Pats D still Number 2 in AFC points against

[Ring 6]

Would you take Denvers defense or New Englands defense

Depends. Denver would have lost 4 of 6 if NO could kick a PAT.
They were torched by the Raiders for 218 on the ground and have only held 3 opponents all season to 17 or less.
If you are talking who has played better so far this year, because of the takeaways it would be Denver.

 

[Jangles]

If you are talking who has played better so far this year it would be Denver.

fixed it for you

 

[Ring 6]

fixed it for you

Because of takeaways.
How can you not get through your thick head that games are decided by points, so the job of a defense is to keep points off the board.
Playing pretty and allowing more points is not better.

 

[RDS11]

Because of takeaways.
How can you not get through your thick head that games are decided by points, so the job of a defense is to keep points off the board.
Playing pretty and allowing more points is not better.

You've got to be kidding.

So far, the Pats have allowed 20 TDS and 19 field goal attempts to Denver's 18 TDs and 22 field goal attempts.

So far, it looks pretty even...but Denver has faced the Falcons (#1 points-per-game in the NFL), Chargers 2 times (#2 PPG in the NFL), Saints (#3 PPG in the NFL), Raiders (#5 PPG in the NFL) and Colts (#7 PPG in the NFL).

6 of their 10 games were against offenses in the top 7. The best the Pats have played : Buffalo, at number 10.

 

[Ring 6]

You've got to be kidding.

So far, the Pats have allowed 20 TDS and 19 field goal attempts to Denver's 18 TDs and 22 field goal attempts.

So far, it looks pretty even...but Denver has faced the Falcons (#1 points-per-game in the NFL), Chargers 2 times (#2 PPG in the NFL), Saints (#3 PPG in the NFL), Raiders (#5 PPG in the NFL) and Colts (#7 PPG in the NFL).

6 of their 10 games were against offenses in the top 7. The best the Pats have played : Buffalo, at number 10.

You are severely overrating schedule. I am glad that you think great defense comes in LOSING to 3 of the 4 and only not losing to the 4th is a blocked PAT returned for 2.

 

[RDS11]

You are severely overrating schedule.

So, by your metrics facing the Falcons offense half the time, while the other team faces the Browns half the time should have no bearing on overall defensive statistics between 2 teams over the whole season ?

This isn't baseball. A 16 game season does not provide a big enough sample to make the assumption that all schedules are the same.

The Broncos have faced all the top offenses in the NFL (except us), and so far they are allowing 0.9 more PPG than the Pats. Take out the Browns, Bengals, Pittsburgh game without Roethlisburger from our schedule, and replace any of these by a game against the Falcons, Saints or Raiders. I think that 0.9 margin would be gone for sure.

I am glad that you think great defense comes in LOSING to 3 of the 4 and only not losing to the 4th is a blocked PAT returned for 2.

I believe that other than the Raiders game, the Broncos defense has allowed less points than their opponent season average, despite facing all the best (other than us) the NFL has to offer this year.

Their defense didn't lose games. The team did. Losing might have a little more to do with their offense than their defense though, don't you think ?

 

[AtomicDawg]

Only ONCE in that decade did any Patriot player hit double digits in sacks (Vrabel in 07)

Actually this is incorrect. Another player hit double digits in sacks in the decade of the 2000s (even though I believe you meant the Championship teams of 01, 03 and 04).








It was Tully Banta-Cain (remember him?!!) in 2009. He had 10 sacks that year. Which adds to your point of, it really is all about TEAM in every aspect.

 

[Ring 6]

So, by your metrics facing the Falcons offense half the time, while the other team faces the Browns half the time should have no bearing on overall defensive statistics between 2 teams over the whole season ?

I'm not aware of any teams that face the Falcons or the Browns in half of their games.

This isn't baseball. A 16 game season does not provide a big enough sample to make the assumption that all schedules are the same.

No it isn't baseball which is why all of the underlying statistics that produce the result are largely meaningless.

The Broncos have faced all the top offenses in the NFL (except us), and so far they are allowing 0.9 more PPG than the Pats. Take out the Browns, Bengals, Pittsburgh game without Roethlisburger from our schedule, and replace any of these by a game against the Falcons, Saints or Raiders. I think that 0.9 margin would be gone for sure.

