Where our defense ranks now

[mgteich]

You measure a pass defense by how many sacks they have and how many hurries they have. I measure one by how many points they allow. The bottom line in a pass defense has to do with how effective the opposing passers are: how many points they score. This could be measured better by opposing quarterback ratings than by sacks. To put it another way, a pass team could be very, very aggressive, blitzing often and get lots of sacks. Thatn same team could also give up lots of big plays. Belichick has chosen NOT to have that kind of roll the dice defence. The results have been that the opponents have scored fewer points than almost any other team. In fact, the defense is within a touchdown of allowing the fewest in the NFL.

I'm sure are some some who would rather witch the rankings in sacks and points allowed. I'm just not one of those folks.

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.

 

[SidelineSid]

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.

I completely agree. This defense is still unproven. The Colts game has shown us that there is still room for significant improvement. Our offense, though possessing red zone struggles of its own, does help our defense with long time consuming drives. Brady, Moss, and Welker do cover up dome of our defensive short comings.

As the Colts showed the world, when our offense sputters, so does our defense. They contained our offense in the second half, and that's what helped them come back.

Regarding sacks, I don't think anyone here can seriously deny our need for more quality pass rushers. We tried putting no name corners on our defense and we had terrible results. It's time to start giving our pass rush the same kind of attention.

 

[mayoclinic]

You measure a pass defense by how many sacks they have and how many hurries they have. I measure one by how many points they allow. The bottom line in a pass defense has to do with how effective the opposing passers are: how many points they score. This could be measured better by opposing quarterback ratings than by sacks. To put it another way, a pass team could be very, very aggressive, blitzing often and get lots of sacks. Thatn same team could also give up lots of big plays. Belichick has chosen NOT to have that kind of roll the dice defence. The results have been that the opponents have scored fewer points than almost any other team. In fact, the defense is within a touchdown of allowing the fewest in the NFL.

I'm sure are some some who would rather witch the rankings in sacks and points allowed. I'm just not one of those folks.

I never made any such statement about measuring a defense in terms of sacks. All that I said is that sacks are not meaningless, and have some importance. I certainly don't use them as the primary measure of the effectiveness of a defense, but they are one factor to take into consideration.

I also never suggested that we should have a "roll the dice" defence. I'd like to see us be more aggressive and attacking, and get more pressure on opposing QB's. But I'm not suggesting that we become a kamikaze defense.

I don't think BB is terribly opposed to sacks. We've been among the league leader in sacks more often than not under BB. In fact, there seems to be some correlation between sack production and success in the BB era. In the 9 completed seasons to date under BB, the 5 teams that made it to the AFCCG or further produced 41 (2001), 41 (2003), 45 (2004), 44 (2006) and 47 (2007) sacks, an average of 44 per season. The 4 teams under BB that fell short of the AFCCG produced 29 (2000), 34 (2002), 33 (2005) and 31 (2008) sacks, an average of 32 per season. Obviously there are plenty of other factors, but I find it hard to dismiss sacks as irrelevant. The current team is on pace for 29 sacks. I hope we buck the trend, but the trend is not particularly reassuring.

Our defense ranks 2nd in points allowed, and 25th in red zone defense. Points allowed can be misleading, too. A few timely sacks might have killed some of those drives that ended up as points against us.

I think we have a fine defense. I've been one of the earliest and biggest supporters of our defense as a top 10 and potentially top 5 defense. But I think our lack of ability to generate defensive pressure on opposing QBs, including (but not limited to) getting sacks, could turn out to be our achilles heel this season, and certainly is the limiting factor in how good our defense can be.

 

[mgteich]

You have framed the argument reasonably. The bottom line is whether this defense (which is 2nd in points allowed) is playing more like the 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2007 defenses or more like those of 2002, 2005, 2007 and 2008.

Yes, I agree that more sacks might have resulted in having the #1 instead of the #2 best defense in terms of points allowed.

I believe that the current defense is in the class of the defenses of our winning years. It is performing as Belichick intends. Of course, it could be better if Green, Banta-Cain and Burgess were all healthy at the same time, but injuries are a normal part of the game.

The secondary is incredibly good (and yes, I will still say that if they get shredded by NO). Sanders and Springs are playing reasonably well and I would fine with either of them starting. The fact that they are our #4 safety and #4 corner tells us alot. And sure, I woulf rather have Bodden that both of our #4's, but that will not be the choice in the next offseason. I suspect someone will pay Bodden much more than we are will to pay. He certainly will make more than Sanders and Springs together.

