Can this team win a ring with Pees at coordinator?

[Rob0729]

I agree that Pees is too easily the lightning rod for criticism when it comes to indicting our defense for something. After all, he is not responsible for our third quarter scoring woes.

A coordinator being an unjust lightning rod for criticism?!? In Patriot Nation?!?

I'm not a huge fan of Pees personally. Have issues in the past with the aggressiveness of the defense, but to bring it up after yesterday's game is a little ridiculous since the Pats did cause 5 turnovers and held the Jets to 7 points on offense.

 

[Deus Irae]

Nice to see that the silliness is not confined to bashing players and the offensive coordinator. The defense played a tie game against the Jets offense yesterday, at 7-7, and people are complaining about Pees because of one drive in the 3rd quarter.

I've had my issues with the game planning of this team during this season, but the Jets game for this sort of complaint was the first one, not yesterday's game.

Yesterday's game was an example of brilliant defensive strategy.

 

[PatsDeb]

I can't really agree with you there.

The personnel on this defense is fine, overall. The pass rush is a bit lacking, and we could use a bit more experience, but overall the defense has performed well. What is perplexing is the repeated examples of how we attack and dominate teams and then revert to a passive, soft scheme. I can't put the blame for that on the players. They're not the ones calling the schemes.

Soft defensive coverage killed us in the Denver and Indy games, and hurt is in the 3rd quarter against the Ravens and Jets. I'm not "passing judgment", but it's enough to make me nervous that we haven't learned from our mistakes.

I didn't vote because my answer is, of course we can win, but I don't always get the defenses we call either. I thought at the end of last year we were making strides in sending Merriwether on blitzes, for example. I don't understand why we almost never start to tee off on opposing QBs once we get a lead, except that BB/Peas must think we don't have the horses to do that or that the risk is bigger than the reward. Keeping everything in front of you seems to work great for the first half, but it seems to wear the D out and leaving them chasing the play in the 2nd. Why not mix it up & be aggressive against opposing QBs? Sanchez might actually be an exception to that as he was making such awful throwing decisions, but Peyton Manning certainly is not.

 

[maverick4]

I'm not a huge fan of Pees personally. Have issues in the past with the aggressiveness of the defense, but to bring it up after yesterday's game is a little ridiculous since the Pats did cause 5 turnovers and held the Jets to 7 points on offense.

This thread isn't in response to yesterday's game. Not everything has to be reactionary, even if that is how you think/operate as a fan.

This is a higher level question of Pees' performance spanning since 2006.

 

[Patspsycho]

This thread isn't in response to yesterday's game. Not everything has to be reactionary, even if that is how you think/operate as a fan.

This is a higher level question of Pees' performance spanning since 2005.

Since 2006 you mean. That's when he became DC after Ratgini left.

 

[maverick4]

Since 2006 you mean. That's when he became DC after Ratgini left.

Right, thanks, I meant 2006 after Mangina left.

mayoclinic given everything you wrote, that you think Pees is more a liability than an asset, you still think they can win a ring with Pees calling the shots?

The talent on defense has been fine. It's the play-calling that has let teams come back on us.

 

[BradyFTW!]

How about none of the above. Pees isn't awesome, but he's fine. The Pats were a minute from winning the SB with him in 2007, so only an idiot would claim that it can't happen.

 

[maverick4]

How about none of the above. Pees isn't awesome, but he's fine. The Pats were a minute from winning the SB with him in 2007, so only an idiot would claim that it can't happen.

So you vote option 1 then, that he's a good/great DC who just had bad luck, that no defensive melt-down/failure since 2006 were on him or his play calls.

 

[D-cleater]

My take:

- This defense has always been well prepared and well coached. Young talent and speed at LB and in the secondary has been the biggest issue 2005-2008. That being said....

- We play way too soft in the 2nd half with a lead. Without an above average pash rush, opposing QB's are able to pick apart the coverage even with the extra DB's

- Opposing teams with any sort of passing attack find it way too easy to make second half adjustments against our D, and we don't seem to be able to counter well when they do.

These last two points would seem to be an indictment of the Defensive coordinator. I'm not saying we can't win with him, but I'm not a Pees fan.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

My take:

- This defense has always been well prepared and well coached. Young talent and speed at LB and in the secondary has been the biggest issue 2005-2008. That being said....

- We play way too soft in the 2nd half with a lead. Without an above average pash rush, opposing QB's are able to pick apart the coverage even with the extra DB's

- Opposing teams with any sort of passing attack find it way too easy to make second half adjustments against our D, and we don't seem to be able to counter well when they do.

These last two points would seem to be an indictment of the Defensive coordinator. I'm not saying we can't win with him, but I'm not a Pees fan.

