The official "our defense is horrible" thread

[BradyFTW!]

At this point in the season, there are probably 10 defenses that 'might' be the worst in the league. It's a pretty useless distinction to make if that's the extent of what you're claiming. Until we see them all against some definitively good and bad defenses, we won't know any more than that. We all know that the Pats' D is well below average.

 

[Deus Irae]

There are no facts to cite because a three game sample is completely and utterly meaningless.

No, they're not. They may not hold up over the course of the season, but they are a snapshot into where teams are now.

The Pats stats are skewed to some extent due to the Bengals game.

Theory, not fact. The "skew" certainly showed the same in the Jets game and the Bills game. If anything, the "skew" seems to be that the Patriots defense actually didn't suck in the first half of the Bengals game.

I have to go on my observation of their games as well as the talent currently on their roster and their coaching staff. Taking those two factors into consideration, I believe them to be clearly worse. And that's really all the evidence I, or any of us, have to work off of at this point.

No, it's not. It's all you're willing to look at, because to do otherwise would undercut your team and you're being a homer. The defense has been among the league's very worst. It's alright for fans to admit it.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

No what he's saying is you along with this thread doesn't understand the 2010 NFL.

The numero uno quality needed in the 2010 NFL is a superior offense that sustains scoring. If you couple that with a defense that forces some turnovers, you will win. That's how the Saints won last year because the NFL wants shootouts.

Do you realize that the Broncos put up 544 yards of offense against the Colts yesterday?

Are they no longer contenders?

The difference was turnovers and some key stops. The old 3 points/150 yards of offense isn't applicable in the 2010 NFL. Just look at the game stats for yesterday. Three teams put up 500 yards of offense and LOST. Five teams put up less than 300 yards with three teams winning.

Yesterday, the defense didn't suck at the two areas critical for a 2010 NFL defense (turnovers/ red zone defense). That's something to build upon.

 

[Rob0729]

I'm certainly not claiming that the stats are definitive. However, using what little information we have is better than just pulling "NFC West defenses" out of our asses. The Patriots have surrendered season high points to the Bengals and the Bills, and they allowed 28 points to the Jets. Pretending this defense isn't down at the bottom of the barrel right now is homerism at its height.

The Bengals scored four less points yesterday than they did against the Pats and the Bengals scored 21 of their 24 points after the Pats were up 31-3. I will argue at least the Bengals' first TD was by design since the Pats weren't as concerned about them scoring, but making sure if they scored that it took them six or seven minutes to do so.

The Pats defense isn't good right now. But you are trying to make it seem worse. The Pats defense for the first half of the Bengals game was great and pretty good vs. the Jets in the first half (made them punt on two of the three drives by the Jets in the first half). They weren't good yesterday and the second halves of the first two games (although the game was pretty much won in the first game).

 

[SuperPatsFan]

If you couple that with a defense that forces some turnovers, you will win. That's how the Saints won last year because the NFL wants shootouts.

Yesterday, the defense didn't suck at the two areas critical for a 2010 NFL defense (turnovers/ red zone defense).

What you're implying is that a passive defense is obsolete, correct?

You're implying that the prototype NFL defense in 2010...

1. Gambles aggressively to force turnovers between the 20's
2. Toughens up in the Red Zone

... which is the antithesis of the so-called "bend but don't break" defense.

ETA: According to Reiss the Patriots brought one or more extra rushers on 50% of the Bills' passing plays, so there definitely was some aggressiveness/gambling with the Pats' D calls.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Bengals scored four less points yesterday than they did against the Pats and the Bengals scored 21 of their 24 points after the Pats were up 31-3. I will argue at least the Bengals' first TD was by design since the Pats weren't as concerned about them scoring, but making sure if they scored that it took them six or seven minutes to do so.

