What makes an elite defense? Stars vs Depth

[BobDigital]

I was thinking about making a thread comparing this years defense to the 03/04 and to a lesser extent 01 defense. Not to say for sure which is better, we would need more games to determine that. But to point out a bit of a philosophical debate.

When you look at the best defenses of all time, historically they were littered with pro bowls and HOFers who make plays consistently. When I look at this defense I don't see that, yet I believe this could be a truly elite defense. It seems to me this leads to a very interesting debate on what's the best way (or perhaps the most cost effective way) to build an elite defense.

When you look at the 03'/04' Patriots D you see a ton of big names. HOFers and pro bowlers. Wilfork/Washington Seymour, Harrison Law/Samuel, McGinest, Vrabel, Bruschi,.. Particularly the first 4 names. However when you look a bit deeper into those defenses there is a pretty decent drop off for the rest of the starters. Hamilton/Warren (as a rookie) Phifer (old) Poole (meh), Wilson (meh) Johnson (role player). Not to mention the depth behind those starters was fairly questionable.

When I look at this current Patriots teams the top headliners are very good players like Gilmore, Collins, Van Noy, Bennett, McCourty, Chung, ect... But to be completely honest the pure ability of our top tier now to their top tier then is lacking.

However the depth for this year is so much better. Our 11th guy on the field (whoever you may consider that to be) is much better than it was back then. Not to mention our depth after them. Yes they had better depth in 04 than 03 with the likes of Green and Phifer now coming off the bench as needed but the drop off was fairly large and the depth was thin at a number of positions.

I think it brings up an interesting debate. Of course you will always need at least some stars on your defense if it is to have any chance to be an elite (Thanks Gilmore!) but how many are really needed provided you have great depth and players with skill sets that fit very well together?

 

[Ring 6]

I was thinking about making a thread comparing this years defense to the 03/04 and to a lesser extent o1 defense. Not to say for sure which is better, we would need more games to determine that. But to point out a bit of a philosophical debate.

When you look at the best defenses of all time, historically they were littered with pro bowls and HOFers who plays consistently. When I look at this defense I don't see that, yet I believe this could be a truly elite defense. It seems to me this leads to a very interesting debate on what's the best way (or perhaps the most cost effective way) to build an elite defense.

When you look at the 03'/04' Patriots D you see a ton of big names. HOFers and pro bowls. Wilfork/Washington Seymour, Harrison Law/Samuel, McGinest, Vrabel, Bruschi,.. Particularly the first 4 names. However when you look a bit deeper into those defenses there is a pretty decent size drop off for the rest of the starters. Hamilton/Warren (as a rookie) Phifer (old) Poole (meh), Wilson (meh) Johnson (role player). Not to mention the depth behind those starters was fairly questionable.

When I look at this current Patriots teams the top headliners are very good players like Gilmore, Collins, Van Noy, Bennett, McCourty, Chung, ect... But to be completely honest the pure ability of our top tier now to their top tier then is lacking.

However the depth for this year is so much better. Our 11th guy on the field (whoever you may consider that to be) is much better than it was back then. Not to mention our depth after them. Yes they had better depth in 04 than 03 with the likes of Green and Phifer now coming off the bench as needed but the drop off was fairly large and the depth was thin at a number of positions.

I think it brings up an interesting debate. Of course you will always need at least some stars on your defense if it is to have any chance to be an elite (Thanks Gilmore!) but how are really needed provided you have great depth and players with skill sets that fit very well together?

There’s a bit of a chicken/egg thing going on there. If you are part of a great defense you can end up being considered a star where if you were not a d played at the same level you may not be.

Generally, not exclusively, players that accumulate stats also get rated higher than players who excel in areas that don’t have gaudy stats attached.

So when you play the same 11 guys and have a good defense your guys end up called stars. But if you use a deeper rotation the players end up underrated.

 

[maust]

It seems to me this leads to a very interesting debate on what's the best way (or perhaps the most cost effective way) to build an elite defense.

The best way to build an elite & cost effective defense is to put BB and Uncle Ernie on the case.
It isn't really all that debatable

 

[NashuaPats]

I think depth and good players playing as a team wins out over a team with some stars and weaknesses. The past twenty years has shown that.

In other words, Collins at his peak freelancing = bad, Collins just past his peak sticking to his role = good.

Or in other words, what works best is when all the players truly get the message:

 

[lancerman]

Honestly a healthy mix of both. You need stars who can make an impact in a few areas. But you need like one at either two or three levels, not to be loaded with stars. Then you need above average talent everywhere else and a good rotation to cover weakness.

 

[nabwong]

I think that continuity and health plays a big role. All I've seen is the D build on their performance year after year and they've been able to add layer after layer to their playbook. Everybody is on the same page. Everybody knows not only their role but their colleagues' roles. That's truly awesome.

 

[Deus Irae]

• Stars
• Depth
  
• Health

Generally speaking, it's a combination of all of the above. And the more you have of the first and third, the less you need the second.

