Where our defense ranks now

[The Dynasty]

After watching the ravens vs colts and before that the 49ers vs colts I am convinced BB put our defense at a disadvantage. I think BB gives Peyton way too much respect and that actually hurts. Both the 49ers and ravens kept going after Mannning and held the Colts to under 20 pts. I think BB just needs to let his Defense play and not over think it. One day I would like to see our Defense with just 1 above average pass rusher!

I would have liked to see the Pats put more pressure on the Manning, but that hasnt ever been BB's strategy against Manning. I can see his reasoning because Manning does have a very fast release and will find an open man quickly and could burn you for blitzing. The key with Manning is being able to get pressure with your front 4. The Ravens have a very good front 4 and can do that.

 

[DarrylS]

1) I have been waiting until after the NO game to assess the defense.
2) It is interesting to see how unimportant sacks are as a stat.

I agree with #2, sacks are a "sexy" stat, but seem to be a small component of the big defensive picture...

 

[mayoclinic]

I agree with #2, sacks are a "sexy" stat, but seem to be a small component of the big defensive picture...

I dont know ... you can make a good argument that sacks are very important. Sacks are not a perfect reflection of defensive pressure on the QB, but they are currently the best indicator that we have, and defensive pressure makes things happen - turnovers, mistakes, rushed throws, etc. They create negative yardage and kill drives. They back teams up deep in their own territory. They take teams out of field goal range, and they turn red zone drives into 3 points instead of 7. They sometimes create points (safeties, forced fumbles for touchdowns). I don't think those are small things.

Let's look at the SB contenders since BB took over as coach of the Pats and their sack totals:

2000: Ravens finished 22nd with 35 sacks, but I'd argue that wasn't reflective of their stifling defense. Giants finished 9th with 44 sacks. In the postseason, the Ravens had 14 sacks and the Giants 13, the two highest totals.

2001: Rams finished 7th with 45 sacks. Pats finished 13th with 41. Pats and Rams tied for most postseason sacks with 7.

2002: Tampa Bay and Oakland finished tied for 6th with 43 sacks. Bucs had 11 sacks in the postseason (a 59 sack pace), the Raiders 6.

2003: Pats finished 6rd with 41 sacks. Carolina finished 7th with 40 sacks. Pats recorded most sacks in the postseason (12), Carolina 2nd with 10.

2004: Pats finished 3rd with 45 sacks. Eagles finished 2nd with 47. Eagles recorded most sacks in the postseason (9), Pats tied for 2nd (6).

2005: Steelers finished 3rd with 47 sacks. Seahawks finished 1st with 50. The Steelers recorded a whopping 15 sacks in 4 postseason games winning the SB as a wild card team, a pace that would have given them 60 over a 16 game season.

2006: Indy finished 30th with 25 sacks, an anomaly. However, they recorded 8 sacks in 3 postseason games, a pace that would have given them 43 for a 16 game season. Chicago finished 8th with 40, and had 7 sacks in the postseason. The Pats had 9 sacks in the postseason, and almost made it to the SB.

2007: Patriots finished 2nd in sacks with 47. The Giants finished first with 53, and also 1st in the postseason with 8 more.

2008: Steelers finished 2nd in sacks with 51. Arizona finished 14th with 31. But in the postseason Arizona recorded 10 sacks (on pace for 52 over a 16 game season) and Pittsburgh 9, the two highest totals.

So it seems like the SB contenders are usually among the lead leaders in sacks, and almost always among the postseason leaders.

The Pats currently rank 24th with 18 sacks on the season, on pace for 29. In the BB era only Indy has made the SB with a worse sack ranking or total, and they upped their defensive pressure considerably in the postseason. That's not a particularly reassuring stat.

 

[marian]

The most important stat is the red zone defence. Maybe that's the reason we feel our defence is not that strong as other stats say?

 

[DarrylS]

I dont know ... you can make a good argument that sacks are very important. Sacks are not a perfect reflection of defensive pressure on the QB, but they are currently the best indicator that we have, and defensive pressure makes things happen - turnovers, mistakes, rushed throws, etc. They create negative yardage and kill drives. They back teams up deep in their own territory. They take teams out of field goal range, and they turn red zone drives into 3 points instead of 7. They sometimes create points (safeties, forced fumbles for touchdowns). I don't think those are small things.

Let's look at the SB contenders since BB took over as coach of the Pats and their sack totals:

2000: Ravens finished 22nd with 35 sacks, but I'd argue that wasn't reflective of their stifling defense. Giants finished 9th with 44 sacks. In the postseason, the Ravens had 14 sacks and the Giants 13, the two highest totals.