The Pats defense isn't good right now. But you are trying to make it seem worse. The Pats defense for the first half of the Bengals game was great and pretty good vs. the Jets in the first half (made them punt on two of the three drives by the Jets in the first half). They weren't good yesterday and the second halves of the first two games (although the game was pretty much won in the first game).

The defense is 28th in scoring, and that's WITH that solid first half against the Bengals and despite playing against pedestrian to lousy offenses. I'm not trying to make it seem worse. I'm stating it precisely as it is.

 

[mb6592]

At this point in the season, there are probably 10 defenses that 'might' be the worst in the league. It's a pretty useless distinction to make if that's the extent of what you're claiming. Until we see them all against some definitively good and bad defenses, we won't know any more than that. We all know that the Pats' D is well below average.

exacty....

 

[mgcolby]

What you're implying is that a passive defense is obsolete, correct?


You're implying that the prototype NFL defense in 2010...

1. Gambles aggressively to force turnovers between the 20's
2. Toughens up in the Red Zone

... which is the antithesis of the so-called "bend but don't break" defense.

ETA: According to Reiss the Patriots brought one or more extra rushers on 50% of the Bills' passing plays, so there definitely was some aggressiveness/gambling with the Pats' D calls.

I'm glad you caught that, because we were among the league leaders in blitzes last season. Not saying it was successful, but blitzing is a big part of this defense. But there is a time and a place to blitz.

Anyone who watched the Jets Ravens game should have saw that Flacco for the most part was only succesful on 3rd downs - when the Jets were sending the house. They tried their blitzing ways against us in the first half and got lit up, only to convert to a zone coverage in the 2nd half. The Jets blitzed a lot last night, primarliy because they only had to worry about Marshall in the passing game.

It is situational, so blitzing just for the sake of blitzing is not a good recipe against a good QB.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

What you're implying is that a passive defense is obsolete, correct?

You're implying that the prototype NFL defense in 2010...

1. Gambles aggressively to force turnovers between the 20's
2. Toughens up in the Red Zone

... which is the antithesis of the so-called "bend but don't break" defense.

ETA: According to Reiss the Patriots brought one or more extra rushers on 50% of the Bills' passing plays, so there definitely was some aggressiveness/gambling with the Pats' D calls.

When I got home yesterday, the two defensive stats I looked at was turnovers and red zone defense. I am not so absorbed by yardage.

Besides, there was only one long TD drive surrendered.

As such, I am not getting ready to slit my wrists.

 

[Rob0729]

The defense is 28th in scoring, and that's WITH that solid first half against the Bengals and despite playing against pedestrian to lousy offenses. I'm not trying to make it seem worse. I'm stating it precisely as it is.

The Jets offense hasn't been pedestrian or average based on stats. They have scored 52 points in the last two weeks. According to the stats, they are a top offense and the only time they were shut down was against the top rated defense in the league (sixth scoring defense). The Bengals are only average themselves because they were held under 20 by that same top rated defense.

Sorry, you cannot have it both ways. You can't keep on touting that the Pats are the 28th ranked scoring defense (which is skewed since seven points came on special teams) and continue to ignore the Jets are the 10th ranked scoring offense (which is also skewed since seven points came on special teams).

At this point in the year, stats are pretty useless anyway. One game can skew the stats and a team can be exceptionally good or bad for a few game stretch and end up being a very different team over the course of the year. Heck, the Broncos last year was a top team in a lot of categories on both sides of the ball for the first six weeks and then plummetted. The Titans were horrible in most categories especially on offense for the first half of the season and then got significantly better. And we are talking stats after 3 games.

The Pats' offense hasn't been good, but to declare it one of the worst and use stats to support your argument is way too premature.

 

[Pessimistic Pete]

Our 2009 defense looks like it will end up being better than this defense.

No way I see this team being ranked #5 in PPG allowed like last years...

 

[Sicilian]

When I got home yesterday, the two defensive stats I looked at was turnovers and red zone defense. I am not so absorbed by yardage.

