KC Joyner: The Pats' defense to be most improved

[BlueThunder]

Football is a game of inches :rocker:

Inches matter...and yards matter even more.

A few inches higher and Manningham doesn't make that toe tapping catch and the ball misses Tyree's helmet !

A few inches to the right and Wes makes that catch....

A yard could be the difference between making or missing a FG..

I'll take the improved D thank you

 

[Keyser Söze]

The Giants going the length of the field to take the lead and the win in the SB showed how crappy the defense was.

 

[Kontradiction]

Yeah

All those offensive free agents signed happened only because the offense was too damn good.

Perhaps the draft should be reserved for special teams players because someone has to be drafted.

It's amazing the commentary that can be produced when an idiot posts thinking they have "confirmation" of the idiotic things they believe which.......makes then idiots.

Thanks for confirming my first reply for me. The receivers added were due to the fact that we had no real downfield threat. But the offense got us the 13-3 record with little help from the second worst pass defense of all time. In the AFCCG, when the offense was bogged down by a very good defense, the defense (once again) almost cost us the game before Cundiff shanked a kick to send it into OT. In the Super Bowl, they allowed Eli to go 30-40, eat up the clock, and cost the offense quality chances and drives.

So yeah, there were issues on the offensive side of the ball. We had no threat for the deeper and intermediate levels of the field and defense were flooding the middle. Problem solved. That said, the offense played the MUCH bigger role in getting us to where we were. The pass defense was abysmal which is why BB dedicated a vast amount of youth to that side of the ball in the draft, specifically to the LB corps and the secondary.

Thank God you're not coaching this team.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't know if the Pats will get ten more sacks this season, but I am not ready to say they won't have more sacks this year than last year without Anderson and even Carter.

Anything's possible, but last year was a high sack count season for this team.

have a number of reasons why I say that:

1.) If the secondary improves significantly, there will be more opportunities for coverage sacks.

Last year's secondary couldn't cover the corpse of a crippled dwarf in a phone booth. There should be significant improvement just by default. The question is going to be "how significant?".

.) An improved play at the CB position will allow the Pats to do more exotic blitzing. Players like Chung, Mayo, and Spikes could significantly increase their sack totals from last year (of course 1 would be a significant increase for Spikes). Hightower could also get a lot of sacks from the LB position.

The Patriots had 40 sacks last year. They need to add 10. Who gets them doesn't matter, but your notion here is taking sacks away from the 'main' pass rushers, not just adding pure numbers.

.) Was it Anderson's and Carter's skills that got them each 10 sacks or the schemes? Can guys like Jones and Ninkovitch step in for them and get 8-10 sacks?

You can't really argue the previous point and this one at the same time. It's pretty much a "one or the other" situation. You can't really argue "No time! No exotic blitzes!" and talk about scheme over talent at the same time. However, history shows us that both Anderson and Carter have the ability to rush the passer. This was Carter's 4th season of double digit sacks, and Anderson's second.

don't look at either Anderson or Carter elite pass rushers. They were great last year, but Anderson has had a mediocre career before last year and might have just benefited from a scheme. I am not ready to say if we lose 20 sacks from those two that the Pats won't make up those sacks and potentially get more from their replacements and/or other positions.

See above. Anything's possible, but asking to replace 10-20 sacks and add another 10 on top of that is a pretty tall order.

 

[PatsBoy12]

I don't know if this defense will be improved or not, but I believe the addition of JOSH McD can't be overlooked on the defensive side of the ball. In Josh, you have a guy who can pretty much take over the offense and coach that side of the ball, which allows BB to spend more time with his defense, particularly the newly young and athletic LB corp.

I think the addition of Addai is also a good thing for the defense because the Patriots now have a back who can get the tough yards in short situations that will extend drives, allowing them to hold on to the ball for longer periods of time. It's frustrating to watch Brady drop back on 3rd and short situations.

 

[everlong]

I like the potential with the draft picks but there's really not enough information to make any definitive statement on how much this group could improve next year. I really don't see a way to argue it.

As for the pass rush and secondary play last year. It seemed some games one or the other played well but rarely both. Some games a QB would have a 5 count so the secondary wasn't the issue. Other games one of the front 7 would hit the QB a half second too late and only gave the QB 1.5-2 seconds and yet the receiver would be wide open and it was obvious the secondary was at fault.

I think by the end of the year however the secondary had less of these moments. Either way we'll see.

 

[JR4]

.....



The Patriots had 40 sacks last year. They need to add 10. Who gets them doesn't matter, but your notion here is taking sacks away from the 'main' pass rushers, not just adding pure numbers.
.......

WHY? With just 42 sacks the 49er allowed only 14.3 points a game!
Pats do not need to add 10 more sacks. They need better team defense.

What is this fixation with sacks?

Get this, the Vikes got 50 sacks last year and allowed 28.1 points/game ave!

 

[PatsBoy12]

WHY? With just 42 sacks the 49er allowed only 14.3 points a game!
Pats do not need to add 10 more sacks. They need better team defense.

What is this fixation with sacks?

Get this, the Vikes got 50 sacks last year and allowed 28.1 points/game ave!

I agree somewhat. I would be happy with tons of QB pressures if we're not getting the sacks. We have to make the QB uncomfortable. It's so important not to allow the QB to just stand in the pocket because cover guys can only cover for so long in the league. With the type of receivers we have nowadays in the passing league, as well as the re-emergence of the TE position (thanks to the Pats for always being ahead of every other team), defenses have to force the QB to make throws on the run or earlier than he actually wants to. So you're right that sacks don't mean everything, but we have to at least make the QB uncomfortable and you can only do that by getting to him.

 

[Deus Irae]

WHY? With just 42 sacks the 49er allowed only 14.3 points a game!
Pats do not need to add 10 more sacks. They need better team defense.