You started off on the right track and then veered into oblivion.

Do you honestly think the guy who is kneeling with his defensive units and coaching them up on adjustments and execution all game, the guy who buys the groceries and swaps or pitches any that don't provide sufficient value in his opionion would not only hang on to a coordinator who wasn't doing his job and his bidding or is listening to Bon Jovi on that headset and when his lips move he's just singing along...

 

[maverick4]

- Opposing teams with any sort of passing attack find it way too easy to make second half adjustments against our D, and we don't seem to be able to counter well when they do.

These last two points would seem to be an indictment of the Defensive coordinator. I'm not saying we can't win with him, but I'm not a Pees fan.

Is this related to why since 2006, bozo QB's play like pro bowlers against our secondary?

 

[D-cleater]

Is this related to why since 2006, bozo QB's play like pro bowlers against our secondary?

Yes . Even in Samuel's 10 pick year (IIRC), this secondary hasn't scared anyone since 2004. Too be fair, that was the last year we had Ty Law, and the secondary was a weakness in 2005 as well. I'm basing my judgement on this year's performance, because I think we have the talent in the secondary, and just enough of a pass rush, that this team can afford to play more aggressively with a lead. Yes, BB is obviously the man in charge but the play calling falls squarely on the shoulders of the D coordinator, and we see just too many average QB's tearing it up against this secondary in the second half of games once they find the holes in the coverage.

 

[Sicilian]

Yes . Even in Samuel's 10 pick year (IIRC), this secondary hasn't scared anyone since 2004. Too be fair, that was the last year we had Ty Law, and the secondary was a weakness in 2005 as well. I'm basing my judgement on this year's performance, because I think we have the talent in the secondary, and just enough of a pass rush, that this team can afford to play more aggressively with a lead. Yes, BB is obviously the man in charge but the play calling falls squarely on the shoulders of the D coordinator, and we see just too many average QB's tearing it up against this secondary in the second half of games once they find the holes in the coverage.

And again, you ignore the fact that BB has had YEARS to watch Pees' playcalling, and has not made a change. Not saying the right calls were always made, but I AM saying if you're going to blame Pees you have to blame BB too.

 

[maverick4]

And again, you ignore the fact that BB has had YEARS to watch Pees' playcalling, and has not made a change. Not saying the right calls were always made, but I AM saying if you're going to blame Pees you have to blame BB too.

Don't know if I completely buy this. Has Belichick ever fired a coordinator? I don't think so. He is quick to cut or trade players, but he gives his coaches a long rope. He also gives them a lot more autonomy than I think you give him credit for. This is why our 2nd half stats are so different (poor) compared to how we start the 1st half of games.

 

[Sicilian]

Don't know if I completely buy this. Has Belichick ever fired a coordinator? I don't think so. He is quick to cut or trade players, but he gives his coaches a long rope. He also gives them a lot more autonomy than I think you give him credit for. This is why our 2nd half stats are so different (poor) compared to how we start the 1st half of games.

Right... but even if he was keeping a DC that he didn't think was performing, you don't think he'd, oh I dunno, TELL HIM to do something different?

BB is the head coach. He sets the philosophy and Pees makes sure it's carried out. If BB says "stay aggressive", and Pees suddenly goes into a soft cover shell, he's not just going to let it slide because he wants to give them a "long rope".

Edit: Also, I agree with just about everyone... it's possible to be a good DC who doesn't need the offense to "carry" him, without being called a GREAT DC. There should have been a fourth option in the poll.

 

[maverick4]

Right... but even if he was keeping a DC that he didn't think was performing, you don't think he'd, oh I dunno, TELL HIM to do something different?

BB is the head coach. He sets the philosophy and Pees makes sure it's carried out. If BB says "stay aggressive", and Pees suddenly goes into a soft cover shell, he's not just going to let it slide because he wants to give them a "long rope".

Edit: Also, I agree with just about everyone... it's possible to be a good DC who doesn't need the offense to "carry" him, without being called a GREAT DC. There should have been a fourth option in the poll.

Well didn't we see video of two weeks ago where Belichick kept telling his defensive guys to play on the line, yet they kept playing 10 yards off?
How do you know Belichick isn't telling his coaches and players things that they aren't doing despite his input?

Also, do you remember back in 2005 when Mangini was DC? Mangini was horrible ALL YEAR, and Bill didn't over-ride his DC until basically the end of the season.

I think that while Bill isn't afraid to bench or cut or trade guys, that he develops his coaches differently.