Besides, there was only one long TD drive surrendered.

As such, I am not getting ready to slit my wrists.

I agree. I find what's more important than the best aggregation of numbers, is the mental check. When the defense is in a tight spot, can you visualize them making a big play to end a drive? Last year, I couldn't in most games. When the other team got down in the red zone against us, I almost had the feeling that, "Hey, just let them score so it saves us a few plays and gets Brady back out there."

Games like the Bills game look terrible, but they give me that feeling that, on any given play and in any situation, the defense CAN make a play, even if they haven't to that point in the game. Not going to say it's a trend on defense after a few games, but if we follow up that game with a decent one against the Fish, it's a step in the right direction.

 

[mgcolby]

Our 2009 defense looks like it will end up being better than this defense.

No way I see this team being ranked #5 in PPG allowed like last years...

I agree, but this defense should only need to be inside the top 15 for them to win 11 to 12 games.


But the Offense and the ST's need to assist in this. If the ST's continue giving up long punt/kick returns and shanking punts. And if the offense continues to not at the very least shift field position in key parts of the game the defense will continue to allow more points than they should.

 

[Pessimistic Pete]

the defense CAN make a play, even if they haven't to that point in the game.

You really feel comfortable on crucial 3rd down and red zone situations with this defense? I always visualize drives ending with our opponents receiver making an easy catch in the corner of the end-zone.

Against good-teams, I can't even feel comfortable unless we have a 3 score lead....

 

[Kontradiction]

Did mommy tell you that there has been only 3 games played?

And no, I didn't hack your "images" folder on your computer, and then paint over your science fair entry.

Of course I'm aware that there have only been three games played. That's why I took the stats through Week 3 and posted them. Through Week 3, this is statistically one of the worst defenses in the NFL in pretty much every single solitary category.

Frankly, as a Pats fan, I'm not really sure how you can defend this defense having seen what a good Belichick defense actually looks like in the early to late 2000's.

The Jets just put up 31 points and over 400 yards of offense against the Dolphins?

That's cool. That changes the fact that our defense clearly has issues how again?

You you feel better id week 1, the defense padded stats?

Good defenses can play keep away from the deep pass and still shut their opponents down in the short game. But tell me, pfip, where you rank our defense statistically?

Ahhh, ever go to NFL.com and review weekly game stats?

Yeah, it's a wonderful thing. That's where I got the current stats on our defense.

Maybe you should review the post discussing the Saints defense in 2009.

The Saints had a good turnover ratio in 2009 that fueled their defense. I've said time and time again that their defense is our defense's ceiling for this season. The Patriots, thus far, haven't been nearly as successful as the Saints were at forcing turnovers.

Again, I guess this just completely flies over your head, so I'll try once again:

No, I understood your weak attempt at a point/red herring just fine. Personally, it sounds to me like you're just trying to make excuses for the defense. As a whole, you haven't offered one convincing argument as to why this defense is anything more than a below average defense.

The 2010 NFL is a QB driven league that requires sustained offense. the NFL wants more offense, more scoring. that's why offenses like the the Jets and Dolphins score into the 20's with 400+ yards of offense.

I understand that defenses have been more and more neutered since Bill Polian changed the rules. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that we just allowed the following to the worst offense in the NFL...

1. 381 yards of total offense.
2. Two passing TD's to the worst offense's back-up quarterback.
3. 19 first downs.
4. Almost 30 minutes TOP.

Should I go into what the Jets did to us last week, or would that be rubbing sand in an old wound? Let me guess, you consider that a stout defensive performance as well? :ugh:

Turnovers and red zone defense are more important than ever since that's the best way to limit points.

The red zone defense was the only thing from yesterday that looked good for our defense. However, in order to look at that, you would also have to take into account the 37 yard TD pass that Fitzgerald threw as well. The turnovers weren't exactly forced, but I do commend our DB's for being able to catch a ball.