2001: Rams finished 7th with 45 sacks. Pats finished 13th with 41. Pats and Rams tied for most postseason sacks with 7.

2002: Tampa Bay and Oakland finished tied for 6th with 43 sacks. Bucs had 11 sacks in the postseason (a 59 sack pace), the Raiders 6.

2003: Pats finished 6rd with 41 sacks. Carolina finished 7th with 40 sacks. Pats recorded most sacks in the postseason (12), Carolina 2nd with 10.

2004: Pats finished 3rd with 45 sacks. Eagles finished 2nd with 47. Eagles recorded most sacks in the postseason (9), Pats tied for 2nd (6).

2005: Steelers finished 3rd with 47 sacks. Seahawks finished 1st with 50. The Steelers recorded a whopping 15 sacks in 4 postseason games winning the SB as a wild card team, a pace that would have given them 60 over a 16 game season.

2006: Indy finished 30th with 25 sacks, an anomaly. However, they recorded 8 sacks in 3 postseason games, a pace that would have given them 43 for a 16 game season. Chicago finished 8th with 40, and had 7 sacks in the postseason. The Pats had 9 sacks in the postseason, and almost made it to the SB.

2007: Patriots finished 2nd in sacks with 47. The Giants finished first with 53, and also 1st in the postseason with 8 more.

2008: Steelers finished 2nd in sacks with 51. Arizona finished 14th with 31. But in the postseason Arizona recorded 10 sacks (on pace for 52 over a 16 game season) and Pittsburgh 9, the two highest totals.

So it seems like the SB contenders are usually among the lead leaders in sacks, and almost always among the postseason leaders.

The Pats currently rank 24th with 18 sacks on the season, on pace for 29. In the BB era only Indy has made the SB with a worse sack ranking or total, and they upped their defensive pressure considerably in the postseason. That's not a particularly reassuring stat.

If I had the time would research things like opposing teams time of possession, opposing passer rating, opposing team yards per catch... etc... and the results would be comparable, for some reason folks love sacks.. personally need to look at a big picture, and all that matters is the end results...

Sacks are nice, but when you break down the defensive stats on NFL.com, we are close to the top in all d stats except sacks...

 

[pencilneckgeek]

more important than sacks
Forced fumbles:whether they are recovered or not:more important than INT's,imo,because they occur closer to the line of scrimmage and/or on kickoffs/punts.

And more importantly, the indicate that your defense is punishing opposing ball carriers. INTs happen more often when you've got a good offense, because the opposition is playing catch-up and forcing throws more often.

I dont know ... you can make a good argument that sacks are very important.

2002: Tampa Bay and Oakland finished tied for 6th with 43 sacks. Bucs had 11 sacks in the postseason (a 59 sack pace), the Raiders 6.

1st - Wow! I can't believe that SB was this decade. I thought for sure it was the 90s, those teams are so bad now.

2nd - Good analysis. (Note that the per game playoff numbers are the relevant statistic for the post-season, seeing that SB teams tend to get in more games than the others.) To say that sacks are over-rated is as silly as thinking that they are all important. If sacks come from blitzing, they can easily be coupled with big pass plays, particularly those featuring YAC. I wonder whether tallying sacks by D-linemen would prove a better indicator of an effective pass rush, although you'd have to monkey with the stats for 3-4 teams.

The most important stat is the red zone defence. Maybe that's the reason we feel our defence is not that strong as other stats say?

That's certainly an important statistic, although there's something to be said for not letting the opposition into the red zone at all. For the Pats' bend but don't break defense, the statistic is particularly important. Anybody have these numbers this year. I looked around and couldn't find their red zone defense numbers for this year.

 

[mgteich]

I think that if someone did a mathematical analysis, they would find that the team that wins the most allows the fewest points is most often the winner. Point differential is another top stat. Even from your stats, I would think that these two correlate to winning better than sacks. How many teams have been in the top 3 in allowing points and scoring points and not reached the Super Bowl?

I dont know ... you can make a good argument that sacks are very important. Sacks are not a perfect reflection of defensive pressure on the QB, but they are currently the best indicator that we have, and defensive pressure makes things happen - turnovers, mistakes, rushed throws, etc. They create negative yardage and kill drives. They back teams up deep in their own territory. They take teams out of field goal range, and they turn red zone drives into 3 points instead of 7. They sometimes create points (safeties, forced fumbles for touchdowns). I don't think those are small things.

