Pats D still Number 2 in AFC points against

[RDS11]

The 2003 Patriots allowed 14.9 ppg. The league average was a little under 20.

BUT, they played 8 of 16 games against offenses ranked in the bottom 10, and 5 ranked in the bottom 5 of the league in scoring.
They allowed 12 ppg to bottom 5 teams.
They allowed 13.3 ppg to bottom 10 teams.

Clearly the defense sucked and only had good ppg because of playing a weak schedule.
In fact they played 13 of 16 against teams ranked outside of the top 10 and only allowed 12.6 ppg.

My God, that defense is going to suck when it plays good offenses.
Oh no, they allowed 30 ppg in the 3 games against top 10 offenses.

Analytics have spoken, take away the SB trophy because that defense clearly wasn't good enough to win the SB.

I don't see your point, you just prove that your own argument of PPG is meaningless.

Anyways, the 2003 team defense might be one of the greatest of all-time nobody talks about. The passer rating against them was 56.2, with only 11 TDs passes scored against them all year (and 29 INTs). That's 10 base point better than the 2nd best team that year.

The 2002 Bucs defense passer rating was at 48.4 (10 TD passes all year) while the mighty 2000 Ravens defensive passer rating wasn't even top in the league that year, at 62.5.

The 2003 Pats allowed an average of 4.4 yards per play, just 0.2 yards more than the 2002 Bucs and 0.1 more than the 2000 Ravens.

During that time period, Super Bowl winners had all a great pass defense : The Rams were number 2 in the league in '99, Ravens 3rd in 2000, Pats 3rd in 2001, Bucs 1st in 2002, Pats 1st in 2003.

Then Polian changed the rules after 2003, and for a few years stopping the pass seemed to be less important for winning Super Bowls : Pats 7th in 2004, Steelers 8th in 2005, Colts 15th in 2006.

In the last 3 years, 2 of the 3 Super Bowl winners were in the top 5 in defending the pass. The other (2014 Pats) was 10th.

Currently in 2016 the Pats are 14th. But they are pretty good at not allowing TD passes (3.7%, 10th in the league). Their ranking would be a lot higher with a few more INTs.

We all know the Pats play a bend but don't break defense. The basic idea is to take away long, easy score, and make the offense score over a long drive, knowing that at some point chances are the offense will make a mistake, be that a penalty, a turnover, or simply not executing properly. The problem here, biggest fear for a one-and-done playoff game, is that a playoff opponent is probably better than average, and thus less apt to shoot themselves in the foot. So from a player execution, it could lead to more points allowed than our season average. That's another reason why I don't trust the PPG regular season stat as a measure of how well we can do in the playoffs. And, lo0king beyond the PPG, mostly at our efficiency stats, I'm a bit concerned.

Again, this defense does not suck. But it is not showing up in efficiency numbers that past Super Bowl winners have had.

 

[Ring 6]

This is how (english is not my first language) -- > That is a laughable statement. Most of the teams would try to get the TD first, (rather) than try to burn clock.

I don't agree. With 4 shots most teams would burn some clock. It only makes sense. There have been tons of NFL games where a team can get in FG range in 30 seconds.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't see your point, you just prove that your own argument of PPG is meaningless.

Anyways, the 2003 team defense might be one of the greatest of all-time nobody talks about. The passer rating against them was 56.2, with only 11 TDs passes scored against them all year (and 29 INTs). That's 10 base point better than the 2nd best team that year.

The 2002 Bucs defense passer rating was at 48.4 (10 TD passes all year) while the mighty 2000 Ravens defensive passer rating wasn't even top in the league that year, at 62.5.

The 2003 Pats allowed an average of 4.4 yards per play, just 0.2 yards more than the 2002 Bucs and 0.1 more than the 2000 Ravens.

During that time period, Super Bowl winners had all a great pass defense : The Rams were number 2 in the league in '99, Ravens 3rd in 2000, Pats 3rd in 2001, Bucs 1st in 2002, Pats 1st in 2003.

Then Polian changed the rules after 2003, and for a few years stopping the pass seemed to be less important for winning Super Bowls : Pats 7th in 2004, Steelers 8th in 2005, Colts 15th in 2006.

In the last 3 years, 2 of the 3 Super Bowl winners were in the top 5 in defending the pass. The other (2014 Pats) was 10th.

Currently in 2016 the Pats are 14th. But they are pretty good at not allowing TD passes (3.7%, 10th in the league). Their ranking would be a lot higher with a few more INTs.

