- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 28,161
- Reaction score
- 7,435
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.He's trying to master the hardest defense in the NFL to learn. Same with Marsh and others. His learning curve is just more exposed because he's often matched up with the WR1 and WR2. If you watch "Football Night in America", both Dungy and Rodney just said the same thing.
People keep mentioning our secondary but lost in all this is the run d. It's awful as well. Giving 5 yards a pop.
People keep mentioning our secondary but lost in all this is the run d. It's awful as well. Giving 5 yards a pop.
About the communication issues in general. They blamed one TD on McCourty for not pointing out Gilmore's assignment and another on Gilmore.About who Gilmore?
Irrational fear of a mobile QB.NE-VT posted an excellent article about BB's 4-3/ 3-4 hybrid defense which only discussed the front 7 but just reading that gives you an idea of how complicated the defense is. Left side is playing 4-3 tech while the right is playing 3-4 etc....
Question for you though. Why wouldn't they just let MB and Gilmore play man with McCourty over the top? Or do they need to play zone to protect the LB crew during passing plays?
Defense: The only reasons to have any optimism whatsoever.
and
The athleticism of Chandler Jones and Jamie Collins has not been replaced and neither has the experience of Ninkovich. This D simply has a talent deficit in the front 7 compared with the past 3 seasons. We can expect improvement, but we cannot realistically expect on field performance to reach the level of the last 3 years, they don't have the players.
I would suggest that Patricia and Belichick allow the defense to play more aggressively and blitz more against mobile QBs.
The defense, without a doubt, looked at their best against New Orleans. While Alex Smith isn't Mike Vick, he's mobile and Belichick has played him as he plays other mobile quarterbacks. What's the common denominator in the defense's struggles this year, and years past? When they play a conservative, passive style of defense against a mobile quarterback, they look terrible, without fail, every time. Unfortunately Jameis Winston is coming up which isn't ideal.
With all that said, I'm optimistic that they will look better against traditional pocket passers, and I hope that today was a wake up call and that the coaching staff will adjust their approach to defending athletic, mobile quarterbacks.
please check Danny's statsNot having Edelman hurts us defensively. He was our chain mover who helped keep the D off the field.
Not having Edelman hurts us defensively. He was our chain mover who helped keep the D off the field.
Bringing up facts is a violation of patsfans rules.Pats actually lead in TOP with 31:07
It cracks me up when people pull the "they should be embarrassed" and "that is unacceptable" crap.
As if they have more at stake than the players and have a personal standard that the players aren't living up to.
Pretty much as long as the Pats don't have to face KC, Houston, Tennessee in the playoffs, or faceoff against division leading Buffalo twice this year you like their chances.
So basically if the Pats draw Denver(@home only) and Pittsburgh in the playoffs its smooth sailing. Otherwise we are basically screwed
You don't have to be in the NFL to, as a fan, have an opinion as to how good or how poorly a team is performing. I have no idea why you find it strange on a discussion board about the Patriots that there are fans who are going to express their personal opinions.
So of course each fan has a personal standard. Similarly, if you go to a restaurant, you don't have to be a gourmet chef to decide you're being served a pile of crap.
Why does a fan have to have more "at stake" in an NFL game to look at the team and say, gee I think the defense is so bad they're embarrassing?
There are clearly lines of decency that shouldn't be crossed, but that's hardly it.