this D is really bad.

So who are all these bad players BB kept on the roster?

Lets start with eternal scapegoat Jordan Richards. Vast majority of the board “evaluates“ him as bad player so he must be - no matter what BB and MP think or what film shows. Ok, that's one.

Next scapegoat of the week is Malcom Brown. I can understand people see him as disappointing 1st rounder (i even “proposed“ a possibility of “surprising“ trade) but does that make him a bad player? BB talked about his inconsistency but Brown is still a versatile and very solid DL, voted in “all-rookie team“ in 2015 and had a solid 2016 (“above average“ by PFF). Disappointment? Maybe. Bad player? Hardly.

Ironically people who actually bothered to watch the film discovered that it was Branch who was the biggest liability on the line. So is a “Pro Bowl snub“ suddenly a bad player after one game? Or is it possible that a guy who misses most of preseason can have a bad start especially on a bad day for the whole team (coaches included)?

Are the rest of DL starters - Guy, Flowers, Hightower - bad players? Or are the rookies we only saw for a few snaps (Wise, A.Butler doing pretty well btw)? Is Marsh already a bad player coming in a few days ago (while SEA fans still mourn his trade)?

Is KVN a bad player? He was exposed a bit the other night (also due to game plan) and maybe didn't best handle green dot duties on pretty unusual D look w front 7 personnel never playing together like that before (and maybe practicing 3 times). He also made good plays and was extended probably for a reason.

Harris, Roberts and Langi were not part of this game plan and they are mostly situational players but I don't think that makes them bad players. Of course it would be nice to have another top end 3-down injury-safe LB but this is not fantasy league.

The secondary was raved (here and around) as one of the best units in the league so I doubt posters think Gilmore, Butler, McCourty or Chung are bad players (although Chung was a “bad player“ once). Yet this is the unit that made the biggest and costliest mistakes on Thursday.
__

And I really don't understand the calls for new additions. Are 33-year old Ninkovich who people wanted to retire time ago and couldn't handle the grind of TC or Akeem Ayers who didn't make a single 90-man roster and missed the whole off-season and pre-season suddenly significant upgrades to these “bad players“? Id like to see Ayers added off-season to fight for the roster spot and I don't mind kicking his tires now but to think that his, Ninko's or any addition for that matter would turn this D around is fantasy and “grass is greener“ thinking. (interesting how Ninko himself became much more valuable player now that he is not on the roster etc etc)

Id think its closer to reality that Patriots D is full of good or at least solid players that have every chance to make one of the better D units in the league once more (baring significant injuries of course like everywhere). And that this is just the usual back to work, correct mistakes and do your job well situation.

Here is what a guy that actually worked through this situations w BB has to say about it (while dodging loud self-absorbed hot takes from the hosts):

Mike Lombardi on OMF: I never thought a Bill Belichick defense would give up so many big plays

Great post

 

[libra957]

I'm not sure what to make of that defense.Probably not elite, but to soon to be "that bad", we have many top QBs waiting in line: Brees,Newton, Ryan, Big ben.So we will soon find out.

 

[Mack Herron]

I think Harris plays 1st and 2nd down, KVN moves outside, and Richards is confined to STs.

 

[dafoe2016]

Again, it isn't that they lost. They lost to Seattle last year but fought to the very end. They lost to KC in '14 but fought until the end.

There was no fight at the end of this one. None. That's the difference and why it's so alarming.

Edit: I almost forget. The AFCCG in Denver. Fought until the very, very end even though they were getting their teeth kicked in.

I don't think you understand what "getting their teeth kicked in" means. They definitely could have won that game.

 

[dafoe2016]

....The NFL is full of bad players..

It's full of bad commissioners too.

 

[PP2]

That's always been the way to beat BB. Be surpringly good at something that you don't use often and spring it on him. Do that and you turn his film junky strength into a weakness.

Of course, it only works once barring numerous cards up your sleeve.

If we got this sprung on us late in the season, I think we recover pretty fast and make adjustments on the fly, and win.

This being the first game of the season and with Hightower out of the game, and with a good number of new players still getting used to playing with each other, communicating with each other- just the worst timing and Reid capitalized on it.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I think last year if Brady had screwed up and gotten a penalty on a TD play he would have been cussing himself out, not laughing.

That wasn't a penalty on a TD play. It was only a "TD" because Brady committed the penalty. If he had stayed behind the LOS White never would have gotten that ball.

 

[K. Dog]

I guess we just came full circle: after being excited about new D last preseason, bashing it for most of the year despite results and stats and finally excepting that the #1 scoring D was not so bad after all . we got even more excited this offseason with the additions of Gilmore (and some also about Guy), keeping Hightower and Butler, drafting of Rivers and Wise, and adding top udfa Langi (afterwards bit by bit also about emergence of another Butler) only to come to the quick conclusion that this D is really bad.

Actually I posted a number of analyses arguing the defense would likely perform poorly. In particular, I felt that the Gilmore addition would disrupt the chemistry. The kinds of missed coverages we saw against the Chiefs is a symptom of this poor chemistry.

In the history of the NFL, many, many teams have bet the team on some high-priced free agent with a long-term contract. When that free agent didn't pan out, the team could do poorly for a decade. A team could do more poorly than one would expect from the wasted cost alone. That's because of the affect on chemistry. Everyone on that defense knows, for example, that Malcolm Butler did everything he was asked and more (much more) for the last three years. And everyone knows he's getting paid a guaranteed salary of about 5% or so of Gilmore's. There is no inspiring speech that Patricia or Belichick can deliver that is likely to overturn this kind of arithmetic in the minds of the players.