This is where we depart. I do not believe in comparing what you think might have happened to what actually happened on the football field. If it were that simple then every team would allow more points to higher scoring teams and less points to lower scoring teams without variation and that is not the case. Football is about matchups, situations, and scheme, not statistics. You do not know how teams will play against each other until they do. In your example, if the Raiders gashed Denver for 200 yards on the ground, how do you know Pittsburgh with Leveon Bell, even with Jones at QB would not have done better against them than SD, NO or the Raiders.
Again, you are handing your hat on defensive performances that resulted (or should have resulted) in losses.
See the point is what they have actually done on the football field. Everything else is your guess based upon flawed logic.


(Also Denver played Cincinnati and allowed the same 17 we did)

I believe that other than the Raiders game, the Broncos defense has allowed less points than their opponent season average, despite facing all the best (other than us) the NFL has to offer this year.

Their defense didn't lose games. The team did. Losing might have a little more to do with their offense than their defense though, don't you think ?

Its a team game. That's a large part of the point here. Do you really think that the Patriot defense after getting a big lead and allowing Miami to put up points and yards had a worse day than the Broncos defense not holding NO on the last drive of the game, to get saved by a PAT miss?

Allowing the drives that lose games is entirely different than allowing a bunch yards and a handful of points while winning.

 

[RDS11]

I'm not aware of any teams that face the Falcons or the Browns in half of their games..

Obviously you didn't get the point : the Broncos have played half their games against the top offensive teams, while the Pats have played half their games against the bottom ranked offensive team.

Of course it has an impact who each team is playing. Also important is when the met each other : playing Pittsburgh without Roethlisburger makes a whole lot of difference.

This is where we depart. I do not believe in comparing what you think might have happened to what actually happened on the football field. If it were that simple then every team would allow more points to higher scoring teams and less points to lower scoring teams without variation and that is not the case. Football is about matchups, situations, and scheme, not statistics. You do not know how teams will play against each other until they do. In your example, if the Raiders gashed Denver for 200 yards on the ground, how do you know Pittsburgh with Leveon Bell, even with Jones at QB would not have done better against them than SD, NO or the Raiders.
Again, you are handing your hat on defensive performances that resulted (or should have resulted) in losses.
See the point is what they have actually done on the football field. Everything else is your guess based upon flawed logic...

No, flawed logic is to argue that the Pats are great on defense, as good as Denver if it wasn't for the turnovers issues (or lack there of) based on one single statistic : 18.0 to 18.9 points per game allowed, while saying that football is about matchups, situations and statistics and completely disregarding the fact that the Pats offense (and their special teams, for that matter) is much stronger than the Broncos'.

The Pats defense has the luxury of having the best starting field position, on average, per drive. That comes from great offense and great special team play. Yet, when you look only at the PPG allowed to make a case for the Pats defense, you conveniently forget about all those matchups and situations, as you say.

Its a team game. That's a large part of the point here. Do you really think that the Patriot defense after getting a big lead and allowing Miami to put up points and yards had a worse day than the Broncos defense not holding NO on the last drive of the game, to get saved by a PAT miss?

Allowing the drives that lose games is entirely different than allowing a bunch yards and a handful of points while winning.

Again, this argument makes no sense. Either it's a team game, we look at the final results and see that the Broncos won, or we look at the ifs and whys.

But for some reason you keep looking at both. If you say that the Broncos defense couldn't hold their own against the Saints, let me remind you that the Pats defense was about to blow it against the Dolphins. The Dolphins scored 3 TDs on 3 drives, and got within 7 points with 6:06 to play. The Pats offense had to save the day, taking 5:02 from the clock with a 54 yard-drive. I don't consider giving up 21 points in 21 plays, and letting the other team come within 7 points of tying the game with more than 6 minutes to play ''garbage time''. The interception at the end of the game was the results of the Pats offense leaving the Dolphins with only 1 minute and no timeout, not because the defense did it by themselves.

The difference is that the Dolphins offense is pathetic, while the Saints offense is legitimate.

If you are basing your argument for the Pats defense greatness based on a single statistic, the average PPG, then looking at the opponents matters. Statistics are all about context.

 

[Ring 6]

Obviously you didn't get the point : the Broncos have played half their games against the top offensive teams, while the Pats have played half their games against the bottom ranked offensive team.

Of course it has an impact who each team is playing. Also important is when the met each other : playing Pittsburgh without Roethlisburger makes a whole lot of difference.



No, flawed logic is to argue that the Pats are great on defense, as good as Denver if it wasn't for the turnovers issues (or lack there of) based on one single statistic : 18.0 to 18.9 points per game allowed, while saying that football is about matchups, situations and statistics and completely disregarding the fact that the Pats offense (and their special teams, for that matter) is much stronger than the Broncos'.

