Envious of that Seattle Defense.

[ivanvamp]

Maybe but if Tom didn't throw a pretty bad INT and if Edelman doesn't fumble we probably score 34+ points against Seattle. Turn overs and bad secondary play aloud Seattle to come away with the victory.

I will say that Tom made some incredible throws in that game, he played great except for 1 bad decision. Unfortunately against the better or the best teams you cant make big mistakes and win.

Brady made two big mistakes against Seattle in the Super Bowl and the team still won. You can overcome turnovers, but you have to play well elsewhere. This past game against Seattle was basically dead-even.

1st downs
Sea - 23
NE - 25

Total yards
Sea - 420
NE - 385

TOP
Sea - 30:25
NE - 29:35

Yards per play
Sea - 6.4
NE - 6.2

Red Zone
Sea - 3 for 7
NE - 3 for 5

Points
Sea - 31
NE - 24 (should easily have been 31)

Game was as even steven as it gets. Seattle made a couple more plays, and the turnovers proved to be important, but even then, the Patriots had a perfect chance to tie the game at the end.

 

[Ring 6]

You chose again to disregard my point that the Patriot offense is better than the Seattle offense. If that is true, and they are putting up similar stats, it stands to reason that the Seattle defense is superior to ours, just as @mgteich points out.

I don't agree. A defense played how a defense played. The scoreboard doesn't adjust for difficulty of opponent.
If you want to say in some random game in the future against a different opponent, this game led you to believe that Seattle would play better on defense than the Patriots would that is a prediction you would be free to make, but that doesn't mean they PLAYED better.
That's my problem with 50% of the discourse on this board.
What happens on the field happens on the field. Analyzing it, extrapolating it, guessing what it would be on a different day in a different place against a different team doesn't change that what happened is what happened.

 

[ivanvamp]

I don't agree. A defense played how a defense played. The scoreboard doesn't adjust for difficulty of opponent.
If you want to say in some random game in the future against a different opponent, this game led you to believe that Seattle would play better on defense than the Patriots would that is a prediction you would be free to make, but that doesn't mean they PLAYED better.
That's my problem with 50% of the discourse on this board.
What happens on the field happens on the field. Analyzing it, extrapolating it, guessing what it would be on a different day in a different place against a different team doesn't change that what happened is what happened.

Andy, you know this isn't really fair. Yes, 31 points is 31 points is 31 points. But 31 points allowed against a dynamic offense is very different from 31 points allowed to a crap offense. Still 31 points, but when we're evaluating how a team played, it's not just measured in points allowed.

To draw an extreme example, imagine playing the 2007 Patriots. Your offense commits five turnovers, giving the 2007 Patriots the ball in the red zone five times. They score 35 points. Your defense gave up 35 points.

The next week, you're playing the 49ers, who scored only 219 points that year (13.7 a game). They get the ball between their 10 and 20 yard line each possession, but march down the field, racking up 500 yards of offense, and scoring 35 points.

Objectively, in both games you gave up 35 points. But clearly your defense played better in that first game than in the second game. Context DOES matter when making these kinds of evaluations.

 

[luuked]

Andy, you know this isn't really fair. Yes, 31 points is 31 points is 31 points. But 31 points allowed against a dynamic offense is very different from 31 points allowed to a crap offense. Still 31 points, but when we're evaluating how a team played, it's not just measured in points allowed.

To draw an extreme example, imagine playing the 2007 Patriots. Your offense commits five turnovers, giving the 2007 Patriots the ball in the red zone five times. They score 35 points. Your defense gave up 35 points.

The next week, you're playing the 49ers, who scored only 219 points that year (13.7 a game). They get the ball between their 10 and 20 yard line each possession, but march down the field, racking up 500 yards of offense, and scoring 35 points.

Objectively, in both games you gave up 35 points. But clearly your defense played better in that first game than in the second game. Context DOES matter when making these kinds of evaluations.

If context is what matters then lets not leave out the number of points that came out of turnovers and Ghost's screwed kickoff. Because looking at historical data it's not very common for the Patriots to screw up the turnover battle so much.

People want to compare this defense to 2011 but those two are far apart. The 2011 defense got beat hard because of a lack of talent whereas right now we are looking at mostly individual mistakes that are hopefully fixable. If you want context then you gotta look with more nuance at it.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, you know this isn't really fair. Yes, 31 points is 31 points is 31 points. But 31 points allowed against a dynamic offense is very different from 31 points allowed to a crap offense. Still 31 points, but when we're evaluating how a team played, it's not just measured in points allowed.

