Rushing D isn't getting it done

[supafly]

It is what is it is. We give up 4.0 YPC about average for NFL teams (tied for 17-20). This isn't terrible. I agree that we need improvement. I'm not sure that we'll get it, other than playing poorer run offenses.

I'm much more worried about the 3rd down performance of the offense, among the very worst in the league.

IMHO, yards per game is not the appropriate stat. When your secondary is lights out, teams will run more.

It isn't the yardage per game that bothers me terribly, it is more of the fact that it's taken a turn in the wrong direction since losing Wilfork and Mayo that is bothering me. Since the gameplan of the opposition is meant to take advantage of our rush defense limitations rather than the pass defense strengths, they are pretty much getting away with what they set out to do.

It seems to be much like the past few yrs where our secondary sucked but our rush defense was good. Obviously the opposition would take advantage of the pass defense, thus putting up big numbers that would often lead to their success or at least competitiveness. Of course some of their success was limited by our offense's ability to score lots of points, so the record/success wasn't always exactly indicative of the success they were having on our defense and secondary.

Since our offense is not the same, we're going to be struggling with closer margins and windows that are not the same as in the past--so no matter which weakness they attempt to attack, if there is success in any form it's going to pose a problem for us (unless our offense goes back to scoring in the 30's etc).

I think that we're still looking at being improved from the past few years (assuming that we don't lose any more players), but I also think this 2013 Pats team is somewhat of an unknown at the moment.

The question seems to be whether we're closer to the 2003, 2005, 2009 teams or closer to the 2008, 2006, or possibly even 2011, 2012 teams. I don't think we'll know until around the beginning of December at the earliest, but in the meantime it's starting to look as if both sides of the ball are mediocre in some aspects, with a hope for improvement in the future.

 

[manxman2601]

If I had told you that we'd need 3 fourth quarter INT's to avoid getting swept by the hapless NYJ a month or two ago, and that both games would be decided by a FG with both teams scoring the exact same amount of points, you'd have laughed me out of the water and totally given up on the season---admit it.

The fact that guys like Tommy Bohanon, Jeff Cumberland, Bilall Powell, Chris Ivory, and a rookie QB who got his ass handed to him by the lowly 1-4 Steelers just a week prior speaks volumes, and you know it.

Let's knock off the spin doctor technique.

The defense DID look much better until the loss of some very key members, but the guys we have now are the players who will represent us moving forward throughout 2013; and we honestly have no idea whatsoever what they will look like. I agree that they should still be much improved from past years, but none of us know where that will lead us in the next 2 months.

Attempting to bring up "records" for a rush defense that gave up 177 yds is really showing some insane rose-colored glasses, and this is coming from someone who is normally a homer much more than a chicken little.

Your comments remind me about some thoughts after the shellacking of the Ravens playoff game at the end of the '09 season. "Yes, they gave up 240 yards on the ground, BUT....80 of those yards were on the first play of the game. If you take away that first run from Rice for 80 yards, the rush defense looked great....."

Being positive is not spin. Being hopeful does not require rose-tinted glasses. It is what it is. Save for a dire offensive performance in the second half, in particular from the supposed GOAT, we would have won that game comfortably and this thread wouldn't have even been started. I will grant that Geno Smith was allowed too much room to run and that this was a failing of our run defense but that and our offense's inability to mount significant drives was why they were able to get 177 yards, not because our defensive unit just buckled in the run game.

They ran the ball that much because it was an obvious game plan considering the absences of Kelly and Wilfork. And if Tom Brady had been himself rather than that imposter we saw last Sunday, it would have been a major failure as a game plan.

 

[IllegalContact]

I'd bet no team in the league would fare as well as the pats have if they lost their starting DT's, best LB and best CB . The good news is that just as with any other position, Collins and fletcher will improve with the higher snap count.

Tom Brady and the passing offense needs to get it together to help force opponents away from the running game.