Let's look at the SB contenders since BB took over as coach of the Pats and their sack totals:

2000: Ravens finished 22nd with 35 sacks, but I'd argue that wasn't reflective of their stifling defense. Giants finished 9th with 44 sacks. In the postseason, the Ravens had 14 sacks and the Giants 13, the two highest totals.

2001: Rams finished 7th with 45 sacks. Pats finished 13th with 41. Pats and Rams tied for most postseason sacks with 7.

2002: Tampa Bay and Oakland finished tied for 6th with 43 sacks. Bucs had 11 sacks in the postseason (a 59 sack pace), the Raiders 6.

2003: Pats finished 6rd with 41 sacks. Carolina finished 7th with 40 sacks. Pats recorded most sacks in the postseason (12), Carolina 2nd with 10.

2004: Pats finished 3rd with 45 sacks. Eagles finished 2nd with 47. Eagles recorded most sacks in the postseason (9), Pats tied for 2nd (6).

2005: Steelers finished 3rd with 47 sacks. Seahawks finished 1st with 50. The Steelers recorded a whopping 15 sacks in 4 postseason games winning the SB as a wild card team, a pace that would have given them 60 over a 16 game season.

2006: Indy finished 30th with 25 sacks, an anomaly. However, they recorded 8 sacks in 3 postseason games, a pace that would have given them 43 for a 16 game season. Chicago finished 8th with 40, and had 7 sacks in the postseason. The Pats had 9 sacks in the postseason, and almost made it to the SB.

2007: Patriots finished 2nd in sacks with 47. The Giants finished first with 53, and also 1st in the postseason with 8 more.

2008: Steelers finished 2nd in sacks with 51. Arizona finished 14th with 31. But in the postseason Arizona recorded 10 sacks (on pace for 52 over a 16 game season) and Pittsburgh 9, the two highest totals.

So it seems like the SB contenders are usually among the lead leaders in sacks, and almost always among the postseason leaders.

The Pats currently rank 24th with 18 sacks on the season, on pace for 29. In the BB era only Indy has made the SB with a worse sack ranking or total, and they upped their defensive pressure considerably in the postseason. That's not a particularly reassuring stat.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I'm not much of a stats geek but IMO Qb pressures is a pretty important metric when trying to determine if your line is moving the Qb off his block.

TBC actually ranks pretty high in terms of QB hits, pressures, etc with the other OLBs in the league. Burgess has 16 Qb pressures, not too bad.

Good site for such useless info

ProFootballFocus.com - By Position

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

No way. I am terrible at crunching numbers. Someone else can do that.

Sorry, that was sort of a generic, 'you' referring to anyone who has way too much time on their hands..............

 

[Patspsycho]

I'm not much of a stats geek but IMO Qb pressures is a pretty important metric when trying to determine if your line is moving the Qb off his block.

TBC actually ranks pretty high in terms of QB hits, pressures, etc with the other OLBs in the league. Burgess has 16 Qb pressures, not too bad.

Good site for such useless info

ProFootballFocus.com - By Position

Burgess actually has 12, and that is ranked 28th in the NFL, he is tied with Seymour for pressures. BB prefers pressure, so I guess in BB's eyes, Burgess is doing his job, even if the rest of us don't see it that way.

Surprising how low Chris Long and Connor Barwin rank, when you come to pure stats.

 

[Sicilian]

aren't passing yards and receiving yards going to be the same as well?

Technically sacks count as negatives towards passing yards, but not against receiving yards if I'm not mistaken. So if we were getting a ton of sacks, it's possible to be ranked higher in "passing" defense rather than "receiving" defense.

Again, I think that's how it works. Usually they're just about the same though, it's hard to have enough sacks to complete change a ranking.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Burgess actually has 12, and that is ranked 28th in the NFL, he is tied with Seymour for pressures. BB prefers pressure, so I guess in BB's eyes, Burgess is doing his job, even if the rest of us don't see it that way.

Surprising how low Chris Long and Connor Barwin rank, when you come to pure stats.

Yep 12. My bad. I just created a thread on this. Pretty interesting.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

[Red zone defense is] certainly an important statistic, although there's something to be said for not letting the opposition into the red zone at all. For the Pats' bend but don't break defense, the statistic is particularly important. Anybody have these numbers this year. I looked around and couldn't find their red zone defense numbers for this year.

As if to answer my question, Reiss posted this stat this morning. Pats rank 28th in red zone defense, which jives with my sense that when push comes to shove, the Pats don't have a shut-down defense, either in the red zone or for stopping end-of-game drives when they really matter.

I'm not saying the defense isn't good, but it's not elite yet and will need to improve significantly if they want to win it all this year.

 

[olschool]

I know, trust me I know all too well.