No it really isn't. Not when you are discussing how a defense played.
Allowing 31 points to a good offense is not a better game than allowing 14 to a bad one.
What happens on that field contributes ONLY to that game. It doesn't carry over.

To draw an extreme example, imagine playing the 2007 Patriots. Your offense commits five turnovers, giving the 2007 Patriots the ball in the red zone five times. They score 35 points. Your defense gave up 35 points.

Umm, there were not 5 tunrovers in this game.

The next week, you're playing the 49ers, who scored only 219 points that year (13.7 a game). They get the ball between their 10 and 20 yard line each possession, but march down the field, racking up 500 yards of offense, and scoring 35 points.

That is not at all what we are talking about.
But to answer your question, the first defense played ok despite being put in bad situations, and the second stunk. How does that have anything to do with what we are talking about?
You can make up silly things but they don't mean anything.
Here I can do one.
Team A allows 19-23 on 3rd down and never breathes on the QB but only allows 20 points.
Team B is 2-10 on 3rd down and allows 35 points.
See sacks and 3rd down don't matter.

Objectively, in both games you gave up 35 points. But clearly your defense played better in that first game than in the second game. Context DOES matter when making these kinds of evaluations.

Making up a scenario to prove your point doesn't prove your point.
However given nothing even close to that happened in this game, I assume you agree with me that the Seattle defense aside from a goalline stand played no better than the Patriots.

 

[ivanvamp]

No it really isn't. Not when you are discussing how a defense played.
Allowing 31 points to a good offense is not a better game than allowing 14 to a bad one.
What happens on that field contributes ONLY to that game. It doesn't carry over.



Umm, there were not 5 tunrovers in this game.


That is not at all what we are talking about.
But to answer your question, the first defense played ok despite being put in bad situations, and the second stunk. How does that have anything to do with what we are talking about?
You can make up silly things but they don't mean anything.
Here I can do one.
Team A allows 19-23 on 3rd down and never breathes on the QB but only allows 20 points.
Team B is 2-10 on 3rd down and allows 35 points.
See sacks and 3rd down don't matter.




Making up a scenario to prove your point doesn't prove your point.
However given nothing even close to that happened in this game, I assume you agree with me that the Seattle defense aside from a goalline stand played no better than the Patriots.

In this particular game, I'd say the defenses played similarly well - Seattle's a bit better. Coming up with the two turnovers, making the big goal line stop at the end...that all counts.

But unfortunately, you're not agreeing to the larger point, which is that context matters when discussing how a defense played.

 

[ivanvamp]

If context is what matters then lets not leave out the number of points that came out of turnovers and Ghost's screwed kickoff. Because looking at historical data it's not very common for the Patriots to screw up the turnover battle so much.

People want to compare this defense to 2011 but those two are far apart. The 2011 defense got beat hard because of a lack of talent whereas right now we are looking at mostly individual mistakes that are hopefully fixable. If you want context then you gotta look with more nuance at it.

Agreed. It's more than just "points allowed", which was my larger point.

 

[Ring 6]

In this particular game, I'd say the defenses played similarly well - Seattle's a bit better. Coming up with the two turnovers, making the big goal line stop at the end...that all counts.

But unfortunately, you're not agreeing to the larger point, which is that context matters when discussing how a defense played.

Context like 5 turnover in the red zone of course. But over the course of a month, 2 months or a season, this nitpicking that results in saying a team that allows more points played better defense than a team that allowed fewer because of nothing other than style points is silly.

For the season, Seattle has allowed 158 points and the Patriots 163.
Overall they have played to very similar results, if with different approaches.
That goalline stand is the biggest difference between the teams right now defensively, not just Sunday but 2016.
These defenses are not as far apart as you want to believe.

 

[Ring 6]

Agreed. It's more than just "points allowed", which was my larger point.

Its points allowed, and then a bunch of other stuff that means little (and of course you adjust for turnovers, so that is not part of this).
Just like its Win or Lose then a whole bunch of stuff that means little.

There is a RESULT and then there are people trying to tell you what the result means, why it happened, and how that affects the future. One happened, the other is BS.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Seattle, all of a sudden has a crap offense?

Russell Wilson, Jimmy Graham, Lockett, Baldwin, CJP, Richardson, Kearse and co have to be the best of the crap offenses then?

