Can We Settle Down Regarding The Defense?

[PF_SU]

After allowing the first six QBs on the schedule to pass for over 300 years, none of the last four QBs the Patriots have faced have cracked 250 with Carr's 237 last week being the highest output.

 

[PF_SU]

As for the Patriots' defensive philosophy with the divergence between yards and points, I've wondered how the Patriots' defensive split since week 5 would like, if you look at the yardage gained split between plays starting on both sides of the 50.

Plays from OPP1 - OPP49:
206 plays - 6.76 yards per play - 17/41 on 3rd down (41.5%)
135 pass - 7.19 yards per play - 5 sacks - 86/130 (66.2%) - 999 yards - 0 TDs - 1 INT - 86.0 passer rating
71 rush - 5.96 yards per play - 423 yards - 1 TD

Plays from 50-NE1:
175 plays - 4.61 yards per play - 16/38 on 3rd down (42.1%)
112 pass - 5.00 yards per play - 4 sacks - 57/108 (52.8%) - 592 yards - 7 TDs - 4 INTs - 75.1 passer rating
63 rush - 3.92 yards per play - 247 yards - 1 TD

Of course you'd need to do this for all teams in the league to see whether this two-faced defensive philosophy is unique or not, but I think it's safe to say that stats that look at the Patriots' D as one set isn't going to do it justice. The difference in how the defense performs on both sides of the 50 is gigantic. Only the 3rd down D on the NE side of the field could be better.

 

[luuked]

As for the Patriots' defensive philosophy with the divergence between yards and points, I've wondered how the Patriots' defensive split since week 5 would like, if you look at the yardage gained split between plays starting on both sides of the 50.

Plays from OPP1 - OPP49:
206 plays - 6.76 yards per play - 17/41 on 3rd down (41.5%)
135 pass - 7.19 yards per play - 5 sacks - 86/130 (66.2%) - 999 yards - 0 TDs - 1 INT - 86.0 passer rating
71 rush - 5.96 yards per play - 423 yards - 1 TD

Plays from 50-NE1:
175 plays - 4.61 yards per play - 16/38 on 3rd down (42.1%)
112 pass - 5.00 yards per play - 4 sacks - 57/108 (52.8%) - 592 yards - 7 TDs - 4 INTs - 75.1 passer rating
63 rush - 3.92 yards per play - 247 yards - 1 TD

Of course you'd need to do this for all teams in the league to see whether this two-faced defensive philosophy is unique or not, but I think it's safe to say that stats that look at the Patriots' D as one set isn't going to do it justice. The difference in how the defense performs on both sides of the 50 is gigantic. Only the 3rd down D on the NE side of the field could be better.

To be fair the FO guys at least engage in constructive conversation about how NE just cant be modeled properly by their method. They even provided some splits (Q1-3 vs Q4; where our DVOA on D actually gets like 50% better) or if you leave out early games. My issue is that its the same every year and even though they acknowledge that NE remains an outlier they just cant adapt their model to account for that without breaking it because its core assumption is flawed.

Yes for many teams yards given up usually correlate with points given up and losses which means that their assumption is correct for the average NFL team but there are some that approach the game so completely different that comparisons against an average model become useless.

 

[PF_SU]

To be fair the FO guys at least engage in constructive conversation about how NE just cant be modeled properly by their method. They even provided some splits (Q1-3 vs Q4; where our DVOA on D actually gets like 50% better) or if you leave out early games.

Actually this is not what I read out of the latest comments at all. What Aaron Schatz is writing here is:

1) Patriots have great field position, so a part of the credit should go to offense and special teams. Points out Patriots have worst yards per drive, but second-best starting field position.

2) Patriots have had good luck with missed FGs and fumbles.

3) Patriots are an exception in how they are year-to-year better in red-zone D than overall.

4) Patriots defensive DVOA gets significantly worse in the 4th quarter when they switch to prevent when leading (remember, for defensive DVOA the higher the number the worse), but they are taking that into account since they are comparing that to other prevent defenses.

So with the exception of the 3rd point where Schatz admits that this is worth a seperate article, the point he makes is that the Patriots defense is as bad as DVOA says it is.