I said before the season that I was profoundly pessimistic for this season. At this point, not only am I profoundly pessimistic for the season, but I could see the Gilmore situation affecting the next several years as well. And the fact that we lost the most brilliant and original non-QB offensive player of the decade (cue the chorus of Edelman-criticism) is the icing on the cake here.

When I watched the Patriots lose to the Chiefs, I constantly heard the announcers boast about the 40 times of our players. They've never done that, and it's about as bad a sign as one can have. We've become the team that boasts about 40 times while missing coverages. I saw this happening all throughout the preseason with the media and "fans" on here obsessing about combine scores of players: only losing teams do that actually.

 

[Oswlek]

In particular, I felt that the Gilmore addition would disrupt the chemistry.

What evidence suggested this would happen?

 

[RobertWeathers]

Actually I posted a number of analyses arguing the defense would likely perform poorly. In particular, I felt that the Gilmore addition would disrupt the chemistry. The kinds of missed coverages we saw against the Chiefs is a symptom of this poor chemistry.

In the history of the NFL, many, many teams have bet the team on some high-priced free agent with a long-term contract. When that free agent didn't pan out, the team could do poorly for a decade. A team could do more poorly than one would expect from the wasted cost alone. That's because of the affect on chemistry. Everyone on that defense knows, for example, that Malcolm Butler did everything he was asked and more (much more) for the last three years. And everyone knows he's getting paid a guaranteed salary of about 5% or so of Gilmore's. There is no inspiring speech that Patricia or Belichick can deliver that is likely to overturn this kind of arithmetic in the minds of the players.

I said before the season that I was profoundly pessimistic for this season. At this point, not only am I profoundly pessimistic for the season, but I could see the Gilmore situation affecting the next several years as well. And the fact that we lost the most brilliant and original non-QB offensive player of the decade (cue the chorus of Edelman-criticism) is the icing on the cake here.

When I watched the Patriots lose to the Chiefs, I constantly heard the announcers boast about the 40 times of our players. They've never done that, and it's about as bad a sign as one can have. We've become the team that boasts about 40 times while missing coverages. I saw this happening all throughout the preseason with the media and "fans" on here obsessing about combine scores of players: only losing teams do that actually.

One game. Repeat. One game.

 

[everlong]

I think all of the stop overreacting posts/threads are the ones overreacting . The boards have been pretty benign after this loss compared to ones in the past where they've gotten whooped. Saying a player had a bad game isn't the same as saying the player is bad. Branch had a bad game. Brown had an epically bad game. If we can't post an obvious truth like that whats' the point of having a board?

 

[long distance]

Actually I posted a number of analyses arguing the defense would likely perform poorly. In particular, I felt that the Gilmore addition would disrupt the chemistry. The kinds of missed coverages we saw against the Chiefs is a symptom of this poor chemistry.

In the history of the NFL, many, many teams have bet the team on some high-priced free agent with a long-term contract. When that free agent didn't pan out, the team could do poorly for a decade. A team could do more poorly than one would expect from the wasted cost alone. That's because of the affect on chemistry. Everyone on that defense knows, for example, that Malcolm Butler did everything he was asked and more (much more) for the last three years. And everyone knows he's getting paid a guaranteed salary of about 5% or so of Gilmore's. There is no inspiring speech that Patricia or Belichick can deliver that is likely to overturn this kind of arithmetic in the minds of the players.

I said before the season that I was profoundly pessimistic for this season. At this point, not only am I profoundly pessimistic for the season, but I could see the Gilmore situation affecting the next several years as well. And the fact that we lost the most brilliant and original non-QB offensive player of the decade (cue the chorus of Edelman-criticism) is the icing on the cake here.

When I watched the Patriots lose to the Chiefs, I constantly heard the announcers boast about the 40 times of our players. They've never done that, and it's about as bad a sign as one can have. We've become the team that boasts about 40 times while missing coverages. I saw this happening all throughout the preseason with the media and "fans" on here obsessing about combine scores of players: only losing teams do that actually.

I am sorry for your profound pessimism.

Don't think BB and MP are working on their speeches to improve the team.

If players want to make more than “5% or so of Gilmore salary“ they better play their best. They know that.

 

[K. Dog]

What evidence suggested this would happen?

I had a several long posts about this, and more important his contract, and even more important, the juxtaposition of his and Malcolm Butler's contracts. You just can't do that kind of thing and get the kind of perfectly-tuned machine that Patricia likes to use. I've also said I thought Edelman was one of the greatest players in the NFL, whose effect on the win-probability of the Patriots in 2014-16 was as great as any non-QB offensive player on that player's team who comes to mind during those three years. That's another way of saying that among non-QB offensive players, Edelman was the MVP for '14-'16. And like I said, the way this board underrates Edelman's impact on the wins of this team just because he's shorter and his 40 time isn't as fast as the athlete-du-jour is shameful and an embarrassment to the fan base.

 

[K. Dog]

If players want to make more than “5% or so of Gilmore salary“ they better play their best. They know that.

Don't you get it? That's exactly what Butler DID. Butler's not the one who called out his teammates after getting burned on some play last year was it? Butler's the one who tackles running backs in the Super Bowl? Or rushes the quarterback? You can't play much better than Butler and you certainly can't work harder or be more of a team player. So how do you propose Patricia motivates his team to play for wins and not stats when they guy who did that more than any other cornerback is making 1/20 of some guy whose claim to fame is his 40 times and self-confidence?