What is this fixation with sacks?

Get this, the Vikes got 50 sacks last year and allowed 28.1 points/game ave!

Come on, man. You've got to read the threads before commenting.

 

[Danger Zone]

Oversimplifying things perhaps, but what an improved defense gets us is more time with Brady and Gronk on the field...

... that and less time with my heart in my throat watching non-elite quarterbacks (thats right, I said it Eli) drive down the field on us.

 

[ProudestRyno]

Football is a game of inches :rocker:

Inches matter...and yards matter even more.

A few inches higher and Manningham doesn't make that toe tapping catch and the ball misses Tyree's helmet !

A few inches to the right and Wes makes that catch....

A yard could be the difference between making or missing a FG..

I'll take the improved D thank you

Yards don't matter AT ALL when Team A is up 35-14 with 5 minutes left and Team A is in soft zone giving up the underneath area to allow Team B to march down the field, but eat up clock since the game is essentially already decided. The yards Team A is allowing Team B to get do NOT matter, and do not affect the quality of their defense.

Football statistics need to be taken in context and that's what a lot of people (most people) don't seem to be able to understand. You can't really understand how a game went in football by just looking at the box score.

Once more people understand that, football discussions will become much more intelligent.


...EDIT: My points here are not to say the Patriots had a good defense last year, because they clearly did not. However, the reason for them not having a great defense. Or should I say, the PROOF of them not having a great defense does NOT lie in how many yards they allowed. Many times, yards allowed has to do with gameplan (like I said, if a team is up by a lot), or by field position, etc. There are many factors.

 

[Triumph]

WHY? With just 42 sacks the 49er allowed only 14.3 points a game!
Pats do not need to add 10 more sacks. They need better team defense.

What is this fixation with sacks?

Get this, the Vikes got 50 sacks last year and allowed 28.1 points/game ave!

Sacks are over rated.

The Pats need more PDs - Passes defensed. Better CB and Safety play with LBs better in coverage

 

[Marqui]

Sacks are over rated.

Sacks may be a little overrated but pressure isn't.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Sacks are over rated.

The Pats need more PDs - Passes defensed. Better CB and Safety play with LBs better in coverage

Yet getting sacks will likely worsen the play of the QB. It's easy to defend a pass when it's way off the mark.

Sacks and QB pressures are very important.

 

[Ivan]

Yeah but yards given up doesn't matter and the 2011 defense was just fine, as BB showed with this year's draft. :bricks:

Show where anyone said they were fine with the defense? Only 1 fan here made the argument they were any good at all and a poll on it showed over 90% thought the defense was mediocre at best and not very good overall. The most common argument in favor of the patriots defense was that they weren't the worst in history, which many here claimed, and that their points allowed showed them to be middle of the pack with a bad pass defense. you guys want to keep making this argument that people were claiming they were good then show us the posts where anyone made the argument you claim was made. It wasn't, and that's why none of you were ever able to show that it was.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Thanks for confirming my first reply for me. The receivers added were due to the fact that we had no real downfield threat. But the offense got us the 13-3 record with little help from the second worst pass defense of all time. In the AFCCG, when the offense was bogged down by a very good defense, the defense (once again) almost cost us the game before Cundiff shanked a kick to send it into OT. In the Super Bowl, they allowed Eli to go 30-40, eat up the clock, and cost the offense quality chances and drives.

So yeah, there were issues on the offensive side of the ball. We had no threat for the deeper and intermediate levels of the field and defense were flooding the middle. Problem solved. That said, the offense played the MUCH bigger role in getting us to where we were. The pass defense was abysmal which is why BB dedicated a vast amount of youth to that side of the ball in the draft, specifically to the LB corps and the secondary.

Thank God you're not coaching this team.

Yeah

This "post" sums it up perfectly.

You really are THAT dumb.

Only a complete imbecile could ever actually delude themself into thinking the offense was "bogged down" by a "very good defense" in the AFCCG.

You simply cannot take the numbnuts off and actually watch the game.

Note:

Over throwing Gronk on drive #1 for sure TD.
Bad INT #1
Over throwing AHern for another missed TD in the first half.
Woodhead fumble limited to FG.
Bad INT #2- Give the ball to offense a mid field to close the game out and....turn the ball over.

.......and the defense "almost lost it".

Classic trait of the dumb, clueless, and deluded.

Torture every non reality to fit the preconceived idiocy that has zero basis in fact.

 

[BB4PRez]

Yards matter, points matter more

I don't have the time to follow all of Joyner's metrics but I am glad he is predicting improvement. A healthy secondary this year will help. Last year, the Pats were terrible in yards allowed and mediocre in points allowed. having watched all the games I would put the defense somewhere between terrible and mediocre. A better D will definitely help the team get over the final hump.

I would be happy with a defense that was statistically mediocre in yards allowed and very good in points allowed. Given what they have on offense that will put them at or near the top.

 

[Triumph]

Yet getting sacks will likely worsen the play of the QB. It's easy to defend a pass when it's way off the mark.

Sacks and QB pressures are very important.

Yet the Pats dropped back and played coverage for years and won Championships. Sometimes there isnt enough time to get a sack or pressure when passing targets are open with YAC in front of them. To me it bolis down to making plays in the secondary.

 

[Froob]

The defense may of given up game winning touchdown drives but, the offense scored 14&17 in the last super bowls. I'd say that cost them those games. Pats should of won both with a top offense with their d only giving up 17&21.

 

[borisman]

This defense was visually and statistically poor last season. There is no arguement there.
It'll be better this year, no doubt. So now we'll have to wait and see if this season we win by 10 points per game or 20. This offense is still good enough to take them to the SB with almost any defense.