Reiss: Patriots defense turning up pressure

[slash83]

New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

Check out these stats, love the fact the defense has been attacking more.

# 4-man rush or less: 56.2 percent
# 5-man rush: 30.4 percent
# 6-man rush or more: 13.4 percent

 

[Kontradiction]

What were the percentages before the last couple of games? Also, keep in mind that this could be due to the quarterbacks/offenses that we've played against in the past two games as BB/Pees might see fit to scale back the 5+ man rushes if we face better quarterbacks/offenses (say the Colts and the Saints). But I am happy to see that the defense has been more aggressive. It was pretty obvious in the Denver game that a four man rush just simply wasn't going to cut it.

 

[letekro]

What were the percentages before the last couple of games? Also, keep in mind that this could be due to the quarterbacks/offenses that we've played against in the past two games as BB/Pees might see fit to scale back the 5+ man rushes if we face better quarterbacks/offenses (say the Colts and the Saints). But I am happy to see that the defense has been more aggressive. It was pretty obvious in the Denver game that a four man rush just simply wasn't going to cut it.

Explain how a 5, 6, or 7 man rush would've helped on the 5 yard outs and slants that Denver ran all day. If anything, fault the depth of the CB's. But I don't think you can even do that. The plan was to limit the big plays to Royal and Marshall. Seeing that we held them to 17 pts in regulation, I don't think you can argue too much with the strategy.

 

[realtime]

Explain how a 5, 6, or 7 man rush would've helped on the 5 yard outs and slants that Denver ran all day. If anything, fault the depth of the CB's. But I don't think you can even do that. The plan was to limit the big plays to Royal and Marshall. Seeing that we held them to 17 pts in regulation, I don't think you can argue too much with the strategy.

Crickets yet again . . . .

 

[Bertil]

I said in another thread that I believed that this Defense was instilling basic concepts over the first few weeks. Now they're expanding the Defensive playbook. They've put Pees up in the booth to get a better feel of the flow of the game with increasingly better results over admittedly weaker foes than they'll be facing after the bye. I expect that they will play better as the Season moves along, with increasing (or more judicious) aggressiveness. Who knows, by the end of the year, they might just have something special out there.

That sounds more like the Patriot Defenses of old, the ones we'll remember fondly once this golden New England era passes into history...

 

[Kontradiction]

Explain how a 5, 6, or 7 man rush would've helped on the 5 yard outs and slants that Denver ran all day. If anything, fault the depth of the CB's. But I don't think you can even do that. The plan was to limit the big plays to Royal and Marshall. Seeing that we held them to 17 pts in regulation, I don't think you can argue too much with the strategy.

That's yet another thing that we could have done on defense, was move the corners up a bit more to press. If we had done that and maybe sent a few more pass rushers at Orton, maybe they wouldn't have ripped off a couple of 90+ yard time consuming drives. We were lucky we only held Denver to 20 points.

Sending multiple pass rushers and getting there successfully disrupts the quarterback's pass, no matter if it's a long or short pass. That's basic defense. Just ask Tom Brady how it worked in Super Bowl XLII.

 

[Kontradiction]

Crickets yet again . . . .

I forgot about this thread, and have gone into detail about what I believe our defensive philsophy should have been against Denver in countless other threads. If you lurk enough (which you probably do), you would have noticed it.

Did letekro's coattails get dirty after you rode them as much as you just did?