Pats 4th in scoring O, 7th in scoring D

[RobertWeathers]

In 09 Pats were near the top in points for and against and that season was a mess.

 

[JayNM]

Now see here, my good man, we’re winning the super bowl in some kind of crazy game.

Why though?

Cant we have a good, nice spanking for a change? We have had pretty much everything else...

 

[Kontradiction]

In 09 Pats were near the top in points for and against and that season was a mess.

No, no, NO!! You cannot provide context. That's not allowed here.

 

[signbabybrady]

I was about as specific to your question as I could possibly get. Highlighted what they've been in for the majority of the season, which has been their "base" for the last few years - dating back to around 2013 - and highlighted what the problem has been and continues to be - personnel and not personnel packages. So this accusation that I've avoided your question doesn't hold water. As for when they've been in the 43 or 34? Not much at all. Only the Buffalo game two weeks ago is where they've showed a heavier front for a significant portion of the game. Again, the snap counts and film breakdowns show this to be the case. One would think you would know that goal line packages means they use them on the goal line.

Nope, the only person avoiding questions here is you now. So I'll make it simple and just copy and paste mine from the last post that you just quoted. See below...

I did not ask about what our base is. And I did not ask how often we were in 4-3, 3-4, or goal line? And I certainly did not ask where on the field we use the goal line. I asked to you to explain what our problems are when we use these formations and you totally avoided the questions. I on the other hand have been giving you plenty of analysis in other threads about what I think the problems are. You refuse to accept them so yes in this instance I avoided what you said and instead turned it on you. I will wait patiently for you to actually answer though and be specific.

 

[ivanvamp]

Essentially 12-4, should have had one seed (Miami debacle)

8-0 at home

really not too shabby in actuality

5th in the NFL in point differential as well. It's crazy but this is a *bad* year for the Patriots, and they're 11-5 and the #2 seed, and without a once-in-a-lifetime fluke play, they'd be 12-4 and the #1 seed, top 7 in both offense and defense, top 5 in point differential. That's a bad year for this franchise under BB.

Crazy.

 

[Kontradiction]

I did not ask about what our base is. And I did not ask how often we were in 4-3, 3-4, or goal line? And I certainly did not ask where on the field we use the goal line. I asked to you to explain what our problems are when we use these formations and you totally avoided questions.

I've done nothing of the sort. You're again trying to turn this into a more personal attack against me instead of my point because (again) you're getting crushed. I answered you that the problems against the run are personnel. That's why they have said problems no matter what package they're using. It's why Shelton was brought in, it's why Shelton was benched, it's why Brown's snaps have gone up and down, it's why Guy is playing a high amount of snaps, it's why they've had to activate a discarded Texan off the practice squad as of 12/21. Personnel, Watson. It's Shelton and Brown getting blown 5 yards off the LoS. It's teams easily able to double Flowers and get away with it because they know the DTs can be handled one on one. Personnel. Here is some evidence that I've already answered these questions...

Pats 4th in scoring O, 7th in scoring D

Why they've struggled is fairly obvious to anyone with eyes - their DTs are not very good. This has not only been widely talked about here, but it's also been widely reported in film breakdowns. It's the reason why Shelton was a healthy scratch through roughly a quarter of the season. Brown has been mostly a bust as well (part of the reason they had to promote Kamalu) and Guy is at best a rotational DT. The DT position was a need last season as well, which is why Shelton was brought in in the first place.

Personnel packages don't matter if the personnel you have available struggles. Belichick brought in Shelton this season specifically to fix the issues at DT that contributed heavily to the defensive output and loss in the Super Bowl last year. That was with Guy and Brown already on the roster. Shelton, as a result, did so well at the job that he became a healthy scratch. Again, this has already been mentioned. So why you're trying to dig your heels in here is beyond me. My best guess is that you're arguing just to argue?

I on the other hand have been giving you plenty of analysis in other thread about what I think the problems are. You refuse to accept them so yes in this instance I avoided what you said and instead turned it on you. I will wait patiently for you to actually answer though and be specific.

Oh, you did? I don't seem to remember that. I remember a lot of awful attempts at analysis on your part that made me wonder what games you actually watch. But I don't remember you highlighting, well, any problems, really.