 

[Soliel]

I’ll just quote B.B.

Stats are for losers

 

[Ring 6]

Actually this is not what I read out of the latest comments at all. What Aaron Schatz is writing here is:

1) Patriots have great field position, so a part of the credit should go to offense and special teams. Points out Patriots have worst yards per drive, but second-best starting field position.

2) Patriots have had good luck with missed FGs and fumbles.

3) Patriots are an exception in how they are year-to-year better in red-zone D than overall.

4) Patriots defensive DVOA gets significantly worse in the 4th quarter when they switch to prevent when leading (remember, for defensive DVOA the higher the number the worse), but they are taking that into account since they are comparing that to other prevent defenses.

So with the exception of the 3rd point where Schatz admits that this is worth a seperate article, the point he makes is that the Patriots defense is as bad as DVOA says it is.

It depends on what you are trying to measure.
If you are trying to distinguish whether a defense will allow 5.2 or 5.3 yards on a random play at a random time in a random game DVOA is for you. If you are trying to determine who will win football games it’s not very valuable compared to non-statistical analysis.

 

[RIpats88]

no, I think they are legit. Remember, this is the #1 scoring defense from last year. The secondary is pretty much the same minus. logan ryan.

most of their problems werent talent, it was communication and guys not knowing where to be. They seem to know where to be now and aren't giving up those "huge plays"

is it a seattle defense from years past? no....but holding opponents under 17ppg for 6 games in a row is a little more than coincidence.

 

[Soliel]

no, I think they are legit. Remember, this is the #1 scoring defense from last year. The secondary is pretty much the same minus. logan ryan.

most of their problems werent talent, it was communication and guys not knowing where to be. They seem to know where to be now and aren't giving up those "huge plays"

is it a seattle defense from years past? no....but holding opponents under 17ppg for 6 games in a row is a little more than coincidence.

I agree. I watch YouTube vids a lot. On one of them it’s hightower talking about showing something. He said I’ve talked enough. Also said the only stat he even cares about is points

 

[Uptown]

Matt Chatham on Twitter

“Over last 7 games, #Patriots D has consistently kept opposing offenses well under their scoring averages. On that marker alone...stellar D. But it's especially impressive considering facing hi-scoring NE should presumably prompt a higher scoring game overall. Hasn't happened.”

 

[luuked]

Actually this is not what I read out of the latest comments at all. What Aaron Schatz is writing here is:

1) Patriots have great field position, so a part of the credit should go to offense and special teams. Points out Patriots have worst yards per drive, but second-best starting field position.

2) Patriots have had good luck with missed FGs and fumbles.

3) Patriots are an exception in how they are year-to-year better in red-zone D than overall.

4) Patriots defensive DVOA gets significantly worse in the 4th quarter when they switch to prevent when leading (remember, for defensive DVOA the higher the number the worse), but they are taking that into account since they are comparing that to other prevent defenses.

So with the exception of the 3rd point where Schatz admits that this is worth a seperate article, the point he makes is that the Patriots defense is as bad as DVOA says it is.

I am not sure if you are disagreeing with him or not, so from the context of your post so I am not arguing with you but with what he is writing.

I dont see how the Patriots are lucky with some of the missed FGs, blocked punts or fumbles. Most of the fumbles are actually plays by the defenders punching out balls. If this is luck then I suppose everything from catches/drops to missed tackles needs to be from now on be accounted for as luck.

Similarly, I dont understand how the blocked punt, fake punt yesterday or Marsh blocking the FG can even be considered anything else but good coaching. They see a tendency or tell in gametape review and exploit it. This is nothing else than when the offense or defense sees something that the other team is doing to attack it as well.

e.g. Ebner succeeding with the fake punt yesterday is the equivalent of what Gilmore is saying here:




Their issue is that they are comparing an consistent outlier to an average hodgepotch. You just cant do it and expect to have some representative insight. To me it is a classic logical fallacy where you can say that most historically bad defenses had very bad individual stats but you can turn it around and say that based on bad individual stats it follows that you have a bad defense.

