Defense? What defense!!!

[Timbo717]

Right. The Patriots defense was not the culprit in the loss to the Jets in last year's playoffs. The Jets were successful on only 6 of 13 3rd down opportunities. Sanchez played a solid, not great, game. He rang up a pedestrian 194 passing yards against the Patriots.

Tom Brady was sacked five times - five! - in that game and the Pats went 0-2 on 4th downs and just 5-14 on 3rd downs. The Patriots played flat on offense and committed 5 penalties that stalled progress. The offense looked confused for much of the game when the pinball machine offense did not light up.

Rex Ryan put together an excellent defensive game plan and the Patriots offense did not adjust. If the Patriots offense stayed on the field and converted more of their 3rd and 4th down opportunities, they would have won.

What we all must appreciate was just how rare and special those 2003 - 2004 teams were with elite offensive, defensive and special teams units at the same time. There is a reason why those teams set gawdy records for wins. What is amazing is how the Patriots completely rebuilt - only seven guys are on the roster who were in the 2007 Superbowl - and still had the best record last year and are favored this year.

There were issues on the offensive side of the ball but I have to say I disagree that the defense also wasn't an issue. There were no sacks against Sanchez, there were no force fumble recoveries, no interceptions which i.e. no turnovers at all. The third down conversion rate of 46% was just one percent lower than the 47.1% that we had during the regular season that was last in the league.

Sanchez had 194 yards....which is indeed pedestrian, but he had 3 touchdowns and completed 65% of his passes and had zero interceptions. And he came into the game with a career 54% regular season completion % and a career regular season TD-INT ratio of 29-33. We forced no mistakes on a QB known for making mistakes and allowed a non-accurate QB the time to make accurate throws.

But you are right that the offense was also a big issue and Ryan had an excellent gameplan that was not adjusted to by the Pats. That goes without saying but I disagree that defense wasn't an issue. If our offense was on the field longer we would've been able to control the clock and possibly let up less of those TDs and keep our defense fresher. On the flip side, if our defense had caused ANY turnovers when they were in the Jets own territory it would've been easier to sustain scoring drives. It's a two way street and our team broke down on both sides of the road. And I don't want to think about it any longer because it gives me a frowny face.

EDIT: And all of that may have been brought up and addressed by yourself, if so I apologize for rehashing it. Also I concur, GO HEELS.

 

[Metaphors]

Except for the goal line stands the defense hasn't impressed me but i'm not going to panick yet

I think it is a matter of averages and small sample sizes. If in August I told you the Pats would be 2-0 winning games by 2 TDs, you would take it in a heartbeat. Since the offense is smoking and special teams have been benign, it only makes sense that any angst would go towards the defense. But which part of the defense?

Points? Halftime scores have only been 7. Fins had a garbage time score and a 9 yd drive after a turnover. Bolts scored 21 which should be below their average.

Yards? Sure but the Fins and Bolts were behind most of the time and their defenses showed absolutely no signs of being able to stop the Pats. If you know from early on that you will need 35-40 points to win, you are going to need yards. That translates into 40+ pass attempts, which gets you yards but seldom does it result in a win against the Pats.

3rd downs? Bolts converted a ton of them but Fins only converted 14%. Averaging such a small sample doesn't give you a picture of reality. The Bolts have weapons, a top QB and were playing in track meet. The Fins were at home with a new backfield and a closer game through 3 quarters. Need more data before drawing any conclusions here.

Turnovers? If you consider a turnover any situation where the ball is turned over to the opposing team by any means other than a kickoff/punt, then the Pats were even against the Fins (2/2) and +4 against the Bolts (5/1). Interestingly enough, the Pats opponents have 7 scores, 7 punts and 7 turnovers (as defined above). Not a trend yet but indicates a defense that can complement this offense.

Sacks? 6 sacks projects to 48 for the year, which is the number the Steelers had to lead the league last year. Limited pressure against the Bolts (only 4 QBH) but absolutely destroyed the Fins (obscene 11 QBH against Henne).

Despite my optimistic take above, there are plenty of reasons to be critical. Dumpoffs to RBs are far too easy. Too much YAC on short routes. DBs behind a reception playing the ball instead of lighting up the receiver. The LBs and especially the safeties need to tighten up these areas for sure.