But, this seems to be the beginning of what will end up being a red herring. So let's get back to the topic at hand, shall we? The PPG (scoring) rankings of the Patriots' O and D in 2018. I'll copy and paste my questions again and I'll hopefully get an answer this time around. One is a simple yes or no, so I'm not sure why you're struggling with it...

1. Define this. (Gap integrity)

2. Whose gap integrity was much better?

3. Specific examples?

I'm sorry, is this a yes? Yes, context is important when analyzing statistics? Or no, context is not important when analyzing statistics? Because the fact that you're even debating this with me seems to indicate that you believe the answer is no, context is not important in statistics. So please, yes or no - is it important?

 

[signbabybrady]

I've done nothing of the sort. You're again trying to turn this into a more personal attack against me instead of my point because (again) you're getting crushed. I answered you that the problems against the run are personnel. That's why they have said problems no matter what package they're using. It's why Shelton was brought in, it's why Shelton was benched, it's why Brown's snaps have gone up and down, it's why Guy is playing a high amount of snaps, it's why they've had to activate a discarded Texan off the practice squad as of 12/21. Personnel, Watson. It's Shelton and Brown getting blown 5 yards off the LoS. It's teams easily able to double Flowers and get away with it because they know the DTs can be handled one on one. Personnel. Here is some evidence that I've already answered these questions...

Pats 4th in scoring O, 7th in scoring D



Personnel packages don't matter if the personnel you have available struggles. Belichick brought in Shelton this season specifically to fix the issues at DT that contributed heavily to the defensive output and loss in the Super Bowl last year. That was with Guy and Brown already on the roster. Shelton, as a result, did so well at the job that he became a healthy scratch. Again, this has already been mentioned. So why you're trying to dig your heels in here is beyond me. My best guess is that you're arguing just to argue?



Oh, you did? I don't seem to remember that. I remember a lot of awful attempts at analysis on your part that made me wonder what games you actually watch. But I don't remember you highlighting, well, any problems, really.

But, this seems to be the beginning of what will end up being a red herring. So let's get back to the topic at hand, shall we? The PPG (scoring) rankings of the Patriots' O and D in 2018. I'll copy and paste my questions again and I'll hopefully get an answer this time around. One is a simple yes or no, so I'm not sure why you're struggling with it...

Gotcha so your crackpot analysis comes down to anyone with eyes can see and healthy scratch. Care to try harder? Or not capable?

 

[Kontradiction]

Gotcha so your crackpot analysis comes down to anyone with eyes can see and healthy scratch. Care to try harder? Or not capable?

Yikes. This is not a good look. This is flailing. But fine, if you don't want to take my word on the personnel, here it is from Lazar...







It's also been broken down in the re-watch threads throughout the season which I'm now utterly certain you haven't read at all. But why do you think Shelton was a healthy scratch? Reasons for that? Include those to the following list of questions you still have not answered (one of which being a simple yes or no)...

1. Define this. (Gap integrity)

2. Whose gap integrity was much better?

3. Specific examples?

I'm sorry, is this a yes? Yes, context is important when analyzing statistics? Or no, context is not important when analyzing statistics? Because the fact that you're even debating this with me seems to indicate that you believe the answer is no, context is not important in statistics. So please, yes or no - is it important?

I'm guessing I won't get any answers on any of those three. If I can make a suggestion, in that case, I would say the following - place me on ignore. You've made a fool out of yourself trying to score a point with me for the last week. It's rather obvious that you can't handle any sort of criticism of the team without flying off the handle. We both know why that is, and I don't think that I really need to bring it up again, but I think it would be better for your mental health to take that route. Otherwise, this is not a good look at all.

 

[signbabybrady]

Yikes. This is not a good look. This is flailing. But fine, if you don't want to take my word on the personnel, here it is from Lazar...







It's also been broken down in the re-watch threads throughout the season which I'm now utterly certain you haven't read at all. But why do you think Shelton was a healthy scratch? Reasons for that? Include those to the following list of questions you still have not answered (one of which being a simple yes or no)...





