Alone atop the AFC at 11-3

[Deus Irae]

Ah, but is that a better representation than points allowed?

2000- 17th
2001- 6th!
2002- 17th
2003- 1st
2004- 2nd
2005- 17th
2006- 2nd
2007- 4th
2008- 8th
2009- 5th
2010- 8th
2011- 14th

They've actually shadowed one another for the most part. The times they haven't? 2001 (again, the outlier season), 2010 and 2011. You seem as if you're trying to dismiss yardage allowed rather than noting it's imperfect. I don't buy that approach. Points allowed is imperfect, too, as 2010 showed and 2011 is showing. Heck, one could reasonably argue that yards allowed has been a more accurate barometer of the Patriots defense than points allowed during the BB era, because the points allowed in 2010 and 2011 are so out of touch with what's actually on the field.

What about turnovers?

2000- 24th
2001- 6th
2002- 16th
2003- 2nd
2004- 3rd
2005- 17th
2006- 4th
2007- 9th
2008- 21st
2009- 12th
2010- 2nd
2011- 6th

Turnovers are important in looking at individual games and breaking down reasons for wins and losses. They become much less meaningful over the course of a full season, because the rollover effect of statistically bizarre outcomes can't really be adjusted for. Just a look at 2008-2011 demonstrates that pretty well, IMO.

I would argue that in looking at those statistics, one is able to see that the best defenses the team has had, and the championship teams were ranked higher in these statistical categories than in yards allowed. I think that the 2003 and 2004 defenses were the best in the league, certainly better than 7th and 9th, respectively. However, the 2003 and 2004 teams were in the top 3 of both points and turnovers. It also serves to illustrate the hidden strengths and weaknesses of teams misrepresented by yardage. See the 2001 team. Sixth in points allowed and takeaways. Far more akin to the team that shut down the greatest show on turf than a 24th ranking would represent. I would argue that the 9th ranking in turnovers the 2007 team had is a glaring outlier for a unit that had so many teams trying to keep up through the air. I also remember this argument being made in 2003 and 2004 to people citing yardage when the Pats clearly were the best defense in the NFL.

I would argue that you're ignoring the impact of two things - coaching and playing style. The Patriots are consistently ranked higher in points allowed than yards allowed, regardless of the quality of the defense. Therefore, in order to look at either stat, this must be taken into account. As for turnovers, they're far too likely to produce out of whack numbers over the course of a season.

Is this year's defense relatively bad? Yes. Yet it is not the worst in the league, and it is clearly not the worst in the post-Brady era.

I don't think there's any question that this defense is about as bad as any BB's put on the field since becoming Patriots head coach (arguing 2000, 2002, 2005, 2011 is an exercise in futility (although it can be fun futility) because of the radical changes in the way the Patriots play. Talent-wise, it's quite possibly the worst BB's ever put on the field.

 

[jays52]

I don't think there's any question that this defense is about as bad as any BB's put on the field since becoming Patriots head coach (arguing 2000, 2002, 2005, 2011 is an exercise in futility (although it can be fun futility) because of the radical changes in the way the Patriots play. Talent-wise, it's quite possibly the worst BB's ever put on the field.

Well argued, and point taken. I'll look into it deeper. Thanks!

 

[scout]

I keep hearing the announcers state we are the worst defense. Which everyone knows is based on yards. Logically, points allowed determines winners and losers. Red zone defense is also a better indication then yards, and we rank 13th (1 in front of the Jets) and right behind Detroit. Interestingly, we rank #2 in red zone scoring (right in back of the Jets).
We have allowed 297 points: #14th (there are 4 teams 293-297).
Other:
Scoring defense: 14th.
Interceptions: tied 4th. (last place passing defense)
Stating we are the worst defensive team is saying these teams are defensively better: Buffalo (371), Raiders (382), Colts (395), Giants (372), Rams (346), Vikings (406), Panthers (368), Buccaneers (401).
When I looked at the NFL defensive stats they did not show points allowed. Guess it's not that important.

 

[Rob0729]

ha, you should change your point to, "there's no correlation of yards to points for the top three ppg offenses".

I've been trying to find the yards per quarter allowed, but they don't have it for some reason on the defensive splits. Not that this really has anything to do with my initial point i was trying to make, but you have me interested since you brought it up.

No I stand by my point. The Giants are not a high powered offense by any stretch of the definition. Yes they are capable of putting up over 30 points in games, but not consistently. They have had 5 games this season where they scored 20 or fewer points in a game. High powered offenses don't look average like that so frequently.