But for a work in progress, the Pats are doing just fine. You don't have to swim faster than a shark to avoid being eaten...you just need to swim faster than the guy next to you.

 

[goheels22002]

Wow. This thread turned into the why did the Pats lose to the Jets in the playoffs in January, 2011 (?) thread. I fault the offense for last year's playoff loss more than the defense, but there was plenty to be unhappy about in that particular game.

It was bad but not as bad as the blitzkrieg shellacking by the Ravens. At least against the Jets we had a chance to have a beer and log in to New England Patriots Fans featuring News, Stats, Analysis, Messageboards & Forums, Patriots Blogs, And Salary Cap Information for Fans. - PatsFans.com and angst ourselves into a frenzy before that one was over.

I will go to my grave believing that the Pats could have beaten the Jets last January if the offensive line had kept the Jets from sacking Brady five times, if Brady had thrown it away on at least two of those sacks, if they'd made it on the two 4th downs, and if Brady doesn't kill the momentum-maker drive with that uncharacteristic jump-ball non-pass screen interception. (And, oh yeah, if fellow Tar Heel Alge Crumpler doesn't drop the TD pass.)

The offense put the defense in a terrible position to hold it together all game long.

I agree that the Jets had a better defense than the Patriots last year, thus the overhaul. I also think this year's defense is as good, and will be better statistically, than the Jets 2011 defense if the new guys play to their potential - particularly Carter, Haynesworth, Anderson and Ellis. Look at the last five games on the schedule and let me know if you think the Pats defense will gain momentum late in the season (even if Peyton Manning and his genetically engineered neck and head returns).

I think the Jets defense regressed and Rex's obsession with getting Asomugha to pair with Revis hurt them. I am not impressed with what they did against the Cowboys who gave that game away when Romo committed two unforced errors with that gift-wrapped interception and even worse decision to dive into the defense and fumble. (I stick by my guns that the team with the most takeaways more often than not wins the game.)

The Jets (4 takeaways) crushing the Jaguars (2 takeaways) proved the point again about takeaways but meant little. The next few weeks will give us a measure of the Jets. At Oakland after the Raiders found their rhythm on offense against the Bills will be a good read of the Jets defense and then the following week at the Ravens will tell us more about the Jets offense.

 

[Kontradiction]

Of course it is. I mean, Everybody wants the 86 bears as your defense, but it just doesn't happen all that often.

I'll take a defense that stops the opponent on 66% of its drives every friggen week.

You're bordering on a straw man here. I'm not saying I want the '85 Bears. What I want in New England is a defense like the '10 Packers or the Jets. You know? The team that won the Super Bowl and the team that knocked us out of the playoffs. Those two teams demonstrated abilities to both limit yardage and turn the ball over. Or, to put it in terms that you'd understand more, I'd like a defense more like the '03 and '04 Patriots, which also did both.

As for the 66% statistic, you're using it as a drunken man uses a light post: for support more than illumination. No team will go to a Super Bowl if it's actual goal is to allow the opponent to get inside their 30 yard line just to have a better opportunity to turn the ball over. Do you honestly think that Belichick, a defensive genius whose defenses arguably won us our Super Bowls, is going for that? Do you think he's intentionally telling Devin McCourty to not turn his head around so that opponents can successfully march into our territory? How would that go? "Hey Devin, do me a favor, would you? Don't turn your head around when covering Vincent Jackson. We need them to get inside our 30 yard line so that we have a better chance at turning them over". I don't see that happening, just like I don't see a gameplan revolving around letting the opponent drive wherever the hell they want in order to shorten the field while also putting them in field goal range. Again, statistically, you have a better probability of winning if you can limit your opponents yards ON TOP of getting turnovers. This ensures that you get the ball back in your juggernaut offense's hands more times than you normally would if you're allowing the opponent to get into the red zone, then counting on them to make a mistake at the end of the day.

In the end, is the defense good? Yes. Can the defense get better? Absolutely. And you had better think that Belichick is actively trying to make it better. We made wholesale changes along the defensive front in the offseason and have the horses to play championship caliber defensive football. We're just not doing it yet...

 

[Garbanza]

I agree with Kontra - drastic changes to the defensive fronts will take time to complete and gel. I'm just hoping that the changes result in a consistent pass rush.