We all know the Pats play a bend but don't break defense. The basic idea is to take away long, easy score, and make the offense score over a long drive, knowing that at some point chances are the offense will make a mistake, be that a penalty, a turnover, or simply not executing properly. The problem here, biggest fear for a one-and-done playoff game, is that a playoff opponent is probably better than average, and thus less apt to shoot themselves in the foot. So from a player execution, it could lead to more points allowed than our season average. That's another reason why I don't trust the PPG regular season stat as a measure of how well we can do in the playoffs. And, lo0king beyond the PPG, mostly at our efficiency stats, I'm a bit concerned.

Again, this defense does not suck. But it is not showing up in efficiency numbers that past Super Bowl winners have had.

Efficiency numbers do not win football games nor do they predict future performance better than points allowed.

 

[RDS11]

Efficiency numbers do not win football games nor do they predict future performance better than points allowed.

I never said they do win games. I said that past Super Bowl winners have had better efficiency numbers that we have at this time, and that's not good omen.

 

[patsfanincleveland]

Some of us aren't big PPG people. When you have the greatest decision maker in NFL history it helps out PPG.

Denver pass D is #1 in yards per game, yards per attempt, and opposing qbr. Their defense is in another league.

We had this debate years ago with the Jets defenses. We just disagree.

Huh?

Considering that points tend to be important in determining who wins football games.......one would encourage you to reconsider.

Also, no..........Denver's defense is not "in another league". They were beyond horrendous against Atlanta and Oakland and whoever..........

Coaching mistakes by the hoodie in the AFCCG has given them a reputation that performance hasn't earned.

The reality is the single greatest judge of a defense is the ability to adjust in game.

Had any of you bothered to understand the Seattle game....you would have realized after a first half out of nowhere.........Seattle was limited to 6 points in the second half and the offense "fumbled" away the chance to proceed down for a game winning drive.

Frankly, that game was a blessing since that "surprise" will not have a chance to "surprise" anyone again.

 

[Ring 6]

I never said they do win games. I said that past Super Bowl winners have had better efficiency numbers that we have at this time, and that's not good omen.

Relax football isn't won and lost by statistics, algorithms and mathematics

 

[patsderoer]

I don't agree. With 4 shots most teams would burn some clock. It only makes sense. There have been tons of NFL games where a team can get in FG range in 30 seconds.

That may be. But we are talking about this Seattle game. And on Seattle's D is tough to score TDs, that is why I said that most teams would try to get that TD first (that would be their first priority, rather than burn clock)

 

[Ring 6]

That may be. But we are talking about this Seattle game. And on Seattle's D is tough to score TDs, that is why I said that most teams would try to get that TD first (that would be their first priority, rather than burn clock)

I think almost every team would waste a down to burn the clock in that situation. It's almost a no brainer.

 

[deroc5050]

I don't agree. With 4 shots most teams would burn some clock. It only makes sense. There have been tons of NFL games where a team can get in FG range in 30 seconds.

Dude most teams would be trying to score the football especially down 7 against 1 of the best defenses in the league. I have never seen a game on the 1 yard line where an offense did not try to score on every play. I honestly can't remember that situation.

You think the Patriots have a good Defense right? Like a top 10 defense playing some of the worst offenses in the league?

 

[Ring 6]

Dude most teams would be trying to score the football especially down 7 against 1 of the best defenses in the league. I have never seen a game on the 1 yard line where an offense did not try to score on every play. I honestly can't remember that situation.

You think the Patriots have a good Defense right? Like a top 10 defense playing some of the worst offenses in the league?

You don't leave time in the clock. That's just common sense.

 

[deroc5050]

You don't leave time in the clock. That's just common sense.

Actually its common sense to score points. If you only need to kick a field goal then yeah milk clock, I have seen that in just about every game that calls for it. However when you need to score a TD I can't remember a team milking clock.

Its common sense to score more points than your opponent. Or at the very least match them if you can.

Do you think the Patriots have a top 10 defense?

 

[Joey007]

Turnovers would be great, but preventing points is more important, especially with Tom Brady on your team.

Well we haven't faced many great offenses this year, so let's just see what happens when we do face one. It allowed 30+ against Seattle's..

 

[Ring 6]

Actually its common sense to score points. If you only need to kick a field goal then yeah milk clock, I have seen that in just about every game that calls for it. However when you need to score a TD I can't remember a team milking clock.

Its common sense to score more points than your opponent. Or at the very least match them if you can.

Do you think the Patriots have a top 10 defense?

Well milking the clock is the right play.
They have absolutely been one of the top 10 defenses so far this year. No doubt.

 

[deroc5050]

They have absolutely been one of the top 10 defenses so far this year. No doubt.