This is the same flawed reasoning that people used to say the Falcons had a 99.7% historical chance of winning the SB at some point. Yeah they had that against the average of all game situations, but not against the Patriots who under BB have shown a habit of coming back in hopeless situations. They had similar comebacks in 2011 (Bills, Dolphins) 2012 (49ers), 2013 (Broncos, Browns). And while those were all a bit ago my point is that all of this goes to coaching which is the big constant.

Anyway..

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Matt Chatham on Twitter

Over last 7 games, #Patriots D has consistently kept opposing offenses well under their scoring averages. On that marker alone...stellar D. But it's especially impressive considering facing hi-scoring NE should presumably prompt a higher scoring game overall. Hasn't happened

I've posted this before in other threads but it bears repeating. In the Belichick/Brady era, only once before have the Pats allowed 17 or less points for a longer stretch of games than the current 7 game streak. That was back in 2001 when they did it the last six weeks of the regular season and the three playoff games.......
You can discount small samples but when they've done it for nearly half a season, especially so after that mess of a first quarter ( 4 games 128 points allowed) to go to with the defense allowing 85 points over 7 games, 12.1 ppg, it is impressive...

 

[captain stone]

And just how, exactly, is that going to happen?

Oh, so that's how it's going to happen?

Never mind, then, for this week.

 

[captain stone]

He wasn't in the playoffs.

He wasn't for the season opener in 2016, when the Steelers were calling timeouts in a vain attempt to try to cover the spread with 1 second left.

Both games were in Foxborough.
I have very little doubt that the Pats would win this year's game, going away eventually, if it were played at home. I have much less doubt of that because it is not played at home. ****sberg's chances of pulling lucky crap out of its collective ass are much more likely to happen there than here.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I've posted this before in other threads but it bears repeating. In the Belichick/Brady era, only once before have the Pats allowed 17 or less points for a longer stretch of games than the current 7 game streak. That was back in 2001 when they did it the last six weeks of the regular season and the three playoff games.......
You can discount small samples but when they've done it for nearly half a season, especially so after that mess of a first quarter ( 4 games 128 points allowed) to go to with the defense allowing 85 points over 7 games, 12.1 ppg, it is impressive...

....and in 01 the game prior to the streak was a Sunday nighter vs the Rams at home and they only allowed 24 when that team was scoring 32ppg going in.

 

[maineman209]

Non-sequitur tweet ...

 

[RobertWeathers]

Non-sequitur tweet ...

Those are craaaazy numbers

 

[Ring 6]

Those are craaaazy numbers

But all that changed was Gilmore

 

[Uptown]

 

[Uptown]

NFL1000: Players with the Most Untapped Potential

Jonathan Jones, CB, New England Patriots

Michael Dwyer/Associated Press

1. “Over the first month of the 2017 season, the New England pass defense performed far below expectations, as star free-agent acquisition Stephon Gilmore struggled to adapt to the schemes put forth by head coach Bill Belichick and defensive coordinator Matt Patricia. The Pats have seen a major turnaround since then, though—they've given up a league-low 92 points over their last seven games, per Rich Hill of Pats Pulpit, and the coverage has improved exponentially.
   
   Gilmore hasn't been the biggest reason for that, though he has played better after missing three games with concussion symptoms. The unheralded star of this defensive turnaround has been Jonathan Jones, a second-year undrafted free agent from Auburn who was tagged to replace Logan Ryan as the team's primary slot cornerback in 2017 and has done a lot more than that.
   
   Per Pro Football Focus' Nathan Jahnke, only the Jacksonville Jaguars' A.J. Bouye and Arizona Cardinals' Patrick Peterson have allowed a lower catch rate outside of press coverage than Jones' 46.4 percent. He has just one interception on the season, but as we know, successful cornerbacks are about far more than their interception totals.
   
   When you watch Jones' tape, it's clear that he's an outstanding slot defender because he trails receivers so well on quick slants and drags; he's not prone to giving up yards after the catch. He's a tenacious tackler, which helps him in the run game, and he had a sack in New England's win over the Miami Dolphins last Sunday on a cornerback blitz.
   
   Belichick values those players who know their roles and can expand their palettes. It's clear that Jones is just such a player, and you can expect his role to increase over time.”

 

[RobertWeathers]

Last 4 games the opposing QB rating has been less than 80