What To Expect From An Attacking Defense

[VrabelJr]

The logic that a defense should be aggressive to the point of giving up points but getting turnovers is absolutely mind bending. Doing anything on defense that results in points for the other team is… why am I even explaining this.

 

[Ring 6]

OK. Thanks for the response.

Can you clarify the “calling names” comment?

 

[Grogan14]

To be an ultra aggressive defense you need fast strong lbs.
The pats lb group is mediocre at best

 

[Mike the Brit]

Can you clarify the “calling names” comment?

Instead of responding substantively, you wrote "You are joking right?".

 

[mgteich]

When someone says "you're joking, right" instead of responding with evidence, that's name-calling. If someone says, but there were these and these plays, fair enough.

I usually use a different tack when a post is so at odds with any reality. I simply say that I missed the sarcasm emoji and then state the facts. This time I responded by asking when the poster watched the same game as the rest of us and didn't bother with the stats that were very, very available, along with posts from raider fans who thought that Jeanty had a terrible game.

Some simply say no. For example, there was a post stating that Davis sucked. Another didn't state logic and facts. He merely said, "no, he doesn't. This is a somewhat different situation. There was simply a difference in analysis from the same factual base, but no disussion was deemed useful.

If posters are unable to deal with this kind of response to their posts on a sports message board, they probably need to stop posting or find a better place for them to post, especially on the day after a loss. This is by far the best board that I have seen and over its life I ahve viewed many responses to inaccurate posts. The comments here were among the very mildest. If you want a sample (and I make no criticism) aimply review some of the posts by the captain and by andy (RIng6).
=======
You presume that we should accept as true the content stated by all posters until these positions are debated and proven false after debate. For some, some opinions are simply to be rejected out of hand and that nothing is served by discussions. The idea that Jeanty had a great game, tore us up, and improved in the second half was a good example of an example that, for me, didn't bear discussion. He was 19 for 38 and had less than 1.5 yards per carry in the second half, after his big run for 5 yards in the first half. As I said above, my own sarcastic response was to inquire whether you watched the same game as we did.

 

[Ring 6]

Instead of responding substantively, you wrote "You are joking right?".

Because I actually thought you were. Still isn’t name calling.

 

[Vindicate]

The logic that a defense should be aggressive to the point of giving up points but getting turnovers is absolutely mind bending. Doing anything on defense that results in points for the other team is… why am I even explaining this.

I don't think anyone says "let's be aggressive to the point of giving up points but we also get turnovers" - it's just a "con" of that style of defense; you open yourself up to more mistakes the more risks you take. It just is what it is. The teams that make more good than bad do pretty damn well. The ones that do all good are literal legendary or very remarkable and memorable defenses. Bend don't break is the polar opposite, where you yield small gains while limiting explosive plays, playing more conservatively yourself. But you risk ToP if just a few 10 play drives end up in 7 pts. All defenses have a gamble.

But if it makes sense from a personnel perspective to employ an aggressive blitzing team because you're confident you have a good front 7, then you run with that defense.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Because I actually thought you were. Still isn’t name calling.

OK. I should have said "sarcasm".

 

[Mike the Brit]

I usually use a different tack when a post is so at odds with any reality. I simply say that I missed the sarcasm emoji and then state the facts. This time I responded by asking when the poster watched the same game as the rest of us and didn't bother with the stats that were very, very available, along with posts from raider fans who thought that Jeanty had a terrible game.

Some simply say no. For example, there was a post stating that Davis sucked. Another didn't state logic and facts. He merely said, "no, he doesn't. This is a somewhat different situation. There was simply a difference in analysis from the same factual base, but no disussion was deemed useful.

