A Balanced Look at the Defense

[Ring 6]

I fixed it for you.

There's no way to walk away from:



This ridiculous statement is the culmination of your million posts relaying BS stats that are meant to show that this defense is somehow "solidly above middle of the road." You're selling that position and no one (well, no one sane) is buying it. You can write 10 pages of nothing and nothing will change the intent of your posts (nor, apparently, you're mistaken belief in this defense).

Out of curiosity, if a defense has played 12 games, how many would it have to play well enough to deserve to win to be solidly above middle of the road'? I guess it must be at least 10 in your opinion, and since you judge the statement ridiculous perhaps it must be 12 of 12 to not be mediocre. Please give me that number so I can further understand the knowledge and intellect behind your meanderings.

 

[ausbacker]

So let me get this straight. We are now arguing over what I intended when I wrote a post, and you are telling me that what you think I intended is right, and what I think I intended is wrong?
Priceless.

The irony of this post is priceless.

 

[Ring 6]

The irony of this post is priceless.

Not really.
Of course instead of acting like a teenage girl and posting stuff like this, you could actually clarify the post in question. If you really used the word properly and just masacared the English language, then write it properly so the word fits, and I will change my comments.
As it is you have written a sentence that is either unintelligible or misuses one word.
Once again, I guess I must apologize for assuming you knew how to write and misused the word rather than you used the right word but it can't be determined from the way you write it.

 

[ausbacker]

Not really.
Of course instead of acting like a teenage girl and posting stuff like this, you could actually clarify the post in question. If you really used the word properly and just masacared the English language, then write it properly so the word fits, and I will change my comments.
As it is you have written a sentence that is either unintelligible or misuses one word.
Once again, I guess I must apologize for assuming you knew how to write and misused the word rather than you used the right word but it can't be determined from the way you write it.

The irony of this post is even more priceless.

 

[mb6592]

Out of curiosity, if a defense has played 12 games, how many would it have to play well enough to deserve to win to be solidly above middle of the road'? I guess it must be at least 10 in your opinion, and since you judge the statement ridiculous perhaps it must be 12 of 12 to not be mediocre. Please give me that number so I can further understand the knowledge and intellect behind your meanderings.

You couldn't stop yourself could you, you just couldn't stop yourself. Step away from the f---ing keyboard. This defense cannot be assumed to be or in actuality be or in any other way be "solidly above middle of the road." Too many missing pieces too be considered that. Belichick can coach decent performances out of any defense, it would seem, but that doesn't make this defense "solidly above middle of the road."

 

[Ring 6]

You couldn't stop yourself could you, you just couldn't stop yourself. Step away from the f---ing keyboard. This defense cannot be assumed to be or in actuality be or in any other way be "solidly above middle of the road." Too many missing pieces too be considered that. Belichick can coach decent performances out of any defense, it would seem, but that doesn't make this defense "solidly above middle of the road."

You can think whatever you want.
But the question remains. Out of 12 games how many would a defense have to play well enough to deserve to win for you to consider them solidly above average.
It is a real question. It strips away any chance for you to be subjective, whine, cry, use yardage, etc,etc,etc.
The game is measured in wins and losses. Every defense in the NFL has (at the point of the OP) gone out and played 12 games. Some played well enough to deserve to win, whether the stats were good or bad, and others played bad enough to deserve to lose, whether the stats were good or bad.
When the poster responded to 9 out of 12 with middle of the road, I responded to that, because I would consider middle of the road to be playing well enough to deserve to win 6 times in 12 games. I kinda thought that was obvious.
Please enlighten me on what percentage of games a defense must play well enough to deserve to win in order to be solidly above the middle of the pack. Clearly it is significantly more than 75% in your mind.

Alternatively, you could describe what matters more than winning.

 

[Ring 6]

The irony of this post is even more priceless.

Aha, so your position is that you refuse to clarify what you meant?
So now, I must assume that what you meant is whatever means that you are right, and you refuse to clarify what you meant, and that makes me wrong, because I can't read your mind any better than you writing?

 

[ausbacker]

Aha, so your position is that you refuse to clarify what you meant?
So now, I must assume that what you meant is whatever means that you are right, and you refuse to clarify what you meant, and that makes me wrong, because I can't read your mind any better than you writing?

Given it appears you're the only person with the comprehension problem I'd suggest the problem lies with you, similar to your homeristic, head in the sand attitude toward the complimentary defense.

 

[BlackandBlue1111]

Some people are just blind Homers.

 

[Ring 6]

Given it appears you're the only person with the comprehension problem I;d suggest the problem lies with you, similar to your homeristic, head in the sand attitude toward the complimentary defense.

Because no one else is responding to a discussion between you and I you assume that means it is written properly?
So we can assume every post ever written on this board that no one questioned the understanding of was well written?
Why is it so difficult for you to clarify what you were trying to say, or God forbid accept that you either used the wrong word, or you wrote the sentence poorly.

See it's this kind of useless little teenage butt hurt attitude of yours that makes it impossible to have a conversation with you. You made some type of grammatical error, and instead of clarify you have turned it into a 20 post pissing match.
This is why a month or so ago, I decided you were not worth trying to have a meaningful discussion with. I am now sorry I decided you were worth another chance. It is just pointless to expect you to have an adult discussion.
Go ahead and stick to form, and throw a parting insult toward me, as I will give you the last word.