A high powered offense is an offense capable of scoring 30 plus points any given week. The Giants can do that, but not with the consistency that is required by a high powered offense. Again, 11 teams have scored more points this year than the Giants. You can't be a high powered offense if nearly a third of the league scores more points than you do.

But then again, the Pats, Packers, and Saints are probably the only true high powered offenses because the points total drop significantly after those three teams.

 

[Deus Irae]

I keep hearing the announcers state we are the worst defense. Which everyone knows is based on yards. Logically, points allowed determines winners and losers. Red zone defense is also a better indication then yards, and we rank 13th (1 in front of the Jets) and right behind Detroit. Interestingly, we rank #2 in red zone scoring (right in back of the Jets).

Excellent opportunity to point out why ignoring yards but focusing on only a couple of things is a bad idea. Does anyone really think the Patriots are the second best defense in the NFL and that the Jets are the best?

 

[scout]

Excellent opportunity to point out why ignoring yards but focusing on only a couple of things is a bad idea. Does anyone really think the Patriots are the second best defense in the NFL and that the Jets are the best?

No, it was red zone SCORING. Jets are 1st, Patriots 2nd. (unless I've been in front of the screen too long).
Your right, looking at one item will skew the findings. From all the stats, I would say we are slightly above average defensively.

 

[shmessy]

I wasn't posting on a Green Bay message board, big boy.

So ignore how Green Bay is #31 in this category. And that New Orleans is #25.

It is only the New England Patriots who don't have a good chance because of this statistic.

You are pure genius.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well argued, and point taken. I'll look into it deeper. Thanks!

I should really have done more on this in the recent past, but I considered most of it to seem pretty intuitive (and I was being a bit lazy about it, too). Just taking a quick look at 2005, gives us this:

Johnson retires/Bruschi strokes, leaving Brown and Beisel in the middle
Law moves on and Starks is brought in. Hobbs ends up replacing Starks.

The defense still had

Seymour/Warren/Wilfork
Vrabel/Colvin/McGinest
Samuel/Harrison (Wilson was already gun shy at this point, and was a shell of his 2003-2004 self)

So there was still a lot of talent there, but the turmoil in the middle was too much to overcome (there were other issues, obviously, but that serves as a basic gloss, I think). I think you and I would take that overall talent over 2011, but having to go with the Beisel/Brown/Starks trio, combined with the disintegration of Wilson killed that defense in my estimation.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, it was red zone SCORING. Jets are 1st, Patriots 2nd. (unless I've been in front of the screen too long).
Your right, looking at one item will skew the findings. From all the stats, I would say we are slightly above average defensively.

I get that it was red zone scoring. That's why I brought it up as an example.

 

[Deus Irae]

So ignore how Green Bay is #31 in this category. And that New Orleans is #25.

Only the New England Patriots don't have a good chance because of this statistic.

You are pure genius.

I'm reasonably certain that this thread is about the Patriots being alone on top of the AFC, and about the Patriots chances. That's certainly the perspective I was taking.

If it's about the Packers and Saints, perhaps you could change the thread title, the OP, and the entire thrust of the thread for everyone, so that such a fact can be understood.

 

[jays52]

I should really have done more on this in the recent past, but I considered most of it to seem pretty intuitive (and I was being a bit lazy about it, too). Just taking a quick look at 2005, gives us this:

Johnson retires/Bruschi strokes, leaving Brown and Beisel in the middle
Law moves on and Starks is brought in. Hobbs ends up replacing Starks.

The defense still had

Seymour/Warren/Wilfork
Vrabel/Colvin/McGinest
Samuel/Harrison (Wilson was already gun shy at this point, and was a shell of his 2003-2004 self)

So there was still a lot of talent there, but the turmoil in the middle was too much to overcome (there were other issues, obviously, but that serves as a basic gloss, I think). I think you and I would take that overall talent over 2011, but having to go with the Beisel/Brown/Starks trio, combined with the disintegration of Wilson killed that defense in my estimation.

Absolutely. While we're on the topic of Wilson, could you imagine if he continued to progress from 2004? He'd be 31 now...imagine if he continued that path and was on the 2007 team...

 

[shmessy]

I'm reasonably certain that this thread is about the Patriots being alone on top of the AFC, and about the Patriots chances. That's certainly the perspective I was taking.

