Atlanta's Defense

[sambam94]

Media and some pundits will try to play up the Atl D as they have improved during the year..blah, blah.
The truth is that this is an average defense and Brady is going to shred them to pieces. All the Pats defense needs to do is slow Atl down a bit..that's it...Brady and the offense will do the rest.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

you're right, just looking at overall averages can be deceiving. i've dug deeper into the numbers, looking at each team's performance against offenses and defenses sorted into quartiles by scoring rank.

some observations:

• the patriots have not played many good offenses (only 1 offense ranked 1-8)
  
• the patriots have played against a lot of bad offenses (7 ranked 25-32)
• the falcons have played against a lot of good offenses (6 ranked 1-8)
• the falcons have played against very few bad offenses (2 ranked 25-32)
• HOWEVER, in each offensive quartile rank, the patriots have held offenses to 6-8 fewer points than the falcons have (the exception being the 4th quartile, where the difference is less than a field goal)
• the patriots have faced a few more good defenses (11 in the top half, vs 8 for the falcons)
• against teams in the top two quartile ranks of defense, the patriots have
• 
  
• scored only a field goal less than the falcons (25.0 vs 27.8 for ranks 1-8, 27.3 vs 30.0 for ranks 9-16)
• the main difference in points comes against bottom half defenses, against which the falcons offense has scored about a touchdown more than the patriots offense; i note that the the score differential against bottom quartile defenses is 20.3 for the patriots vs. 12.7 for the falcons, so it could be that the patriots were under less pressure to keep scoring than the falcons in those games).

conclusions: the offenses are roughly comparable, with the falcons probably being slightly better (by a field goal or less), but the patriots defense is better than the falcons defense by about a touchdown.

Thank you for taking time to put this together. Any thoughts on what Hannable observed in his column. Do you agree with his conclusions:

Falcons could be like Steelers where Patriots expose weaknesses in big way

[Click Here For Full Entry]​

The Falcons had eight games (including the playoffs) where they faced defenses better than 20th in points allowed per game, and in those games the Falcons scored 28.9 points per game. In the 10 games against defenses 20th or worse in the league, the Falcons scored 38.9 points per game. That is exactly a 10-point difference between good and bad competition, which is pretty telling.

On defense, the Falcons were one of the worst units in the league, allowing an average of 25.4 points a game in the regular season, good for 27th in the NFL. The overall numbers could have been even worse if not for having games against poor offenses. In six games against top 10 offenses, the Falcons allowed 32.9 points a game, which is compared to 20.8 points a game in 12 games against offenses not in the top 10. A 12-point difference. Not good.

It appears the Falcons thrive on bad competition and are a different team when facing the better teams in the league. The Patriots on the other hand are the same team no matter who they are going up against.

New England finished first in points allowed per game at 15.4. It played five games against top 10 offenses and allowed 19 points per game in those games, which is in comparison to allowing 14.5 points per game in the 13 games against offenses not in the top 10. A 4.5-point difference is something to take note of, but is not even close to the difference for Atlanta.

The Patriots finished fourth in points per game on offense, but the most impressive thing was it didn't matter who they played. They scored 28.5 points a game against defenses that finished in the top 11 in points allowed, and scored 28.2 points a game against defenses not in the top 11. No difference at all.

Bottom line, no matter who the Patriots played, they were the same team. It wasn't a case of looking better against bad teams, or playing bad against good teams.​

 

[TommyD4207]

Media and some pundits will try to play up the Atl D as they have improved during the year..blah, blah.
The truth is that this is an average defense and Brady is going to shred them to pieces. All the Pats defense needs to do is slow Atl down a bit..that's it...Brady and the offense will do the rest.

"Average" is generous.

 

[goheels22002]

You sure are going to be disappointed about how wrong you are. I don't expect you to have watched all of our games, but you couldn't be any further off about the quality of our D. If you had watched any of our games, you'd see the exact moment in the fourth quarter in nearly every game when the team quit trying, and started trading yards and points for time off of the clock. As a fan, this was nerve racking because it made the games way closer than they were. I can only assume this was to help reduce the grind over the course of the season. Had they kept their foot on the gas throughout the whole game, then they likely finish top 16 in scoring D. You can literally see the exact moment in each game where this happens. I'm hoping we see it again next Sunday!

I notice that the Falcons gave up 28 or more points in 9 out of 16 games in 2016. Nice defense you got there. They lost five of those games. Atlanta Falcons 2016 Regular Season Schedule - NFL.com

What exactly do you think the Patriots have been doing for the past 15 years? Brady and the offense put up 27+ ppg while the defense usually plays all 60 minutes. The Patriots had several nightmare years in the late 2000s, early 2010s when the secondary couldn't stop anybody. Heart disease skyrocketed among members of this board during those years. I'm still surprised the CDC didn't shut down the Patriots as a health risk.

Belichick addressed that in 2014 with Revis and Browner, and the Patriots won the SuperBowl coming back from a 10-point deficit in the 4th quarter and slamming the door with Malcolm Butler's INT on the goal line. Brady torched the 2014 Legion of Boom, one of the finest defenses in NFL history.