The Pats defense has the luxury of having the best starting field position, on average, per drive. That comes from great offense and great special team play. Yet, when you look only at the PPG allowed to make a case for the Pats defense, you conveniently forget about all those matchups and situations, as you say.




Again, this argument makes no sense. Either it's a team game, we look at the final results and see that the Broncos won, or we look at the ifs and whys.

But for some reason you keep looking at both. If you say that the Broncos defense couldn't hold their own against the Saints, let me remind you that the Pats defense was about to blow it against the Dolphins. The Dolphins scored 3 TDs on 3 drives, and got within 7 points with 6:06 to play. The Pats offense had to save the day, taking 5:02 from the clock with a 54 yard-drive. I don't consider giving up 21 points in 21 plays, and letting the other team come within 7 points of tying the game with more than 6 minutes to play ''garbage time''. The interception at the end of the game was the results of the Pats offense leaving the Dolphins with only 1 minute and no timeout, not because the defense did it by themselves.

The difference is that the Dolphins offense is pathetic, while the Saints offense is legitimate.

If you are basing your argument for the Pats defense greatness based on a single statistic, the average PPG, then looking at the opponents matters. Statistics are all about context.

The patriots defense has played 10 games. They have won 8 lost 2 one of which they were shut out. They have allowed 180 points.
The broncos have played 10 games won 7 lost 3 and allowed 189 points.
All of the underlying plays good or bad, situations, opponents, matchups, injuries, weather, bounces of the ball or prayers by the pope that led up to that is irrelevant to the fact that there are 2 things a defense is supposed to do; stop points and take the ball away. No particular way of doing that is better than any other.
The patriots have been better at limiting points than the broncos. The broncos however have taken the ball away at such a higher volume that it overcomes that and means they have played better defense.

You only play defense against who shows up. In the NFL you don't get judged by people's opinion of how you would have played against a different team or in a different day.

The problem with statistics is when you try to use them to tell you something other than what happened in the field matters.

Continue to pretend that the judgment of how a defense played is how you think they would have in a make believe game that never occurred.
I will continue to use what happened.
The patriots are 8-2. That is what they have done in the field. There is no statistic on the world that will make them 9-1 or 7-3 just as there is no statistic in the world that will say they allowed more than 180 points.

 

[skinnydog]

AJ, I really don't get your defense of the Pats defense. You seem to like the Pats defense far, far more than Belichik likes his own defense. He's stated it needs work. Sending Collins out of town indicates he's not happy with the defense. Leaving Sheard home indicates he's not happy about the D. Constantantly switching players at the #2 cornerback position indicates he's not happy with his D. Those are all personnel changes made due to poor performance. So if he's not happy about it why are you? Hell, listen to the players on defense none of them act like or talk they are on a top defense.

This currently is not a bad defense, but overall it is average despite the points per game stat. Denver's offense sucks. Unlike, the Pats They rely on their defense to go out and win games. Their record is due more to the fact that even if they slow down top offenses their own offense can't put up points. Also Denvers defense is not as good as last years.

The Pats D has the rare luxury of playing with a top offense that rarely turns the ball over anywhere let alone on their own side of the field. Their punting game has been good as has the kickoffs. I'd venture a guess that in terms their opponents average starting field position, the Pats are among the league leaders. Is this D good enough to win a Super Bowl? Yes if their offense has a good game.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

I don't think he's saying it's great or can't improve, just that it's not as bad as some seem to think in today's NFL. Seems some of you guys are using the 2001-2004 NFL to measure this defense when it should be measured against teams that are playing in 2016.

 

[venecol]

I think the Pats D could have allowed 20 or 30 more points (maybe more) and the team would still be 8-2.

What would that make the D? Good because team still won or bad but the O is so good it didn't matter?

I don't know think I'll smoke a branch and think about it.

 

[deroc5050]

Obviously you didn't get the point : the Broncos have played half their games against the top offensive teams, while the Pats have played half their games against the bottom ranked offensive team.

Of course it has an impact who each team is playing. Also important is when the met each other : playing Pittsburgh without Roethlisburger makes a whole lot of difference.



No, flawed logic is to argue that the Pats are great on defense, as good as Denver if it wasn't for the turnovers issues (or lack there of) based on one single statistic : 18.0 to 18.9 points per game allowed, while saying that football is about matchups, situations and statistics and completely disregarding the fact that the Pats offense (and their special teams, for that matter) is much stronger than the Broncos'.