If it's about the Packers and Saints, perhaps you could change the thread title, the OP, and the entire thrust of the thread for everyone, so that such a fact can be understood.

Oh, so the NFL is comprised of one team?

The Patriots "CHANCES" are based on competition.

"Being alone on top of the AFC" means they are ahead of OTHER TEAMS. It doesn't mean anything if it is a one team league.

In this thread, you've commented on RANKINGS of this defense. Whom, pray tell, are you basing those ranking against? One team?

Do you even read what you write?

 

[Deus Irae]

Oh, so the NFL is comprised of one team?

The Patriots "CHANCES" are based on competition.

"Being alone on top of the AFC" means they are ahead of OTHER TEAMS. It doesn't mean anything if it is a one team league.

In this thread, you've commented on RANKINGS of this defense. Whom, pray tell, are you basing those ranking against? One team?

Do you even read what you write?

Yes. The Packers and Saints are in the NFC, not the AFC. They are also not the topic of discussion.


It seems that the one who doesn't read his own writing is you. Of course, since you're just doing your usual stalk and troll, that doesn't matter much, right?

 

[rojo8401]

I was just arguing about the Pats defense with a buddy of mine. He was saying that the opinion of the 'analysts' were wrong and that the Pats defense was not that bad.

While I'm usually at the losing end of our arguments, I only had to point out that the opinions of people who have both played the game and coached it carry a bit more weight than those of us speculating on message boards and around water coolers.

The consensus among those types of people is that the defense is bad. It's as simple as that. Statistics be damned.

 

[Deus Irae]

Absolutely. While we're on the topic of Wilson, could you imagine if he continued to progress from 2004? He'd be 31 now...imagine if he continued that path and was on the 2007 team...

I'd have loved to see it. He played with a reckless abandon and was actually a big and courageous hitter despite his size. If memory serves, he actually got one of those rare fines (Well, rare before the changing of the Ommissioner) for launching on someone. People used to fear going over the middle of that defense, because they knew that neither safety was going to let them off light.

Unfortunately, those two breaks seemed to crack him, mentally.

 

[rojo8401]

I'd have loved to see it. He played with a reckless abandon and was actually a big and courageous hitter despite his size. If memory serves, he actually got one of those rare fines (Well, rare before the changing of the Ommissioner) for launching on someone. People used to fear going over the middle of that defense, because they knew that neither safety was going to let them off light.

Unfortunately, those two breaks seemed to crack him, mentally.

Totally disagree on Wilson. They should have never converted him to safety. He was too slight and had to launch himself to provide impetus.

The Pats basically ruined a good corner out of dire need.

 

[Froob]

I wouldn't overlook the jets. If they're one thing they're confident and resilient. Will be a lot of pressure on the pats if they one and done again. Gotta get it done this year. I've missed most of the season at bmt so can't say much. How did Edelman and slater end up d?

 

[SpiderFox53]

I was just arguing about the Pats defense with a buddy of mine. He was saying that the opinion of the 'analysts' were wrong and that the Pats defense was not that bad.

While I'm usually at the losing end of our arguments, I only had to point out that the opinions of people who have both played the game and coached it carry a bit more weight than those of us speculating on message boards and around water coolers.

The consensus among those types of people is that the defense is bad. It's as simple as that. Statistics be damned.

But those same people don't think Green Bay or New Orleans have bad defenses, so what does that tell you about their opinions? That they say what they need to say to generate hits/ratings maybe?

This does not mean I think the Pats defense is GOOD by any stretch.

 

[ausbacker]

Oh, so the NFL is comprised of one team?

The Patriots "CHANCES" are based on competition.

"Being alone on top of the AFC" means they are ahead of OTHER TEAMS. It doesn't mean anything if it is a one team league.

In this thread, you've commented on RANKINGS of this defense. Whom, pray tell, are you basing those ranking against? One team?

Do you even read what you write?

There seems to be one truly elite defense in the NFL in 2011. It so happens that the 49ers Offense is fairly pedestrian.

To be honest, the match up that captivates me the most right now would be New Orleans versus San Francisco.

 

[shmessy]

There seems to be one truly elite defense in the NFL in 2011. It so happens that the 49ers Offense is fairly pedestrian.

To be honest, the match up that captivates me the most right now would be New Orleans versus San Francisco.

Yeah, but since SF and NO are in the NFC, it doesn't matter, according to Deus Irae.