If posters are unable to deal with this kind of response to their posts on a sports message board, they probably need to stop posting or find a better place for them to post, especially on the day after a loss. This is by far the best board that I have seen and over its life I ahve viewed many responses to inaccurate posts. The comments here were among the very mildest. If you want a sample (and I make no criticism) aimply review some of the posts by the captain and by andy (RIng6).
=======
You presume that we should accept as true the content stated by all posters until these positions are debated and proven false after debate. For some, some opinions are simply to be rejected out of hand and that nothing is served by discussions. The idea that Jeanty had a great game, tore us up, and improved in the second half was a good example of an example that, for me, didn't bear discussion. He was 19 for 38 and had less than 1.5 yards per carry in the second half, after his big run for 5 yards in the first half. As I said above, my own sarcastic response was to inquire whether you watched the same game as we did.

Absolutely not.

If you don't agree and don't want to say why, feel free to ignore what I have to say. And, no, I never said that Jeanty had a great game and tore us up. What I saw is that the Patriots gave up short yardage plays to him, despite having contact at the line of scrimmage, which, along with the obvious coverage failures, led me to disagree with your original assertion that "the defense played well enough to win". (Some evidence would have been nice.)

 

[Brick27]

To be an ultra aggressive defense you need fast strong lbs.
The pats lb group is mediocre at best

Ellis was active and think he’s not thrilling, but is a decent enough hand to have if there’s an obvious top guy ahead of him.

Spillane was really disappointing week 1. Several very bad reads both in run and pass, one of the glaring ones that the booth highlighted on shooting a clogged gap, and missing an easy opportunity to attack an open path to the runner. Will have hands full with Achane with his versatility as a rusher and catcher. Miami has seemed to do a good job of putting their LBs on roller skates and attacking bad matchups.

Don’t expect to have Derrick Brooks out there, but do hope Spillane can be a reasonable offline LB that they have sorely missed in more recent years. It’s not a sexy pick, but if stars align with draft position and BPA with what’s left on the board, would be alright with an early round pick there to draft a stud.

 

[mgteich]

Absolutely not.

If you don't agree and don't want to say why, feel free to ignore what I have to say. .

We simply disagree.

This is a message board.

If one makes a post, one should be ready to hear responses and NOT expect those who disagree with you to simply not respond. Some of us do indeed feel the need to respond too often. However, I think it silly to not respond to someone that we disagree with. Why? Are we really afraid of hurting delicate feelings?
======
Thinking about it a bit more, why would someone make a post on a discussion board if they didn't want to hear from those who disagree with them. I guess this 2025; there are indeed that type of board.

 

[Real fan 02]

I thought Captain and I were the only ones. Welcome to the club. He was okay last Sunday until that back breaking 3rd and 20 where he did the Ellis Hobbs slip and fall. That was bad.

He's got a huge test on Sunday.

Davis was the reason we got the INT.. to go as far as saying he sucks is a reach.. he may not be CB1.. but he's a dam good CB2... the entire secondary has a huge test Sunday.

 

[Ring 6]

Relevant Evidence. 24 carries for 56 yards.
22 called runs for 46 yards.

Your take is batshit crazy. That's name calling, btw. Andy didn't name-call you anything. You're just wrong. It's ok to be wrong, and have a brutally bad take.

I think the other part is he’s asking for evidence after his own “evidence” was one play.

 

[rkarp1]

I liked how the DL played. a lot.
I do not expect much of a drop off going from White(foot) to Jennings.
The DB's need to tighten things up with communication and situational football. no defender should be playing the short field on 3rd and 20 (Davis). no defender should be biting on double moves just outside the redzone (Hawkins).
if the offense could consistently put up 25+ points per game, this defense is plenty good enough.
the offense so far, cannot

 

[Real fan 02]

I liked how the DL played. a lot.
I do not expect much of a drop off going from White(foot) to Jennings.
The DB's need to tighten things up with communication and situational football. no defender should be playing the short field on 3rd and 20 (Davis). no defender should be biting on double moves just outside the redzone (Hawkins).
if the offense could consistently put up 25+ points per game, this defense is plenty good enough.
the offense so far, cannot

Agreed. Communication ans coverage bust were the reason we gave up 9 big plays.. not having gonzo hurts, but this front 7 is good enough to pressure QBs into mistakes.. I would like Ponder to see more time if possible.. I have always liked Jennings.. he can be a valuable player.. he may very much end up being more effective than white this season.