If you think the Falcons' mediocre defense can play cat and mouse with Tom Brady, Josh McDaniels and this offense to take time off the clock, you better think again.

 

[bbobbo]

Thank you for taking time to put this together. Any thoughts on what Hannable observed in his column. Do you agree with his conclusions:

Falcons could be like Steelers where Patriots expose weaknesses in big way

[Click Here For Full Entry]​

The Falcons had eight games (including the playoffs) where they faced defenses better than 20th in points allowed per game, and in those games the Falcons scored 28.9 points per game. In the 10 games against defenses 20th or worse in the league, the Falcons scored 38.9 points per game. That is exactly a 10-point difference between good and bad competition, which is pretty telling.

On defense, the Falcons were one of the worst units in the league, allowing an average of 25.4 points a game in the regular season, good for 27th in the NFL. The overall numbers could have been even worse if not for having games against poor offenses. In six games against top 10 offenses, the Falcons allowed 32.9 points a game, which is compared to 20.8 points a game in 12 games against offenses not in the top 10. A 12-point difference. Not good.

It appears the Falcons thrive on bad competition and are a different team when facing the better teams in the league. The Patriots on the other hand are the same team no matter who they are going up against.

New England finished first in points allowed per game at 15.4. It played five games against top 10 offenses and allowed 19 points per game in those games, which is in comparison to allowing 14.5 points per game in the 13 games against offenses not in the top 10. A 4.5-point difference is something to take note of, but is not even close to the difference for Atlanta.

The Patriots finished fourth in points per game on offense, but the most impressive thing was it didn't matter who they played. They scored 28.5 points a game against defenses that finished in the top 11 in points allowed, and scored 28.2 points a game against defenses not in the top 11. No difference at all.

Bottom line, no matter who the Patriots played, they were the same team. It wasn't a case of looking better against bad teams, or playing bad against good teams.​

hannable is cutting up the data slightly differently, but i think we're pretty much saying the same thing.

 

[Rivered082]

Clearly that makes them the second coming of the 85 Bears. We are now all scared. Our offense that just put up 27 points vs the #1 defense (who matches up much better against us than Atlanta's defense does, and whose DC has an intimate knowledge of our team) and 36 points on "the hottest defense over the last 8 weeks," led by the greatest QB in postseason history, a #1 WR who is climbing the postseason record charts, and features a dynamic running game will struggle against this juggernaut defense.

Are you referring to the team with the 4th worst offense in the league, Houston? Let's be realistic, now. You struggled mightily against them until they started gift wrapping turnovers to you in the 4th quarter. Or you talking about the team that wets the bed every time it plays you, Pitt? I'm not saying we have the Gritz Blitz, the Monsters of the Midway, or the Steel Curtain, but you guys sound a lot like every other team we've played that underestimated the defense. I'm just saying, don't be shocked if you don't score at will like you think you will. I wouldn't be shocked if you scored 30+, but I don't think you will. Atlanta has broken the will of every top 10 D they have played, and overall I think Seattle and Denver's D's are better than yours. I'd be confident if I were you guys, too, but I don't think you realize what's about to hit you. I'll let you guys keep underestimating them, though. Don't say I didn't tell you so after the game, though. I'm calling it 33-24 Atlanta. That's pretty close to our averages, so I'm pretty comfortable with that. I'll come eat my crow if I'm wrong, but I'm feeling pretty confident about that prediction.

 

[TommyD4207]

I'm calling it 33-24 Atlanta. .

Go to Vegas and put money on it. On the money line. You'll make a ton.

 

[luuked]

I'm calling it 33-24 Atlanta. That's pretty close to our averages, so I'm pretty comfortable with that. I'll come eat my crow if I'm wrong, but I'm feeling pretty confident about that prediction.

You should start at around 32-35 upwards mate.. I wouldn't be surprised if we score 21 in the first half alone..

 

[TommyD4207]

You should start at around 32-35 upwards mate.. I wouldn't be surprised if we score 21 in the first half alone..

Seriously, if he thinks Atlanta will win by 2 scores, he should take out a second mortgage on the house, and put it all on the money line.

 

[JMC00]

Are you referring to the team with the 4th worst offense in the league, Houston? Let's be realistic, now. You struggled mightily against them until they started gift wrapping turnovers to you in the 4th quarter. Or you talking about the team that wets the bed every time it plays you, Pitt? I'm not saying we have the Gritz Blitz, the Monsters of the Midway, or the Steel Curtain, but you guys sound a lot like every other team we've played that underestimated the defense. I'm just saying, don't be shocked if you don't score at will like you think you will. I wouldn't be shocked if you scored 30+, but I don't think you will. Atlanta has broken the will of every top 10 D they have played, and overall I think Seattle and Denver's D's are better than yours. I'd be confident if I were you guys, too, but I don't think you realize what's about to hit you. I'll let you guys keep underestimating them, though. Don't say I didn't tell you so after the game, though. I'm calling it 33-24 Atlanta. That's pretty close to our averages, so I'm pretty comfortable with that. I'll come eat my crow if I'm wrong, but I'm feeling pretty confident about that prediction.