 

[Doctor DDS]

Remember that the perspective on the 03/04 players is much different now in hindsight than it was at the time. Some of those "stars" were just getting started at the time and we were unsure what they were to become. Who knows which of today's players will be revered 15 years from now.

 

[Ring 6]

Honestly a healthy mix of both. You need stars who can make an impact in a few areas. But you need like one at either two or three levels, not to be loaded with stars. Then you need above average talent everywhere else and a good rotation to cover weakness.

During 2001 I looked at the patriots like this.
They could exploit your weaknesses, limit what you are good at and never be exploited by your strengths.
It was a team that lacked true weaknesses. They weren’t great at everything but you couldn’t dominate them at anything.

 

[lancerman]

During 2001 I looked at the patriots like this.
They could exploit your weaknesses, limit what you are good at and never be exploited by your strengths.
It was a team that lacked true weaknesses. They weren’t great at everything but you couldn’t dominate them at anything.

Exactly. They just had unreal depth looking back. Then it was complimented by Ty Law and Seymour making some plays when you really needed it. But otherwise it was mostly just a unit that was solid all around and could execute the gameplan well.

 

[Ring 6]

Exactly. They just had unreal depth looking back. Then it was complimented by Ty Law and Seymour making some plays when you really needed it. But otherwise it was mostly just a unit that was solid all around and could execute the gameplan well.

Best thing about Seymour in 2001 wasn’t that he was dominant because he wasn’t yet.
It was that I have never in my life before or since see a dL hustle til the whistle for 60 minutes like him.
He would literally rush the passer then run down the field to get to help with tackling the receiver who caught a 15 years pass.

 

[maust]

During 2001 I looked at the patriots like this.
They could exploit your weaknesses, limit what you are good at and never be exploited by your strengths.
It was a team that lacked true weaknesses. They weren’t great at everything but you couldn’t dominate them at anything.

Much like a car that's truly enjoyable to drive that team wasn't great at anything but it was pretty damn good at most everything.

 

[SBLIII]

Eh, this defense has more star power than one might think.

McCourty, Jones, Gilmore, Hightower and Collins all play at a Pro Bowl level. Maybe van Noy.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Stars, health, depth, scheme/playcalling.

Critical feature: You only recognize it in retrospect. Perhaps excepting LT Gintz and 85 Beahs.

If you're like me, you don't trust this next stat. But here it is.

since the AFC Championship Game in 2018--i.e., SB + first 2 games--the Pats D has allowed 6 points.

 

[Xerostomia]

Hightower gets no love? The guy single handedly made plays at critical junctures in the superbowls to allow the Patriots to win (Goal line stop against Seattle, 'wanting the ball and taking it away from Ryan', and had 2 sacks against Rams a few months ago). To me his play in the biggest stage makes him elite, and though the Patriots have had great LB's over the years, I am not sure I would want anyone over him in a super bowl. (Had he not been injured, he, more than Brown might have been the difference against the Eagles).

I think Hightower is the glue for the defense. Having really good players around him of course helps, but I think his leadership makes the defense 'elite'.

 

[SBLIII]

Hightower gets no love? The guy single handedly made plays at critical junctures in the superbowls to allow the Patriots to win (Goal line stop against Seattle, 'wanting the ball and taking it away from Ryan', and had 2 sacks against Rams a few months ago). To me his play in the biggest stage makes him elite, and though the Patriots have had great LB's over the years, I am not sure I would want anyone over him in a super bowl. (Had he not been injured, he, more than Brown might have been the difference against the Eagles).

I think Hightower is the glue for the defense. Having really good players around him of course helps, but I think his leadership makes the defense 'elite'.

Hightower is a lot better than last year. More mobile.

 

[TheRainMaker]

When you look at the 03'/04' Patriots D you see a ton of big names. HOFers and pro bowls. Wilfork/Washington Seymour, Harrison Law/Samuel, McGinest, Vrabel, Bruschi,..

Wilfork barely played in ‘04. Keith Trayler was the NT and he was a beast.

Poole (meh)

You must not remember he was actually an elite player in ‘03. He was 2nd in the league with pass breakups and had 6 INT’s.

 

[NashuaPats]

Eh, this defense has more star power than one might think.

McCourty, Jones, Gilmore, Hightower and Collins all play at a Pro Bowl level. Maybe van Noy.

Let’s not forget about Bentley.

And I think I might have a man crush on Winovich

 

[ausbacker]

Hightower is a lot better than last year. More mobile.

Having a preseason does that for a player.

 

[BobDigital]

Wilfork barely played in ‘04. Keith Trayler was the NT and he was a beast.

You must not remember he was actually an elite player in ‘03. He was 2nd in the league with pass breakups and had 6 INT’s.

I remember just fine. He was pretty good but he benefited a great deal from having a #1 CB to take the best guy and Harrison to direct things.

Don't get me wrong he was fine but he was only a serviceable #2 imo. He got ints and PDs cause he was thrown to a lot and pressure from the front 7.

I would argue both IMac and Jones are superior CBs. He is better than Jackson though.