However with all the losses this year it wasn't something that I was thinking.

Did you see the story on CHFF about the Colts defenses since 2002 ?

Apparently, they've been a lot better than the general perception. It included the stat that the Colts have had two #1 ranked defenses in that period, compared to the Pats having only one.

It just backs up the fact that great offenses also need great defenses to win.

 

[mayoclinic]

I think that if someone did a mathematical analysis, they would find that the team that wins the most allows the fewest points is most often the winner. Point differential is another top stat. Even from your stats, I would think that these two correlate to winning better than sacks. How many teams have been in the top 3 in allowing points and scoring points and not reached the Super Bowl?

The obvious answer to your question is that every year at least 1 team in the top 3 in scoring defense doesn't make the Super Bowl, since only 2 teams can reach the championship game.

But, to be more thorough:

2000: Baltimore, Tennessee and Miami were the top 3. Baltimore made and won the SB. 1/3.

2001: Chicago, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh were the top 3. 0/3 to the SB.

2002: TB, Philly and the Giants were the top 3. TB won it. 1/3.

2003: NE, Dallas and Miami were the top 3. NE won the SB. 1/3.

2004: Pittsburgh, NE and Philly were the top 3. NE beat Philly. 2/3.

2005: Chicago, Indy and Denver were the top 3. 0/3.

2006: Baltimore, NE and Chicago were the top 3. Chicago lost to Indy. 1/3.

2007: Indy, Pittsburgh and TB were the top 3. 0/3.

2008: Pittsburgh, Tennessee and Baltimore were the top 3. Steelers won it all. 1/3.

So in BB's 9 years 7 teams out of 27 finishing in the top 3 have made the SB. Not that great. On the other hand, the team finishing with the top scoring defense won 4 out of 9 SBs (Baltimore in 2000, TB in 2002, NE in 2003, and Pittsburgh in 2008) - much more promising. But the NY Giants won the 2007 SB despite finish 17th in scoring defense, and the Colts won in 2006 despite finish 23rd.

My point was not that sacks are the be all and end all of a defense. They aren't. I think red zone defense, passing yardage, and turnovers are more important. But sacks are important. They're big plays that can change the momentum and cause point swings in games.

If the Pats stay on target and hope to win the SB, they will do so with the weakest pass rush of any SB team this decade. The 2006 Colts had only 25 sacks, but they had 2 elite pass rushers in Dwight Freeney (who had a career low 5.5 sacks, but 33 QB pressures) and Robert Mathis (9.5 sacks and 22 QB pressures). Their defense stepped up the pressure in the post-season. We really don't have any big time pass rushers. The 2000 Ravens finished 22nd in sacks, but they had a stifling defense and they picked up their sacks significantly in the post-season.

I'm not saying we can't win it all with the defense we have. But a pass rush would certainly help, and if we win the SB we will do so as perhaps the poorest pass rushing SB champion of the decade. That doesn't encourage me.

 

[Patspsycho]

The obvious answer to your question is that every year at least 1 team in the top 3 in scoring defense doesn't make the Super Bowl, since only 2 teams can reach the championship game.

But, to be more thorough:

2000: Baltimore, Tennessee and Miami were the top 3. Baltimore made and won the SB. 1/3.

2001: Chicago, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh were the top 3. 0/3 to the SB.

2002: TB, Philly and the Giants were the top 3. TB won it. 1/3.

2003: NE, Dallas and Miami were the top 3. NE won the SB. 1/3.

2004: Pittsburgh, NE and Philly were the top 3. NE beat Philly. 2/3.

2005: Chicago, Indy and Denver were the top 3. 0/3.

2006: Baltimore, NE and Chicago were the top 3. Chicago lost to Indy. 1/3.

2007: Indy, Pittsburgh and TB were the top 3. 0/3.

2008: Pittsburgh, Tennessee and Baltimore were the top 3. Steelers won it all. 1/3.

So in BB's 9 years 7 teams out of 27 finishing in the top 3 have made the SB. Not that great. On the other hand, the team finishing with the top scoring defense won 4 out of 9 SBs (Baltimore in 2000, TB in 2002, NE in 2003, and Pittsburgh in 2008) - much more promising. But the NY Giants won the 2007 SB despite finish 17th in scoring defense, and the Colts won in 2006 despite finish 23rd.

My point was not that sacks are the be all and end all of a defense. They aren't. I think red zone defense, passing yardage, and turnovers are more important. But sacks are important. They're big plays that can change the momentum and cause point swings in games.