Ok I am pretty sure they don't because on Sunday Ryan Fitzpatrick is gonna throw for 350 yards and pass for 3 TD's against our secondary.. actually he might not pass for 3 TD's because he doesn't have Eric Decker. Good D's would shut down Fitzmagic and get some INT's.

 

[Ring 6]

Ok I am pretty sure they don't because on Sunday Ryan Fitzpatrick is gonna throw for 350 yards and pass for 3 TD's against our secondary.. actually he might not pass for 3 TD's because he doesn't have Eric Decker. Good D's would shut down Fitzmagic and get some INT's.

So you are basing your rating of how the defense has played on a game that hadn't been played yet and your guess at what will happen? Interesting approach.

 

[RDS11]

Relax football isn't won and lost by statistics, algorithms and mathematics

That may very well be, but this team is showing similar numbers to the 2009 team, That 2009 teams was
(1) 17.8 PPG on defense, 5th best in the league
but....
(2) 81.7 defensive passer rating, 13th best in the league
(3) 4.4 yard per carry defensively, 23rd in the league

Great PPG stat, but mediocre efficiency numbers.
We know how the 2009 season ended. Having Welker might have helped a little, but it wouldn't have stopped the Ravens from gaining 234 rushing yards. That 2009 Ravens team wasn't that good, but it was a great running team. They were very efficient running the ball (4.7 ypc avg) which wasn't a good matchup for the Pats 23rd run defense.

Those who don't learn from the past are bound to repeat it.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

Still can't believe they've only created 7 turnovers. The 2011 D was absolute schitt but was masked cuz they got a ton of turnovers and had a huge +/-....so maybe this is kind of a "blessing in disguise" in that they're winning games with a garbage defense even though they're not getting takeaways

Yea i think you're right about that.. the style of defense they're playing and having these results with is more reliable and consistent than relying on random, lower percentage plays that result in turnovers.. Obviously turnovers are hugely important and can dramatically swing a game, but if your success as a defense lives and dies with turnovers, then its way more random in my opinion

 

[cmasspatsfan]

That may very well be, but this team is showing similar numbers to the 2009 team, That 2009 teams was
(1) 17.8 PPG on defense, 5th best in the league
but....
(2) 81.7 defensive passer rating, 13th best in the league
(3) 4.4 yard per carry defensively, 23rd in the league

Great PPG stat, but mediocre efficiency numbers.
We know how the 2009 season ended. Having Welker might have helped a little, but it wouldn't have stopped the Ravens from gaining 234 rushing yards. That 2009 Ravens team wasn't that good, but it was a great running team. They were very efficient running the ball (4.7 ypc avg) which wasn't a good matchup for the Pats 23rd run defense.

Those who don't learn from the past are bound to repeat it.

Or the 2010 team, last in yards per game and came within a Welker whisker of winning. If you have a great offense you only need an average defense. One side of the ball has to be great, in today's NFL with the salary cap the best you can hope for is one side to be great and carry the team.

 

[RDS11]

Or the 2010 team, last in yards per game and came within a Welker whisker of winning. If you have a great offense you only meet an average defense. One side of the ball has to be great, in today's NFL with the salary cap the best you can hope for is one side to be great and carry the team.

Of course (I'm assuming you mean the 2011 team though...and that 2011 NFL season, maybe because of the lockout, is an aberration...probably the worst defensive year in NFL history across the board) !
It's a team game, and with a salary cap it's not possible to have a superstar/playmaker at each position.
But if we look at the Pats previous Super Bowl wins, the defense in 2001 and 2003 were great, and the 2004 was pretty good (from an efficiency standpoint). The last 'great' defense was 2006, and we had a legitimate shot at winning the Super Bowl if not for the flu bug the week of the AFC Championship and the injuries at LB.

In 2014, the offense had to score more than 100 points in 3 playoffs games and Brady had 10 TD passes. Those are amazing numbers, and it's not something we can expect the offense to do every postseason.

This team is very good, certainly a Super Bowl contender, but I'm concerned that this defense, given that they are showing similar efficiency numbers to previous editions that didn't win it all, might not be able to hold its own should the offense falters.

 

[deroc5050]

So you are basing your rating of how the defense has played on a game that hadn't been played yet and your guess at what will happen? Interesting approach.

No I am kinda being sarcastic but I honestly think Ryan Fitzpatric is going to have a good day against our defense. He has done well in the past and there is no reason to think he wont against us this year. Especially if Eric Decker was playing, the Pats get a break their. The Pats D doesn't pass the smell test, I know you think they are top 10 or better.. Remember 2011 the year we lost to the Giants in the Super Bowl? Our D was ranked 31st in yards and 15th in points. Its not the defense thats good on the Pats, its all on the offense.