===============================================================

We have a great offense that is mediocre in the second half. If we have an achilles heel, it is the fact that our high scoring offense is about even with the oppenent's offense in the second half. Yes, better running would help. NFL level coaching of the offense would also help.

=================================================================

I never made any such statement about measuring a defense in terms of sacks. All that I said is that sacks are not meaningless, and have some importance. I certainly don't use them as the primary measure of the effectiveness of a defense, but they are one factor to take into consideration.

I also never suggested that we should have a "roll the dice" defence. I'd like to see us be more aggressive and attacking, and get more pressure on opposing QB's. But I'm not suggesting that we become a kamikaze defense.

I don't think BB is terribly opposed to sacks. We've been among the league leader in sacks more often than not under BB. In fact, there seems to be some correlation between sack production and success in the BB era. In the 9 completed seasons to date under BB, the 5 teams that made it to the AFCCG or further produced 41 (2001), 41 (2003), 45 (2004), 44 (2006) and 47 (2007) sacks, an average of 44 per season. The 4 teams under BB that fell short of the AFCCG produced 29 (2000), 34 (2002), 33 (2005) and 31 (2008) sacks, an average of 32 per season. Obviously there are plenty of other factors, but I find it hard to dismiss sacks as irrelevant. The current team is on pace for 29 sacks. I hope we buck the trend, but the trend is not particularly reassuring.

Our defense ranks 2nd in points allowed, and 25th in red zone defense. Points allowed can be misleading, too. A few timely sacks might have killed some of those drives that ended up as points against us.

I think we have a fine defense. I've been one of the earliest and biggest supporters of our defense as a top 10 and potentially top 5 defense. But I think our lack of ability to generate defensive pressure on opposing QBs, including (but not limited to) getting sacks, could turn out to be our achilles heel this season, and certainly is the limiting factor in how good our defense can be.

 

[mayoclinic]

I believe that the current defense is in the class of the defenses of our winning years. It is performing as Belichick intends. Of course, it could be better if Green, Banta-Cain and Burgess were all healthy at the same time, but injuries are a normal part of the game.

I very much agree with this. When I look at the "lesser" years (2000, 2002, 2005 and 2008) I see defenses which major flaws. The 2000 defense was lacking in many areas, and BB really was adjusting to his available personnel and beginning to learn how to use them. 2002 was notable for the lack of run defense, which killed us. 2005 was notable for the lack of LB speed and playmaking - Brown and Beisel still haunt my dreams. 2008 was notable for the horrible CB play and because our aging warriors just couldn't cut it anymore.

I think this defense is in an altogether different class from those, and is far closer to the dominant defenses we've had. My only real concern is the pressure. Manning and Brees (and Brady) can shred almost any secondary if you give them time to throw. Favre, Rothlisberger and Palmer could also be extremely dangerous. These are the guys we will have to face. I'd feel a bit more comfortable if we could generate more sustained and effective pressure.

Hopefully the secondary wlll carry us. And hopefully BB will make the pass rush his #1 priority in the offseason, allowing this D to rise to the truly elite level.

 

[mgteich]

I agree. However, I don't see Belichick making the pass-rush the top priority any more than he did this year. We cried and moaned for months that we needed to bring in top fa and draft talent at DE and OLB. We ended up with Burgess, Banta-Cain and Ninkovich. Belichick will be forced to pay some attention to this situation with Burgess and Green being free agents.

I believe that the pass rush is one of four top priorities for the next offseason
1) Secure a top NT (hopefully Wilfork)
2) Secure a top K (hopefully Gostkowski)
3) Figure out the situation at OG and
4) Address the situation at DE/OLB.

. generate more sustained and effective pressure.

Hopefully the secondary wlll carry us. And hopefully BB will make the pass rush his #1 priority in the offseason, allowing this D to rise to the truly elite level.

 

[mayoclinic]

I agree. However, I don't see Belichick making the pass-rush the top priority any more than he did this year. We cried and moaned for months that we needed to bring in top fa and draft talent at DE and OLB. We ended up with Burgess, Banta-Cain and Ninkovich. Belichick will be forced to pay some attention to this situation with Burgess and Green being free agents.

I believe that the pass rush is one of four top priorities for the next offseason
1) Secure a top NT (hopefully Wilfork)
2) Secure a top K (hopefully Gostkowski)
3) Figure out the situation at OG and
4) Address the situation at DE/OLB.

I agree with your priorities. I've assumed 1-3 will be taken care of before the draft, and that we will keep Wilfork, Mankins and Gostkowski. I think we address the OL in the draft as well as the #2 priority behind the pass rush.