If the Pats stay on target and hope to win the SB, they will do so with the weakest pass rush of any SB team this decade. The 2006 Colts had only 25 sacks, but they had 2 elite pass rushers in Dwight Freeney (who had a career low 5.5 sacks, but 33 QB pressures) and Robert Mathis (9.5 sacks and 22 QB pressures). Their defense stepped up the pressure in the post-season. We really don't have any big time pass rushers. The 2000 Ravens finished 22nd in sacks, but they had a stifling defense and they picked up their sacks significantly in the post-season.

I'm not saying we can't win it all with the defense we have. But a pass rush would certainly help, and if we win the SB we will do so as perhaps the poorest pass rushing SB champion of the decade. That doesn't encourage me.

Great analysis Mayo.. you put a lot of energy into your posts. No idea where you get that!

 

[BritPat]

Could you try posting something constructive?

 

[RobertWeathers]

The obvious answer to your question is that every year at least 1 team in the top 3 in scoring defense doesn't make the Super Bowl, since only 2 teams can reach the championship game.

But, to be more thorough:

2000: Baltimore, Tennessee and Miami were the top 3. Baltimore made and won the SB. 1/3.

2001: Chicago, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh were the top 3. 0/3 to the SB.

2002: TB, Philly and the Giants were the top 3. TB won it. 1/3.

2003: NE, Dallas and Miami were the top 3. NE won the SB. 1/3.

2004: Pittsburgh, NE and Philly were the top 3. NE beat Philly. 2/3.

2005: Chicago, Indy and Denver were the top 3. 0/3.

2006: Baltimore, NE and Chicago were the top 3. Chicago lost to Indy. 1/3.

2007: Indy, Pittsburgh and TB were the top 3. 0/3.

2008: Pittsburgh, Tennessee and Baltimore were the top 3. Steelers won it all. 1/3.

So in BB's 9 years 7 teams out of 27 finishing in the top 3 have made the SB. Not that great. On the other hand, the team finishing with the top scoring defense won 4 out of 9 SBs (Baltimore in 2000, TB in 2002, NE in 2003, and Pittsburgh in 2008) - much more promising. But the NY Giants won the 2007 SB despite finish 17th in scoring defense, and the Colts won in 2006 despite finish 23rd.

My point was not that sacks are the be all and end all of a defense. They aren't. I think red zone defense, passing yardage, and turnovers are more important. But sacks are important. They're big plays that can change the momentum and cause point swings in games.

If the Pats stay on target and hope to win the SB, they will do so with the weakest pass rush of any SB team this decade. The 2006 Colts had only 25 sacks, but they had 2 elite pass rushers in Dwight Freeney (who had a career low 5.5 sacks, but 33 QB pressures) and Robert Mathis (9.5 sacks and 22 QB pressures). Their defense stepped up the pressure in the post-season. We really don't have any big time pass rushers. The 2000 Ravens finished 22nd in sacks, but they had a stifling defense and they picked up their sacks significantly in the post-season.

I'm not saying we can't win it all with the defense we have. But a pass rush would certainly help, and if we win the SB we will do so as perhaps the poorest pass rushing SB champion of the decade. That doesn't encourage me.

Pats are on a pace for about 29 sacks and 21 INTS and 22 fumble recoveries on D.

To compare, the 2004 Pats D had 45 sacks, 20 INTs and 18 forced fumbles.

It can happen....

 

[crypto]

%$#@, the people on these boards.

Let's review the OP with a different boldface emphasis.

According to NFL team stats:

1) Points scored against: 2nd
2) Total yards allowed: 6th
3) Passing yards average allowed: 6th
4) Rushing yard average allowed: 15th
5) Receiving yards average allowed: 6th
6) Sacks total: 24th
7) Touchdowns allowed: 7th
8) Tackles: 17th
9) Interceptions: 5th

Overall ranking: 6th (game stats)

I called it way back in September, by the way, when everyone was wailing in week three. This is easily a top 10 defense.

 

[ausbacker]

After watching the ravens vs colts and before that the 49ers vs colts I am convinced BB put our defense at a disadvantage. I think BB gives Peyton way too much respect and that actually hurts. Both the 49ers and ravens kept going after Mannning and held the Colts to under 20 pts. I think BB just needs to let his Defense play and not over think it. One day I would like to see our Defense with just 1 above average pass rusher!

Can anyone recall the past 2 seasons and how many big plays the defense had given up, whether it be a long score for a touchdown or a big run gain? They really haven't existed this season as the defense has kept the game infront of them by and large. This was a massive problem for us last season. You can't fix everything in 1 off-season and I will be interested to see how we address gaining more pressure on the QB in the coming off-season.