 

[Timbo717]

I think all sides of the argument here have good points. If the Pats had converted more than 1 out of 12 on 3rd downs, I would be say it was on the defense moreso than my current opinion which is that the offense has to take a big piece of blame. Maybe not the majority, but a big piece.

The opponent can only eat up so much time on any given drive without having to turn it over or score. The combination of the struggling offense giving them THAT many drives and then not being to stop them is a weakness at the moment they need to improve.

Even if we ignore the YPC and whether it is good or bad and the Jets 3rd conversion rate, in this particular game it is a combo of both offense & defensive failures which I think everyone believes. It is always a combo of both, of course but the Pats were just awful on 3rd down. It's also not the first game where there have been bad signs. I do agree with Supafly that we have no idea what we have going forward, so here's hoping they improve with more reps.

 

[Harrisoned!]

It isn't the yardage per game that bothers me terribly, it is more of the fact that it's taken a turn in the wrong direction since losing Wilfork and Mayo that is bothering me. Since the gameplan of the opposition is meant to take advantage of our rush defense limitations rather than the pass defense strengths, they are pretty much getting away with what they set out to do.

It seems to be much like the past few yrs where our secondary sucked but our rush defense was good. Obviously the opposition would take advantage of the pass defense, thus putting up big numbers that would often lead to their success or at least competitiveness. Of course some of their success was limited by our offense's ability to score lots of points, so the record/success wasn't always exactly indicative of the success they were having on our defense and secondary.

Since our offense is not the same, we're going to be struggling with closer margins and windows that are not the same as in the past--so no matter which weakness they attempt to attack, if there is success in any form it's going to pose a problem for us (unless our offense goes back to scoring in the 30's etc).

I think that we're still looking at being improved from the past few years (assuming that we don't lose any more players), but I also think this 2013 Pats team is somewhat of an unknown at the moment.

The question seems to be whether we're closer to the 2003, 2005, 2009 teams or closer to the 2008, 2006, or possibly even 2011, 2012 teams. I don't think we'll know until around the beginning of December at the earliest, but in the meantime it's starting to look as if both sides of the ball are mediocre in some aspects, with a hope for improvement in the future.

Wait, you are surprised that losing the best nosetackle in the NFL and one of the 3-4 best linebackers in the AFC has resulted in a decline in performance against the run?

 

[HarryHH]

I agree also. Just can't have those three players out and expect good things. In an earlier post someone stated the stats on the Jets running game, 52 carries and an avg of 3.4. I didn't count but they made some decent yardage on several running plays that mad a big difference in chalking up the yards.

 

[mgteich]

If 3.4 YPC (3.1 YPC for RB's) isn't good enough, then are run defense isn't good enough. Personally, I don't expect to see an improvement from those results. I also think that thid production is fine, especially given our pass defense.

IMHO, a Tom Brady team can be bailed out by the defense. However, The defense will not LEAD the way to the Super Bowl. That task belongs to Brady. If he cannot lead the offense to high production, we cannot ultimately succeed.

This team cannot win too many games with our third down production. We cannot succeed with being among the leaders in most drops. It is HUGELY impressive that we are 5-2.

I agree also. Just can't have those three players out and expect good things. In an earlier post someone stated the stats on the Jets running game, 52 carries and an avg of 3.4. I didn't count but they made some decent yardage on several running plays that mad a big difference in chalking up the yards.

 

[jmt57]

I'd bet no team in the league would fare as well as the pats have if they lost their starting DT's, best LB and best CB . The good news is that just as with any other position, Collins and fletcher will improve with the higher snap count.

Tom Brady and the passing offense needs to get it together to help force opponents away from the running game.

A near-perfect example of that scenario is the Chicago Bears.

- Pro Bowl DT Henry Melton goes on IR with torn ACL
- DT Nate Collins goes on IR with torn ACL
- LB Lance Briggs will be out for 6 weeks with shoulder injury
- CB Charles Tillman has been playing injured all season

Result: Bears have plummeted from one of the best defenses in the NFL to one of the worst. A year ago Chicago ranked 3rd, allowing 17.3 points per game; this year they are 28th at 29.4 ppg.