Explain the Chargers. Eagles and Chiefs games then.

Eagles shut you down and ran you over, Chargers came back from 27-10 to win 33-30 in your building and Captain Checkdown looked like Joe Montana completing 84% of his passes at 10.8 yards per attempt and a 125 QB rating.

 

[luuked]

 

[TommyD4207]

Now imagine how the starter, now healthy, Dion Lewis will do.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

When discussing the Falcons on defense, it's worth bringing up how bad they are when it comes to stopping the run.

Atlanta allowed 104.5 yards per game on the ground in the regular season, 17th in the league and has allowed over 100 yards in six of its last seven games. The one game it didn't was Sunday against the Packers when it allowed 99 yards. The Falcons also allowed the sixth-most yards per carry in the NFL (4.5 ypc) and most of their front-seven defenders (playing indoors in a dome) are better suited to defend against the pass than they are against the run.

Granted, this has been well disguised the past two weeks by leaping out to big early leads. But provided the Patriots don't also fall behind big, everything points towards them to being able to run the ball with success. The Eagles proved that if you line up, run the ball on a regular, repetitive basis, you will get plenty of yardage, own the time of possession, and get enough to points to win games against Atlanta.

 

[FourierSeries]

Are you referring to the team with the 4th worst offense in the league, Houston? Let's be realistic, now. You struggled mightily against them until they started gift wrapping turnovers to you in the 4th quarter. Or you talking about the team that wets the bed every time it plays you, Pitt? I'm not saying we have the Gritz Blitz, the Monsters of the Midway, or the Steel Curtain, but you guys sound a lot like every other team we've played that underestimated the defense. I'm just saying, don't be shocked if you don't score at will like you think you will. I wouldn't be shocked if you scored 30+, but I don't think you will. Atlanta has broken the will of every top 10 D they have played, and overall I think Seattle and Denver's D's are better than yours. I'd be confident if I were you guys, too, but I don't think you realize what's about to hit you. I'll let you guys keep underestimating them, though. Don't say I didn't tell you so after the game, though. I'm calling it 33-24 Atlanta. That's pretty close to our averages, so I'm pretty comfortable with that. I'll come eat my crow if I'm wrong, but I'm feeling pretty confident about that prediction.

Broken the will of every top 10 D? Denver held you to 23 points. Seattle, when healthy, beat you.

As far as the defense, you've got an inferiority complex about that unit, which is obvious and understandable. Going as far as claiming they are nearly on the same level as Seattle's 2013-2014 defense is absurd. But this is probably your first time watching your team in the SB, so I understand your enthusiasm and optimism.

 

[Wheelssps]

When discussing the Falcons on defense, it's worth bringing up how bad they are when it comes to stopping the run.

Atlanta allowed 104.5 yards per game on the ground in the regular season, 17th in the league and has allowed over 100 yards in six of its last seven games. The one game it didn't was Sunday against the Packers when it allowed 99 yards. The Falcons also allowed the sixth-most yards per carry in the NFL (4.5 ypc) and most of their front-seven defenders are better against the pass than they are against the run.

Granted, this has been well disguised the past two weeks by leaping out to big early leads. But provided the Patriots don't also fall behind big, everything points towards them to being able to run the ball with success.

Time to dust off the tried and true COLTS gameplan!

 

[JMC00]

Broken the will of every top 10 D? Denver held you to 23 points. Seattle, when healthy, beat you.

Eagles the #12 scoring defense and the #13 yards defense held them to 15 points (18 points below their season average) and 303 yards (112 yards under their season average)

Not to mention KC a top 10 scoring defense beat them.

 

[Kontradiction]

Time to dust off the tried and true COLTS gameplan!

Which is basically what the Pats will do. My guess is we'll see a lot of designed runs using 11, 12, and 21 personnel. Force the Falcons to regularly drop a safety into the box for support then hit 'em up with play action. Rinse and repeat.

 

[TommyD4207]

Which is basically what the Pats will do. My guess is we'll see a lot of designed runs using 11, 12, and 21 personnel. Force the Falcons to regularly drop a safety into the box for support then hit 'em up with play action. Rinse and repeat.

And they won't be dropping Brittle Bobby Sanders in his prime, into the box.

 

[Kontradiction]

And they won't be dropping Brittle Bobby Sanders in his prime, into the box.

Nope, but the Falcons defense features a lot of single high safety looks, too, though which the Pats could be successful at throwing at. I highly doubt they stay in their "base" defense for very long, though, since it's essentially a zone based concept (they do press the WR's, though, which is something Pittsburgh didn't seem willing to do) and, well, we all know what Brady does to that kind of scheme. I think we'll see the Falcons play more man under than they have throughout the year in this game. Quinn is no idiot as a DC. He saw what Brady did to the same scheme with better ponies in Super Bowl 49. That said, I would welcome that look too since there would be opportunities for big plays for Hogan, Mitchell, and Edelman downfield.

 

[yopats]

Now imagine how the starter, now healthy, Dion Lewis will do.

Yup they like to use a FB w/ Blount