But keep it coming, pfip. If you'll excuse me, I'll hold our defense to higher standards while also expecting them to improve. I know Belichick is doing the same. You can continue being happy with where the defense is now. I'll look forward to your continued attempts at excusing their performance in the last couple of weeks by throwing out one red herring after another about how other defenses not named the New England Patriots are also performing.

 

[Rob0729]

Our 2009 defense looks like it will end up being better than this defense.

No way I see this team being ranked #5 in PPG allowed like last years...

Last year is exactly why stats are misleading. The Pats shut out the Titans and kept the Bucs and Jags to seven points. They faced Matt Moore before he got hot.

 

[CrazyDave]

Put me down as disagreeing completely with this thread.
While our D is y0oung, they are FAST and PHYSICAL.
They made some mistakes, and they are figuring out what personell to go with.
Buffalo played quite well, and we still came out on top.

 

[Sicilian]

You really feel comfortable on crucial 3rd down and red zone situations with this defense? I always visualize drives ending with our opponents receiver making an easy catch in the corner of the end-zone.

Against good-teams, I can't even feel comfortable unless we have a 3 score lead....

Given what we did in the red zone and turnover department, I said it's a step in the right direction. Like anything, I need to see repetition before I declare the defense one thing or another. You, on the other hand, seem content to write them off after three games without looking at anything but raw numbers with no context. That works for you, and I'm happy for you. Doesn't work for me.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Jets offense hasn't been pedestrian or average based on stats. They have scored 52 points in the last two weeks. According to the stats, they are a top offense and the only time they were shut down was against the top rated defense in the league (sixth scoring defense). The Bengals are only average themselves because they were held under 20 by that same top rated defense.

Sorry, you cannot have it both ways. You can't keep on touting that the Pats are the 28th ranked scoring defense (which is skewed since seven points came on special teams) and continue to ignore the Jets are the 10th ranked scoring offense (which is also skewed since seven points came on special teams).

Sure I can "have it both ways", as you put it. It's folly to think otherwise. Your argument goes to the quality of the evidence, which is a legitimate, if unpersuasive, counter. It doesn't negate the evidence, however, as you well know.

At this point in the year, stats are pretty useless anyway. One game can skew the stats and a team can be exceptionally good or bad for a few game stretch and end up being a very different team over the course of the year. Heck, the Broncos last year was a top team in a lot of categories on both sides of the ball for the first six weeks and then plummetted. The Titans were horrible in most categories especially on offense for the first half of the season and then got significantly better. And we are talking stats after 3 games.

One game could skew the stats, if there were an outlier. For the Patriots, there hasn't been any such outlier. Furthermore, one could argue that any 'skewing' was done in the defense's favor, with the first half of the Bengals game.

The Pats' offense hasn't been good, but to declare it one of the worst and use stats to support your argument is way too premature.

Your argument makes no sense. We're talking about the state of the defense right now. The defense is clearly one of the worst defenses in the NFL right now. We've already seen starters at DE, OLB, CB and S get benched or demoted. The team is 28th in points against, and it's yet to face an explosive offense. Again, it's alright to admit to the obvious. The team and players have, and it's still early enough in the season that improvement can happen.

 

[Kontradiction]

Given what we did in the red zone and turnover department, I said it's a step in the right direction. Like anything, I need to see repetition before I declare the defense one thing or another. You, on the other hand, seem content to write them off after three games without looking at anything but raw numbers with no context. That works for you, and I'm happy for you. Doesn't work for me.

I'm definitely not writing this defense off. So I don't agree at all with where Pete is coming from. However, I have no idea why people are making excuses for them either. If you're going to beat your chest about the red zone accomplishments, which look good at first glance, you should take into account the 37 yard TD they allowed as well.

Like I said before, as Pats fans, we should know what a good defense looks like... and this isn't it. There's a LOT of room to improve. However, with that said, they're young and there's nowhere to go but up. But it's going to take some work.