The SB defense - statistical anomaly

[TheRainMaker]

The Eagles defense was predicated on pressuring the QB with the front 7 and, more particularly, the DL, in order to cover up back end deficiencies. When the Patriots were holding the line back enough, Brady was able to carve up the back end. When the DL got pressure, the strip sack effectively won the game for the Eagles.

I would like to know what Brady was looking at on the drive. I think White was sitting out there in the flat and Brady looked at him forever then looked away and then decided to try to throw it to White but got stripped sacked. That was very disappointing the way that game ended.

 

[TheRainMaker]

You can get by with a middle of the road D, and an elite offense, imo.

I agree. And it all comes down to how their defense matches up with the opposing offense. I wasn't feeling to good about the matchup with the Eagles Offense but would've felt more comfortable against the Vikings Offense.

 

[FoxboroFlyer]

I agree. And it all comes down to how their defense matches up with the opposing offense. I wasn't feeling to good about the matchup with the Eagles Offense but would've felt more comfortable against the Vikings Offense.

See, I would have thought the exact opposite. I'd prefer the Eagles, with a back up QB, and 1st year HC as opposed to a red hot Vikings in their home.

 

[maineman209]

You are confusing my argument. I’m not talking about a super bowl winning defense. The eagles D sucked, despite them winning it all. I am talking about a shut down defense. This is why I brought up our poor D in SB 51. Winning the super bowl does not mean defensive problems can be swept under the rug. The poor defensive showing against Atlanta carried over into the 2017 season sans Hightower, Long, Sheard and Ninkovitch.

The Falcons averaged 34 points per game in the 2016 regular season, and 40 in their two playoff games - before the Pats defense held them to 28.

 

[VectorPrime]

The Falcons averaged 34 points per game in the 2016 regular season, and 40 in their two playoff games - before the Pats defense held them to 28.

21 points actually

If the Pats defense in SB 52 played like it did in 51 we win running away

 

[TheRainMaker]

See, I would have thought the exact opposite. I'd prefer the Eagles, with a back up QB, and 1st year HC as opposed to a red hot Vikings in their home.

The RPO is what bothered me.

 

[RobertWeathers]

News Flash: all NFL defenses last year were pretending to be good and it will continue that way for the foreseeable future

 

[SHOWTIME15]

The Falcons averaged 34 points per game in the 2016 regular season, and 40 in their two playoff games - before the Pats defense held them to 28.

They were still giving up big plays. Points don’t tell the whole story.

 

[maineman209]

They were still giving up big plays. Points don’t tell the whole story.

Against an offense that lived off "the big play" all season. The difference in the SB is that the Pats defense prevented the Falcons from turning those big plays into points as often as usual. The Falcons offense produced 14 points in Q2, and added 7 more midway through Q3 - and then they were done for the day (their other 7 points came from an 82-yard pick-six off Brady in Q2).

The Pats defense did its job.

 

[RayClay]

Masterful coaching job in the second half of the season and playoffs disguised what we all knew. Our front seven personnel were sub par.

 

[FCB02062]

I would like to know what Brady was looking at on the drive. I think White was sitting out there in the flat and Brady looked at him forever then looked away and then decided to try to throw it to White but got stripped sacked. That was very disappointing the way that game ended.

But he "has all the answers to the test"

 

[ivanvamp]

What made the SB look even worse was the starting CB standing on the sidelines instead of playing in the game, but the specific numbers of the SB are irrelevant. The defense was not as good as the scoring rank indicated, and that was something we discussed throughout the season.

I agree on both counts. But they weren't really as bad as the SB showed either. I'll add a few more tidbits to why the defense got so shredded...

- The run D was just atrocious.
- Philly's offense played phenomenally well - Foles dropped passes in the bucket, and receivers made great catches all day long.
- The refs allowed both offensive lines to absolutely hold and mug people, with zero holding penalties called. As great as Brady is, he shouldn't be putting up 505 passing yards against Philly's defense either. It helped both offenses.
- The refs gifted Philly at least one touchdown - the Clement one, where they actually applied a new catch rule that hadn't been put in place yet. That came on third down so Philly would have tried a FG attempt instead.

The point is that we ought not look at the Super Bowl itself and conclude that THAT is the defense that needs to be fixed. THAT defense was historically bad; and the Pats' defense really isn't that bad.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Against an offense that lived off "the big play" all season. The difference in the SB is that the Pats defense prevented the Falcons from turning those big plays into points as often as usual. The Falcons offense produced 14 points in Q2, and added 7 more midway through Q3 - and then they were done for the day (their other 7 points came from an 82-yard pick-six off Brady in Q2).

The Pats defense did its job.

It depends on what you mean by “doing its job.” Overall, allowing fewer points to the opponent? Sure. Yards? Not so much. Atl averaged 7.0 yards per play. If you count just the first 3 quarters or so, it’s probably higher. The D stepped up when it needed to in the 4th but let’s not act as if NE D was shut down throughout this game. What you described was classic bend but don’t break, which is what NE needs to get away from.

 

[Kontradiction]

It depends on what you mean by “doing its job.” Overall, allowing fewer points to the opponent? Sure. Yards? Not so much. Atl averaged 7.0 yards per play. If you count just the first 3 quarters or so, it’s probably higher. The D stepped up when it needed to in the 4th but let’s not act as if NE D was shut down throughout this game. What you described was classic bend but don’t break, which is what NE needs to get away from.

I agree, but it might help in the short term if they simply get away from bend and then break. Work on bend but don't break after that.

 

[maineman209]

but let’s not act as if NE D was shut down throughout this game.