I'm guessing I won't get any answers on any of those three. If I can make a suggestion, in that case, I would say the following - place me on ignore. You've made a fool out of yourself trying to score a point with me for the last week. It's rather obvious that you can't handle any sort of criticism of the team without flying off the handle. We both know why that is, and I don't think that I really need to bring it up again, but I think it would be better for your mental health to take that route. Otherwise, this is not a good look at all.

None of those plays are 4-3, 3-4, or goal line. But thanks again. I've answered all your questions just because you don't like my answers does not mean I have to keep repeating myself.

 

[Kontradiction]

None of those plays are 4-3, 3-4, or goal line. But thanks again. I've answered all your questions just because you don't like my answers does not mean I have to keep repeating myself.

That's because the team's base is the nickel, followed by the dime. They don't play a ton of 34 or 43 due to the depth at LB. You're very out of your element here. And you've answered exactly none of those questions. If you think you have, please either quote the post or link it. At this point, it's becoming pretty clear that you're trolling. However, I'll post them again...

But why do you think Shelton was a healthy scratch? Reasons for that?

1. Define this. (Gap integrity)

2. Whose gap integrity was much better?

3. Specific examples?

I'm sorry, is this a yes? Yes, context is important when analyzing statistics? Or no, context is not important when analyzing statistics? Because the fact that you're even debating this with me seems to indicate that you believe the answer is no, context is not important in statistics. So please, yes or no - is it important?

 

[signbabybrady]

That's because the team's base is the nickel, followed by the dime. They don't play a ton of 34 or 43 due to the depth at LB. You're very out of your element here. And you've answered exactly none of those questions. If you think you have, please either quote the post or link it. At this point, it's becoming pretty clear that you're trolling. However, I'll post them again...

This particular argument started in another thread with me stating that a large part of their rush problem is that the base is a pass defense. Your pointing out that our base is nickel and dime does nothing to disprove my contention that playing more 4-3 and 3-4 would give the DTs the back up they need. We used it more the last two weeks and our rush statistics went down .7 yards per carry on the season.

And I'm not going searching through the other thread for my posts you know how I feel on the subject which is that BB was more concerned about the passing game at various points this year to the detriment of the rush numbers. If you want to ignore the obvious that teams defend the run better when they assign more resources to it than feel free to continue.

 

[tasmlab]

Question: does "top scoring defense" mean a defense the allows the fewest points or the one that contributes the most points on returning fumbles and interceptions. Or both?

 

[Kontradiction]

This particular argument started in another thread with me stating that a large part of their rush problem is that the base is a pass defense. Your pointing out that our base is nickel and dime does nothing to disprove my contention that playing more 4-3 and 3-4 would give the DTs the back up they need. We used it more the last two weeks and our rush statistics went down .7 yards per carry on the season.

The problem is the personnel. The nickel is the base and has been since 2013. The Patriots, from 2013-2016 didn't have problems stopping the run out of the nickel until 2017, which was roughly the time Branch fell off. Belichick addressed this by bringing in Shelton who proceeded to play himself into a healthy scratch up until last week. That proves that the personnel is the issue. The personnel is still going to be the issue regardless of whether or not you're playing nickel, 34, 43, bear front, goal line, etc. Furthermore, there is no evidence that they played heavier fronts in the Jets game. The snap counts bare that out. The did show more heavy fronts in the Bills game, though. There is also no evidence whatsoever that the Patriots will stick with a heavier front since it puts them at a disadvantage against the pass and Bill's personnel packages have made it clear that he prefers to stop the run with a nickel base and dime after that.

And I'm not going searching through the other thread for my posts you know how I feel on the subject which is that BB was more concerned about the passing game at various points this year to the detriment of the rush numbers. If you want to ignore the obvious that teams defend the run better when they assign more resources to it than feel free to continue.

The problem is that you can't search for them... because they don't exist. You literally came in to this thread arguing about the importance of context when it comes to analyzing stats like scoring O or scoring D. You then proceeded to move the goal posts multiple times, toss out straw men arguments, and a red herring to boot. It's over. You're out of your element here. You know that, I know that, and multiple people (outside observers) have told you that over the course of the last week or so. Let... it... go.

 

[Kontradiction]

Question: does "top scoring defense" mean a defense the allows the fewest points or the one that contributes the most points on returning fumbles and interceptions. Or both?