 

[Metaphors]

You're bordering on a straw man here. I'm not saying I want the '85 Bears. What I want in New England is a defense like the '10 Packers or the Jets. You know? The team that won the Super Bowl and the team that knocked us out of the playoffs. Those two teams demonstrated abilities to both limit yardage and turn the ball over.

You know what else those teams have in common? There were wildcard teams that needed wins late to make the playoffs. If they have the magic formula, why aren't they winning division titles and hosting playoff games?

It is a mistake to take a post-season run and extrapolate that into more than what it is...a magical 3-4 week run where skill, planning and good fortune all align. So before you proclaim the Packers 2010 defense (not dramatically different from 2009) as being a prototype for post-season success, remember these numbers:

38, 29, 33, 379, 5, 0, 1, 51

...as in...

A 38 yo Kurt Warner completed 29 passes in 33 attempts for 379 yds, 5 TDs and 0 picks, with only 1 sack, in dropping 51 points on the Packers in a wildcard playoff loss.

The difference between a 2009 humiliation and a 2010 title isn't as great as you might think. If you need more recent evidence, Cam Freakin' Newton's 432 yds (54 yds more than Rivers) and three 4th quarter trips inside the Packers' 10 yd line should do just fine.

As for the 66% statistic, you're using it as a drunken man uses a light post: for support more than illumination. No team will go to a Super Bowl if it's actual goal is to allow the opponent to get inside their 30 yard line just to have a better opportunity to turn the ball over.

And you are using the time-honored tradition of stating an obvious fact that nobody will dispute and using it to support your argument. Even though it is completely irrelevant. Just because it took several plays and many yards before the Pats turned over the Bolts, it doesn't mean that was the intent of the defense. The Pats try to force turnovers on most plays, but it can take time for an offensive mistake and defensive opportunity to align...particularly against a top offense. You know this so your statement above is silly.

If you think you can just attack a good offense and force turnovers and punts, check out the Jets/Saints/Pack in week #1 and the Ravens in week #2.

In the end, is the defense good? Yes. Can the defense get better? Absolutely. And you had better think that Belichick is actively trying to make it better. We made wholesale changes along the defensive front in the offseason and have the horses to play championship caliber defensive football. We're just not doing it yet...

Correct. It is a process, not an event. While Belichick preaches one-game-at -a-time to his players and coaches, he is always thinking in the long-term. Did Belichick want to lose to the Chargers? Certainly not. Was winning against the Chargers more important than the overall process of building a championship team? Nope. The Pats are winning while learning/growing, which is awesome. And no yards-based ranking system can make it less awesome.

 

[BradyManny]

Interesting tidbit on EEI this morning when they had that guy from CHFF on. I believe that he said that all but 3 Super Bowl winners have held their opponents under 80 in passer rating for the year. The Pats are at 95 now.

For reference...

2010 champ = Packers (67.2) - Patriots were 81.2
2009 champ = Saints (68.6) - Patriots were 81.7
2008 champ = Steelers (63.4) - Patriots were 89.8

 

[Deus Irae]

You're bordering on a straw man here. I'm not saying I want the '85 Bears. What I want in New England is a defense like the '10 Packers or the Jets. You know? The team that won the Super Bowl and the team that knocked us out of the playoffs. Those two teams demonstrated abilities to both limit yardage and turn the ball over. Or, to put it in terms that you'd understand more, I'd like a defense more like the '03 and '04 Patriots, which also did both.

As for the 66% statistic, you're using it as a drunken man uses a light post: for support more than illumination. No team will go to a Super Bowl if it's actual goal is to allow the opponent to get inside their 30 yard line just to have a better opportunity to turn the ball over. Do you honestly think that Belichick, a defensive genius whose defenses arguably won us our Super Bowls, is going for that? Do you think he's intentionally telling Devin McCourty to not turn his head around so that opponents can successfully march into our territory? How would that go? "Hey Devin, do me a favor, would you? Don't turn your head around when covering Vincent Jackson. We need them to get inside our 30 yard line so that we have a better chance at turning them over". I don't see that happening, just like I don't see a gameplan revolving around letting the opponent drive wherever the hell they want in order to shorten the field while also putting them in field goal range. Again, statistically, you have a better probability of winning if you can limit your opponents yards ON TOP of getting turnovers. This ensures that you get the ball back in your juggernaut offense's hands more times than you normally would if you're allowing the opponent to get into the red zone, then counting on them to make a mistake at the end of the day.