 

[ausbacker]

Because no one else is responding to a discussion between you and I you assume that means it is written properly?
So we can assume every post ever written on this board that no one questioned the understanding of was well written?
Why is it so difficult for you to clarify what you were trying to say, or God forbid accept that you either used the wrong word, or you wrote the sentence poorly.

See it's this kind of useless little teenage butt hurt attitude of yours that makes it impossible to have a conversation with you. You made some type of grammatical error, and instead of clarify you have turned it into a 20 post pissing match.
This is why a month or so ago, I decided you were not worth trying to have a meaningful discussion with. I am now sorry I decided you were worth another chance. It is just pointless to expect you to have an adult discussion.
Go ahead and stick to form, and throw a parting insult toward me, as I will give you the last word.

 

[ATippett56]

Because no one else is responding to a discussion between you and I you assume that means it is written properly?

More like beating a dead horse.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Wha? The Patriots defense is better than the Giants defense?

Lets see. For the season, the Giants are allowing almost 27ppg and 40ppg in their last 3 and the Pats are allowing 19.5 in their last 10 and have not given up more than 25 ppg in that span. Granted they did play NO and GB and were shredded so they only proved that they can't stand up to GB and NO.

With that said- yes. I would take the Pats D.

 

[DeionShow]

The Saints and Packers could score 100 against the Patriots if they wanted to.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Bumping this thread because I think the discussion that came of it was very interesting.

Have some of the "D-Bashers" changed their assessments or is a stout performance vs the Ravens an in the SB (hopefully) is what will convince you that this defense, while not elite is functional enough to give the offense enough chances to win?

I believe vs the Ravens, they just might need to.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The Saints and Packers could score 100 against the Patriots if they wanted to.

LOL Apparently they didn't want to. Not to mention the possibility that with this D holding them to 100 this O had the ability to score 101 against them had they shown up.

You know, for all the crap Andy endures here he's remarkably, annually way more often than not closer to right about his assessments of this team than any of it's or his myriad of critics.

 

[Mack Herron]

There is certainly ample basis for claiming the D is porous, as many have done. But it is difficult to sort out the impact of changes in schemes and personnel. For instance, when Chung, Spikes and Fletcher returned and McCourty was moved to safety with Moore on the outside on sub packages, the D was outstanding. Some have dismissed their performance because of the opposition. We will see.

 

[ausbacker]

LOL Apparently they didn't want to. Not to mention the possibility that with this D holding them to 100 this O had the ability to score 101 against them had they shown up.

You know, for all the crap Andy endures here he's remarkably, annually way more often than not closer to right about his assessments of this team than any of it's or his myriad of critics.

I think you need to re-read the OP.

There was nothing complimentary about the Defense against the Broncos. They played a dominant game.

 

[Patriot Missile]

I will say this about the secondary. The chemistry is the key. BB has mixed and matched parts for a majority of the season and it seems the formula is now stable. The stable parts being

McCourty playing both CB and Safety has been huge. He seems to have found his niche again and put wrinkles in the opposing offenses plans. Arrington being mostly solid the whole season with a few hiccups along the way is as close to solid as we are going to get out of the position. Ihedigbo has chipped in nicely and seems to have found a full time spot in sub packages and he performs well. Great pickup. Add Sterling Moore who to me seems like a sponge soaking in the knowledge from the the players and coaches has also fit in nicely. Chung is the xfactor and there is nothing more to say how much he means to the team.

This is a unit that can win the super bowl imo. A far cry from many weeks ago when we relying on Sergio Brown and Josh Barrett to carry a large load of the secondary. No disrespect to Brown but he is much better suited for dime formations and special teams. As much as some people dislike him for his pi against the Giants earlier, his contributions in the special teams are above and beyond his weight for this team.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I will say this about the secondary. The chemistry is the key. BB has mixed and matched parts for a majority of the season and it seems the formula is now stable. The stable parts being

McCourty playing both CB and Safety has been huge. He seems to have found his niche again and put wrinkles in the opposing offenses plans. Arrington being mostly solid the whole season with a few hiccups along the way is as close to solid as we are going to get out of the position. Ihedigbo has chipped in nicely and seems to have found a full time spot in sub packages and he performs well. Great pickup. Add Sterling Moore who to me seems like a sponge soaking in the knowledge from the the players and coaches has also fit in nicely. Chung is the xfactor and there is nothing more to say how much he means to the team.

This is a unit that can win the super bowl imo. A far cry from many weeks ago when we relying on Sergio Brown and Josh Barrett to carry a large load of the secondary. No disrespect to Brown but he is much better suited for dime formations and special teams. As much as some people dislike him for his pi against the Giants earlier, his contributions in the special teams are above and beyond his weight for this team.

Wilfork and McGinest also think confidence is the key. I tend to agree.

NFL Films nerd Greg Cosell has man-love for Spikes.

Cosell has quickly taken a liking to Patriots linebacker Brandon Spikes, whom he called “arguably the most physical and violent inside linebacker’’ in the NFL, and his return to the field three weeks ago, along with the return of safety Patrick Chung, have made a difference.

Patriots' defense may be on the rise - The Boston Globe