Im sure some will point the offensive line as a retort but I guarantee those people are just saying that bc its a media talking point.

Seattle's oline has been slightly better than average, average and bad during the entire time of their run. It's not breaking news.

Whats new and relevant is Wilson injuries and Lynch's departure.

The result is what you have been seeing recently.

But thats not the whole story or final result. Teams adjust and do what they have to. Thats football. Good to great teams obvs do that to a greater effect and get better results.

Thats what we're seeing now.

So this same exact argument can and should be made about and for our Patriots. You know considering Bill and Tom's track record.

We're either fighting to get in or win the SB this year.

Just like every other year during the B&B era.

 

[TennisBallHead]

Seattle had one of the worst offenses in the league. They scored 12, 6, and 3 points in three of their games before Sunday. Giving up 31 to them is far different than giving up 24 to a healthy Patriots offense playing at home.

Anyone arguing otherwise, well, there's no hope for them.

 

[Mogamedogz]

If you combined our offense with their defense, you'd be over the salary cap by about $20m.

Come-on guy. It's obviously theoretic.

 

[Mogamedogz]

Has anybody said that though? If so, give them the scarlet A. I think most people are just saying that our defense is not as bad as so many are making it out to be. Sure, they played like sh*t on Sunday night. Bad games happen.

Overall, I still take our team over their team, as currently constructed.

Oh I agree with everything you said there. Im just speaking to the people attempting to point out that statistically our defense compares favorably to them.

I don't care what the stats say, what we are trotting out there on D is MOST DEFINITLEY not on equal footing with what they have out there in Washington. When Thomas trucked Gronk (after my initial concern), my first thought was "MAN..I wish that dude played for us".

The OP is right to be a bit envious after watching them up close again. Imagine what Bill and Ernie could do with that group? Good lord... footballgasms.

 

[PatriotsPimp136]

Seattle spends more of its cap on defense; we spend more on offense.

Seattle has two undrafted free agents as their OT's.

I like our emphasis.

On the whole, who thinks that Seattle is a better team: offense, defense. special teams, coaching and ownership?

They indeed have a better defense. If our defense were as good, we'd all be talking about the 2016 patriots as one of the best teams in the history of the NFL.

True but if the defense fails them in the end then i hope they go after a proven player on defense and resign some of our key guys. This secondary has been a problem for years.

 

[luuked]

Seattle had one of the worst offenses in the league. They scored 12, 6, and 3 points in three of their games before Sunday. Giving up 31 to them is far different than giving up 24 to a healthy Patriots offense playing at home.

Anyone arguing otherwise, well, there's no hope for them.

I love how some people use points scored to support the narrative that Seattle has a bad offense but at the same time laugh people off that use the same argument in the favor of the Pats D.

Real experts..

 

[brdmaverick]

Yes, that defense is THAT good.

They don't even need to gameplan.

They just line up and do what they do best. They know that you know what they'll do and yet they are still effective.

Of course, our offense is pretty good and was able to score some points.

 

[brdmaverick]

Don't give me that. We don't make it without him.

Agreed, most of the time we rate a corners effectiveness by the passes defensed, interceptions, and receiving yards against.

A tough part ot measure (and in my opinion is maybe most important) is how often a quarterback chooses NOT to throw at a receiver due to the coverage.

 

[brdmaverick]

It was only a little over a week ago that I was basically called an idiot becasue I didn't see how letting Jamie Collins go helped this team.

I kept getting the "If BB thinks letting Collins go helps this team, then it helps this team."

 

[Sicilian]

It was only a little over a week ago that I was basically called an idiot becasue I didn't see how letting Jamie Collins go helped this team.

I kept getting the "If BB thinks letting Collins go helps this team, then it helps this team."

Try not to hurt your shoulder patting yourself on the back after one game.

 

[Ring 6]

You chose again to disregard my point that the Patriot offense is better than the Seattle offense. If that is true, and they are putting up similar stats, it stands to reason that the Seattle defense is superior to ours, just as @mgteich points out.

Here are some pertinent numbers.
In this game, the Seattle defense was better by the margin of stopping 1st and goal from the 1, otherwise they were very equal.

Prior to this game:
Seattle allowed an average of 16.75 ppg to teams that averaged 23.3
New England allowed an avg 16.5 ppg to teams that averaged 22.2

Somehow this means that people on this board conclude the Seahawks are the best defense in the NFL and the Patriots are crap.