That it allowed the fewest points. Our PPG ranking this season puts us at 7th. Last season, it was 5th.

 

[Doctor DDS]

2018 defense seems pretty similar to prior versions. Scoring ranked much better than yards as is the norm. They were able to create turnovers. Run defense continues to be a major concern but secondary is probably the best they've had in several years. Was not supported quite as much from the offense as in prior years and was the better unit on the field for several games this year.

Appear to have enough to help the Pats get through the divisional round but all bets are off if they play the Chiefs/Saints or Rams later on. But even the best defenses have a chance to get torched by one of those teams in the playoffs so nothing would surprise me. (none of the top 2017 playoff defenses made it through the gauntlet unscathed either)

 

[Tb12goesinya]

5th in total rushing yards, without a running QB.

They decided it was essential to do everything possible to put QBs pocket safety at the forefront. Tweaked offensive philosophy. Drafted OT. Traded for OT. Drafted RB.

Impressive how they assessed their situation and went out and executed their vision, even with 1st round pick injury.

 

[sean10mm]

In 09 Pats were near the top in points for and against and that season was a mess.

Advanced stats like SRS are weirdly in love with the 2009 team too, I think that 59-0 win over the Titans completely broke the curve there. The only other thing in their favor was a high SOS (strength of schedule)... which makes you doubt their SOS calculation formula because they literally played one good team that entire year, the 13-3 Saints... that beat them like the stepchild of a redheaded rented mule.

 

[signbabybrady]

The problem is the personnel. The nickel is the base and has been since 2013. The Patriots, from 2013-2016 didn't have problems stopping the run out of the nickel until 2017, which was roughly the time Branch fell off. Belichick addressed this by bringing in Shelton who proceeded to play himself into a healthy scratch up until last week. That proves that the personnel is the issue. The personnel is still going to be the issue regardless of whether or not you're playing nickel, 34, 43, bear front, goal line, etc. Furthermore, there is no evidence that they played heavier fronts in the Jets game. The snap counts bare that out. The did show more heavy fronts in the Bills game, though. There is also no evidence whatsoever that the Patriots will stick with a heavier front since it puts them at a disadvantage against the pass and Bill's personnel packages have made it clear that he prefers to stop the run with a nickel base and dime after that.

Vince and Branch aren't walking through this door. You had asked me a few weeks ago how we can fix the rush problem. I suggested activating Shelton and playing more 4-3 and 3-4 would be a start. And it seems to have worked the last few weeks. Also I never suggested we have to run more 3-4/4-3 just that doing so would improve the rush defense. My real point was that the rush D is worse because we focus way more attention to the passing game evidence by the fact we have run more nickel and dime this year than 2013-2016 and any years previous too.

 

[signbabybrady]

The problem is that you can't search for them... because they don't exist. You literally came in to this thread arguing about the importance of context when it comes to analyzing stats like scoring O or scoring D. You then proceeded to move the goal posts multiple times, toss out straw men arguments, and a red herring to boot. It's over. You're out of your element here. You know that, I know that, and multiple people (outside observers) have told you that over the course of the last week or so. Let... it... go.

I came into this thread because someone had pointed out some positive things this team has going for it only to find you require more context for stats that are pretty clear and straight forward and most people need little context to understand. Then you doubled down wanting more context from someone who mentioned wins and losses. Just admit the only context you were actually looking for is one that serves your opinion that the season is over.

Oh and I'm out of my element yet the two main things we've been arguing about "rush defense" and "Season over". Both things have improved in my favor since the arguments started our Rush D has improved by .7 yards per carry and we went from the 3 seed to a 2 seed since you proclaimed season over. But please go on telling everyone how I'm the one out of my element.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Advanced stats like SRS are weirdly in love with the 2009 team too, I think that 59-0 win over the Titans completely broke the curve there. The only other thing in their favor was a high SOS (strength of schedule)... which makes you doubt their SOS calculation formula because they literally played one good team that entire year, the 13-3 Saints... that beat them like the stepchild of a redheaded rented mule.

Exactly. I do believe even with a healthy Welker they were not beating Baltimore in the playoffs.

That team was your classic front-runner