The fact that the same descent has not happened to the Patriots is surprising, and a story that has been lost due to all the angst over the club's offense.

 

[Deus Irae]

A near-perfect example of that scenario is the Chicago Bears.

- Pro Bowl DT Henry Melton goes on IR with torn ACL
- DT Nate Collins goes on IR with torn ACL
- LB Lance Briggs will be out for 6 weeks with shoulder injury
- CB Charles Tillman has been playing injured all season

Result: Bears have plummeted from one of the best defenses in the NFL to one of the worst. A year ago Chicago ranked 3rd, allowing 17.3 points per game; this year they are 28th at 29.4 ppg.

The fact that the same descent has not happened to the Patriots is surprising, and a story that has been lost due to all the angst over the club's offense.

To be fair, though, you have to add some things to that Bears situation:

New Coaching
Urhlacher is gone


and acknowledge that, outside of the Saints, the Patriots haven't really been facing good, intact, offenses.

 

[Froob]

To be fair, though, you have to add some things to that Bears situation:

New Coaching
Urhlacher is gone


and acknowledge that, outside of the Saints, the Patriots haven't really been facing good, intact, offenses.

Buffalo and Atlanta are pretty good offensively.

 

[RayClay]

A near-perfect example of that scenario is the Chicago Bears.

- Pro Bowl DT Henry Melton goes on IR with torn ACL
- DT Nate Collins goes on IR with torn ACL
- LB Lance Briggs will be out for 6 weeks with shoulder injury
- CB Charles Tillman has been playing injured all season

Result: Bears have plummeted from one of the best defenses in the NFL to one of the worst. A year ago Chicago ranked 3rd, allowing 17.3 points per game; this year they are 28th at 29.4 ppg.

The fact that the same descent has not happened to the Patriots is surprising, and a story that has been lost due to all the angst over the club's offense.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about the offense. The Patriots had anticipated much better veteran talent than they have now on both sides of the ball, yet they have survived.

Every team has injuries these days. The Pats will likely see some key returners and vets and nobodies who fill in and step up. Once you make the playoffs, it's just a matter of matching up in a few games against teams that have their own problems.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Who cares about rushing defense?

2012 Ravens: 20th (4.0ypc)
2011 Giants: 19th (4.5ypc)
2010 Packers: 18th (4.7ypc)
2009 Saints: 21st (4.5ypc)

2013 Pats: 31st (4.0ypc)

Our passing defense (with Talib of course) is elite. 4th in comp pct, 3rd in qbr, 10th y/a, 11th yards. Stopping the run is so 20th century.

 

[Deus Irae]

Buffalo and Atlanta are pretty good offensively.

Atlanta had a banged up White, and didn't have Jackson. As for Buffalo, the Patriots were facing a rookie QB who'd missed most of the preseason.

 

[supafly]

It isn't the yardage per game that bothers me terribly, it is more of the fact that it's taken a turn in the wrong direction since losing Wilfork and Mayo that is bothering me.

Wait, you are surprised that losing the best nosetackle in the NFL and one of the 3-4 best linebackers in the AFC has resulted in a decline in performance against the run?

Since losing Wilfork and Mayo we're now giving up an average of over 150+ yds per game, which gives us the 31st ranking (at 127 yds per game).

I highly doubt anyone on the face of the planet felt that we were going to suddenly go from around 100-105 yds to 150 yds. That is the concern. Had it gone from 105 to 120 or something, then it would have been more accepted and understood. When the top teams vs the rush are giving up 70 yards per game on the ground and you're now giving up 150, it's a bigger problem that anyone expected.

 

[supafly]

Who cares about rushing defense?

2012 Ravens: 20th (4.0ypc)
2011 Giants: 19th (4.5ypc)
2010 Packers: 18th (4.7ypc)
2009 Saints: 21st (4.5ypc)

2013 Pats: 31st (4.0ypc)

Our passing defense (with Talib of course) is elite. 4th in comp pct, 3rd in qbr, 10th y/a, 11th yards. Stopping the run is so 20th century.