In the end, is the defense good? Yes. Can the defense get better? Absolutely. And you had better think that Belichick is actively trying to make it better. We made wholesale changes along the defensive front in the offseason and have the horses to play championship caliber defensive football. We're just not doing it yet...

You were doing fine until the bolded part. This is not a good defense right now. The good news is that it can change as soon as this week, except perhaps at the safety position.

 

[PushnPencils]

I really hate to whole idea that giving up tons of yards on D is overrated.

I don't have any stats or done any fancy football book reading....I look at it from a purely human physical and psychological perspective. The more time the D spends on the field on their heels...the greater the chance of defensive penalty or even injury.

The more the opposition drives down the field...unstopped....it's gotta kill a players psyche a bit.

THE ONLY saving grace the D has had is a stellar offense preventing them from having to truly stop anyone. Our team's unique situation makes holding a team to 28 or less a success.

All you need is a couple of games where the offense sputters....like the playoffs...and you're done.

 

[PushnPencils]

I really hate to whole idea that giving up tons of yards on D is overrated.

I don't have any stats or done any fancy football book reading....I look at it from a purely human physical and psychological perspective. The more time the D spends on the field on their heels...the greater the chance of defensive penalty or even injury.

The more the opposition drives down the field...unstopped....it's gotta kill a players psyche a bit.

THE ONLY saving grace the D has had is a stellar offense preventing them from having to truly stop anyone. Our team's unique situation makes holding a team to 28 or less a success.

All you need is a couple of games where the offense sputters....like the playoffs...and you're done.

Man I'm smart.

 

[Ring 6]

this defense is awful regardless of what any one wants to say to try and defend it they lost the game after brady tied it..........

They werent even competitive on the last 2 drives/

 

[Ring 6]

No defense can overcome 4 interceptions by their QB

They can when their offense puts up 31. They can if they ever stop anyone.

 

[Fahrenhype]

Serious question - will this defense even be able to hold the Chiefs to under 20 points? I honestly do not know. Way too much reliance of Brady being perfect every game. Somebody at the Herald should hire Bob Kravitz, I think he has seen this movie before...

They can when their offense puts up 31. They can if they ever stop anyone.

Amen. Brady isn't go to be God every week. Even in the 2007 season had a game where he threw zero touchdowns (I know, I was there). I honestly wonder if this defense could win a game against a quality opponent if the turnover differential is not in their favor. What the hell would have happened last week if the Chargers had even one less turnover?

 

[barrett092]

No defense can overcome 4 interceptions by their QB

Yes they can.

Especially when they were winning 21-0.

Make 2-3 defensive stops and game over.

 

[billdog3484]

to me...the difference between this years defense and the defense in years past is that at least in the pass we were able to stop the run...for some reason, we cannot even stop the run anymore. this must be corrected. we cannot go where we want to go without the ability to at least take away 1 facet of the other teams offense. this defense is unacceptable. something must be changed.

and i know that we were missing players today, but our defense wasnt much better the first two weeks. through 3 weeks we have given up an average of 28 points per game. i dont know what can be done, but we have to do something

 

[crowell33]

They can when their offense puts up 31. They can if they ever stop anyone.

Yeah I disagree. I would bet that when a QB throws 4 interceptions, that team loses well over 95% of those games.

 

[LasVegasPatsFan]

BB need to find someone to take over as DC. He is not a defensive genius, that was years ago.

 

[Fahrenhype]

through 3 weeks we have given up an average of 28 points per game. i dont know what can be done, but we have to do something

That is the problem. Scoring "only" 27 points is a death warrant for this team. They are going to be stuck as a wild card team if something doesn't improve dramatically with the defense. As you saw in week one, nobody is going to do them any favors against the Jets.

 

[NEPatriot]

Perfect? No. All he had to do was have an average to slightly above average game. Few teams can win when the QB throws 4 picks. I'm sorry, this one is mostly on Brady.

 

[barrett092]

Perfect? No. All he had to do was have an average to slightly above average game. Few teams can win when the QB throws 4 picks. I'm sorry, this one is mostly on Brady.

Wrong, re-watch the game.