I also don't see the point of a 4th option of Pees being a 'good' coach. If the 1st option included him being a "good/great" coach, would you choose that?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Don't know if I completely buy this. Has Belichick ever fired a coordinator? I don't think so. He is quick to cut or trade players, but he gives his coaches a long rope. He also gives them a lot more autonomy than I think you give him credit for. This is why our 2nd half stats are so different (poor) compared to how we start the 1st half of games.

He stripped Mangini of playcalling duties. If someone's doing a crappy job as DC, he WILL take over. I don't know how much more of a slam-dunk this argument can be- he already did it in 2005.

Everyone's pointing to how the Pats had previously surrendered one second-half comeback under Belichick, yet have surrendered 3 this year... I just don't get how this all comes back to Pees. This is his fourth year as DC, so that excellent track record that the Pats had pre-2009 was as much thanks to him as anyone. If I wanted to find something to blame the comebacks on, I'd think it would be common sense to look for something that actually changed between 2008 and 2009- i.e., not Pees.

I'd probably look at the departure of Seymour, Harrison, Vrabel, Hobbs, Colvin and Bruschi first, and I'd maybe look at the offense and how it's uncharacteristically stalled in the second half in every loss this year. After all, comebacks can't happen unless the other team stops our offense too, and the Pats' 2nd half offense has been atrocious in every loss. Then again, wtf do I know. After all, I said that the Seymour trade would cost us valuable wins this year, and it's not like our inability to bring pressure without blitzing has hurt us at all this year. You guys were all totally right to call me an idiot for that

 

[D-cleater]

And again, you ignore the fact that BB has had YEARS to watch Pees' playcalling, and has not made a change. Not saying the right calls were always made, but I AM saying if you're going to blame Pees you have to blame BB too.

OK, I blame BB too. Happy? Now you're going to make a sarcastic comment about me sitting at home on a computer instead of coaching the Pats. Works for me.

BB has said himself that he and his staff need to do a better job of coaching after several of the games where we lost, or almost lost, due to second half defensive collapse.

I'm not saying Pees should be fired, I'm just questioning the defensive strategy that has been employed in the 2nd half of games, or the ability to counter the offensive adjustments made by the other team. BB is a good leader and a good leader delegates authority and empowers those around him. I believe BB empowers his coordinators to call the plays, or as someone else said "execute the philosophy".

To summarize my point, there is room for improvement in our 2nd half defense. I'm saying that we have the talent on the field, we have a HOF coach widely regarded as a defensive genius, but opposing offenses are having success attacking the secondary. When they do, it appears to me as though it is due to soft coverage + lack of pressure on the opposing QB. If it is something else, please enlighten.

 

[Sicilian]

OK, I blame BB too. Happy? Now you're going to make a sarcastic comment about me sitting at home on a computer instead of coaching the Pats. Works for me.

BB has said himself that he and his staff need to do a better job of coaching after several of the games where we lost, or almost lost, due to second half defensive collapse.

I'm not saying Pees should be fired, I'm just questioning the defensive strategy that has been employed in the 2nd half of games, or the ability to counter the offensive adjustments made by the other team. BB is a good leader and a good leader delegates authority and empowers those around him. I believe BB empowers his coordinators to call the plays, or as someone else said "execute the philosophy".

To summarize my point, there is room for improvement in our 2nd half defense. I'm saying that we have the talent on the field, we have a HOF coach widely regarded as a defensive genius, but opposing offenses are having success attacking the secondary. When they do, it appears to me as though it is due to soft coverage + lack of pressure on the opposing QB. If it is something else, please enlighten.

You have no idea what I'm going to say next. Why would I use the tired old, "You don't know as much as BB"? Message boards would be pretty boring if only the best in the world could discuss things, wouldn't you say?

As for your points, I never said it wasn't those things that caused the losses. But this notion that Pees is there running a terrible gameplan every time (and from the comments in this thread, you'd think Pees wants to play prevent all game every game), and BB is just standing there saying, "Well he's the DC, gotta let him learn," is absolutely ludicrous.

 

[maverick4]

He stripped Mangini of playcalling duties. If someone's doing a crappy job as DC, he WILL take over. I don't know how much more of a slam-dunk this argument can be- he already did it in 2005.

Everyone's pointing to how the Pats had previously surrendered one second-half comeback under Belichick, yet have surrendered 3 this year... I just don't get how this all comes back to Pees.

1. Belichick took over play calling in December, after pretty much giving Mangini a LONG leash of crappy play calling all season long. Pees isn't absurdly bad (so BB wouldn't step in), just bad enough that it is a point of discussion for winning a ring.

2. During the Jets game they showed that Belichick is 66-1 from 2001-2008 if he has the lead at half time, whereas they already lost 3 times this year with a half time lead.