The inability to stop the run effectively will allow the opposition to control the clock, limiting our offensive possessions while they have more drives themselves. It will allow them to successfully carry out their gameplans by setting up shorter 3rd down attempts, which will then raise the conversion rate itself and keep drives going. The NYJ game was a perfect example of this, although our offense also contributed greatly too, so that should change a bit in the future.

As far as Talib himself--sure, we have a top tier CB if/when he remains healthy. Considering the fact that he has now dealt with this issue in 4 straight seasons, it makes many leery that he can stay on the field for a long enough time on a consistent basis.

Just remember last December when he kept missing time, and they never really let him heal long enough. We then saw it pop up again in January vs BAL in the AFCCG, which probably would have put us in another SB appearance had he not gone out again. The concern moving forward is whether or not that is different this year, along with how they handle the current situation. It's also the main reason why I am just fine with having him sit out tomorrow and next Sunday too, so that we can get him a full 5 weeks of rest. Hopefully that limits the problem in the future, at least for this season.

I don't think there would be as much worry if the offense were playing at the same level as previous years, but at the moment it appears that we're mediocre on both sides of the ball to some degree. It's early yet, but there are still concerns that are valid.

 

[jmt57]

Since losing Wilfork and Mayo we're now giving up an average of over 150+ yds per game, which gives us the 31st ranking (at 127 yds per game).

I highly doubt anyone on the face of the planet felt that we were going to suddenly go from around 100-105 yds to 150 yds. That is the concern. Had it gone from 105 to 120 or something, then it would have been more accepted and understood. When the top teams vs the rush are giving up 70 yards per game on the ground and you're now giving up 150, it's a bigger problem that anyone expected.

While losing Wilfork, Kelly and Mayo is an issue, let's not overstate the situation with the Patriots run defense. To me a better barometer is yards per carry rather than yards per game. There are 12 teams giving up more yards per carry.

A big reason that the Pats are allowing so much rushing yardage is the offensive philosophies of the teams the Patriots have faced thus far. Three games (Buffalo, Jets, Jets) have been against teams that are geared to run the ball far more than most NFL teams, and another (Cincinnati) ran the ball almost exclusively due to the weather.

For example, much was made about the fact that the Jets ran for 177 yards and that Chris Ivory ran for 104 yards last week against the Pats. However, the Jets averaged only 3.4 yards per carry and Ivory was at just 3.1 yards per carry. To me those numbers dispel the theory that the Patriots run defense is not doing its job. In my opinion the reason for the uptick in total rushing yards allowed has been more about the nature of the opponent and game conditions than it is about a failure by the players that have been on the field in run defense.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

rushing D is getting it done all right :bricks:

 

[supafly]

While losing Wilfork, Kelly and Mayo is an issue, let's not overstate the situation with the Patriots run defense. To me a better barometer is yards per carry rather than yards per game. There are 12 teams giving up more yards per carry.

A big reason that the Pats are allowing so much rushing yardage is the offensive philosophies of the teams the Patriots have faced thus far. Three games (Buffalo, Jets, Jets) have been against teams that are geared to run the ball far more than most NFL teams, and another (Cincinnati) ran the ball almost exclusively due to the weather.

For example, much was made about the fact that the Jets ran for 177 yards and that Chris Ivory ran for 104 yards last week against the Pats. However, the Jets averaged only 3.4 yards per carry and Ivory was at just 3.1 yards per carry. To me those numbers dispel the theory that the Patriots run defense is not doing its job. In my opinion the reason for the uptick in total rushing yards allowed has been more about the nature of the opponent and game conditions than it is about a failure by the players that have been on the field in run defense.

I hear what you're saying, and I wouldn't dispute some of your points; but this run defense is 100% different now--to say they are not playing well would be a tremendous understatement.

This is absolutely killing any hopes that we have of staying competitive.