I'm not "acting as if" ...

OTOH, the defense was absolutely not the crap that you appear to be trying to cast it as.

This is what really saddens me about "discourse" these days - try to say something neutral in response to an extreme claim, and you're instantly characterized as coming from the opposite extreme. Say something on the order of "he has his strengths and weaknesses" about a player who's unpopular and you're immediately characterized as "hyping" the guy.

 

[scott99]

I agree on both counts. But they weren't really as bad as the SB showed either. I'll add a few more tidbits to why the defense got so shredded...

- The run D was just atrocious.
- Philly's offense played phenomenally well - Foles dropped passes in the bucket, and receivers made great catches all day long.
- The refs allowed both offensive lines to absolutely hold and mug people, with zero holding penalties called. As great as Brady is, he shouldn't be putting up 505 passing yards against Philly's defense either. It helped both offenses.
- The refs gifted Philly at least one touchdown - the Clement one, where they actually applied a new catch rule that hadn't been put in place yet. That came on third down so Philly would have tried a FG attempt instead.

The point is that we ought not look at the Super Bowl itself and conclude that THAT is the defense that needs to be fixed. THAT defense was historically bad; and the Pats' defense really isn't that bad.

Your first point. The run D was atrocious. I think they addressed that in the offseason with Shelton and Claiborne and drafting 2 inside linebackers. Also, I think the return of some injured defenders will help big time. The pass defense was missing key players. Even a guy like Jonathon Jones was a big loss, because he’s a good slot corner. I also think it’s why they drafted Dawson (slot corner).

Getting Ebner back will help the special teams. People don’t mention all the key players that were lost to injury. Behind the Giants, the Pats had the most man games lost. People are just used to the Pats being there at season’s end, that they don’t think of all the key guys that were lost (Edelman included).

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree on both counts. But they weren't really as bad as the SB showed either. I'll add a few more tidbits to why the defense got so shredded...

- The run D was just atrocious.
- Philly's offense played phenomenally well - Foles dropped passes in the bucket, and receivers made great catches all day long.
- The refs allowed both offensive lines to absolutely hold and mug people, with zero holding penalties called. As great as Brady is, he shouldn't be putting up 505 passing yards against Philly's defense either. It helped both offenses.
- The refs gifted Philly at least one touchdown - the Clement one, where they actually applied a new catch rule that hadn't been put in place yet. That came on third down so Philly would have tried a FG attempt instead.

The point is that we ought not look at the Super Bowl itself and conclude that THAT is the defense that needs to be fixed. THAT defense was historically bad; and the Pats' defense really isn't that bad.

But that is the defense that needs to be fixed. Other than the whole "Let's take my starting CB off the field and have him play 1 snap" thing. That day was just the worst it played. It was not something we'd not been able to see signs of throughout the season just jumping up out of nowhere.

Getting caught up in defending the notion of "But it wasn't THIS bad" is wasted energy. The absence of Butler covers the extra amount of suck that the defense displayed. But, regardless of that, it's clear that major change is needed/recommended on that defense.

 

[ivanvamp]

But that is the defense that needs to be fixed. Other than the whole "Let's take my starting CB off the field and have him play 1 snap" thing. That day was just the worst it played. It was not something we'd not been able to see signs of throughout the season just jumping up out of nowhere.

Getting caught up in defending the notion of "But it wasn't THIS bad" is wasted energy. The absence of Butler covers the extra amount of suck that the defense displayed. But, regardless of that, it's clear that major change is needed/recommended on that defense.

I hear you. What I'm trying to say is that the Patriots weren't THAT bad last year. They had an awful game on defense, but it really was an anomaly. Twice in the entire BB era did they perform that poorly. That's it.

It would be like being a golfer that normally shoots in the mid-80s. Then one day you shoot 112, something you virtually never do. Yes it happened. Yes there are reasons why it happened. Yes you need to make sure THAT doesn't happen again. But even if you did NOTHING to fix it, it's almost a certainty that THAT wouldn't happen again, not for a long, long time.

Of course, they DO need to address the defense, and I think BB did just that with the guys he has coming back from injury, the guys he expects to improve, the FA and trade additions, and the four guys he picked up in the draft. Plus there will be more additions between now and the start of the season.

 

[mitsudriver]

My only thought seeing this thread title was; "there were defenses playing in the Superbowl". Because it sure didn't seem like it. On either side.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

I agree that it was an anomaly, but the signs of the possibility had popped up throughout the season. How many times during the season did we watch the defense completely suck for 2-3 quarters, only to finally come out of it in the third quarter?

The lack of pass rush, the inability to cover RBs and TEs, and the inconsistency in defending the run had all been visible to us. Heck, even the secondary had long period of looking terrible. Bunch formations and crossing routes were often the bane of the secondary.

This wasn't something new and should have been expected. For the record, I was blind sided too. I thought they ahd fixed these things, but the truth was that they had faced 1-dimensional opponents that could not capitalize on the Patriots defensive problems. The Steelers..I have no idea, but maybe they should have won that game. Teams, especially the Steelers seem to choke when they play the Patriots.

The Eagles did not choke.

This not unprecedented.

In '84: Raiders healthy, studied film, game not in D.C.: Redskins exposed

In '85: 49ers healthy, Marino on his own w/o running game, Shula overrated: Dolphins exposed

In '86: Eason starts, Dawson hurt, too much pressure on defense: Pats exposed

In '88: Elway overrated, Williams & Tim Smith on fire: Donkeys exposed


Last February: Eagles sharp, refs won't call holding, Butler benched:

but Pats still almost won, w/T. F'n Brady