The Pats defense has the luxury of having the best starting field position, on average, per drive. That comes from great offense and great special team play. Yet, when you look only at the PPG allowed to make a case for the Pats defense, you conveniently forget about all those matchups and situations, as you say.




Again, this argument makes no sense. Either it's a team game, we look at the final results and see that the Broncos won, or we look at the ifs and whys.

But for some reason you keep looking at both. If you say that the Broncos defense couldn't hold their own against the Saints, let me remind you that the Pats defense was about to blow it against the Dolphins. The Dolphins scored 3 TDs on 3 drives, and got within 7 points with 6:06 to play. The Pats offense had to save the day, taking 5:02 from the clock with a 54 yard-drive. I don't consider giving up 21 points in 21 plays, and letting the other team come within 7 points of tying the game with more than 6 minutes to play ''garbage time''. The interception at the end of the game was the results of the Pats offense leaving the Dolphins with only 1 minute and no timeout, not because the defense did it by themselves.

The difference is that the Dolphins offense is pathetic, while the Saints offense is legitimate.

If you are basing your argument for the Pats defense greatness based on a single statistic, the average PPG, then looking at the opponents matters. Statistics are all about context.

Honeslty just let him have his "Patriots Defense is Elite argument" This guy is unreal.. I mean the Pats have an average Defense and they have played poor offenses for the most part. Giving up less points to crap offenses is not the be all end all stat.

 

[1960Pats]

I'd love to see you list of 11-15 better defenses and your reason why that even though they let up more points somehow they are better.

The best part of all is that many of those teams gave up more points AND played an easier schedule than the Pats.

Has anybody else considered that the reason the Pats opponents look weaker (even though they aren't) is because the Pats make them look that way?

I'm enjoying seeing people try to somehow ignore points allowed as a defensive stat. That's not an easy thing to do.

 

[1960Pats]

You gotta go by what your eyes tell you, if your living off of turn overs but you really don't stop anyone then yeah, I would say its dangerous to count on turn overs because they are inconsistent.

Other than that I will just agree to disagree with you. I don't have a lot of confidence that the defense will win us any games in the playoffs. There Offense will have to win it.. and we have seen how that goes.

We're 11 weeks into the season and the Pats are 7th in the NFL in points for and 3rd in points against. Their two losses were at home, a shutout and a game where they had a 1st and goal from the 1 at the end and couldn't score. That tells me that it's the offense that needs to step up, not the defense.

 

[luuked]

Would you take Denvers defense or New Englands defense

If I also have to take Denver's joke of an offense then I obviously take the Pats D. Because you know.. it's a full team sport.

 

[Mack Herron]

You need to look at more than points allowed to isolate defensive performance.

 

[Ring 6]

You need to look at more than points allowed to isolate defensive performance.

This is backwards. Defensive performance is black and white. Points allowed and takeaways.
Looking at statistics to judge a defense is simply trying to use a formal or informal model to predict what will happen in the future.
Statistics that say a defense that allowed more points should be better than one that allowed fewer does not alter the result and so far no one had an accurate model of the future and probably never will because statistics cannot account for matchups and how teams react to situations they have not been in before.

 

[RDS11]

This is backwards. Defensive performance is black and white.

That's simply not true.

An offense that keeps turning the ball over on their own side of the field will greatly hinder the defense chances of stopping points scored against them (heck, a pick-6 is counted as ''points against'' and the defense hasn't even seen the field).

So having the best starting field position helps our defense.

Points allowed is an important stat on a given game only. When the game is done, losing 41-14 (say, like the Pats against the Chiefs in 2014) or 25-14 doesn't matter. Yet, the difference between those 2 scores has a 1.0 PPG difference over the whole season. Football season is only 16 games long. One single game abnormality (good or bad) has a significant effect of the PPG average.

I'm not trying to say the Pats defense isn't good. It's a team game, and the defense has done enough to support our offense to get to 8-2. But I don't believe that the defense is the strength of this team. I believe that Denver's strength is their defense, and they have done most of the heavy lifting to get the team to 7-3. That's why I don't support the argument that total points against is a great measure of defensive greatness.

Lastly, Bill Belichick himself doesn't seem pleased with our defense. It's week 12 of the season, and he is still changing the starters at DE, OLB and CB...not because of injuries, so we have to assume it's because of poor play.