pats = same old problem - defense

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from NY-PATS-FAN4. Show NY-PATS-FAN4's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense:
    [QUOTE]Notable observations from the Sunday schedule: Packers defense gave up 432 passing yards to Cam Newton. Allowed 23 points. Baltimore allowed 358 passing yards to Matt Hasselbeck. Titans scored 26 points. Oakland gave up 481 yards to the Bills, who scored 38 points. Vice versa, Bills made Jason Campbell look good with 323 passing yards. Raiders scored 35 points. Matt Ryan threw 4 TD's on the Eagles' dream team defense. Turner runs for 114 yards and 1 TD. Falcons win with 35 points. In comparison, we gave up 378 passing yards to Philip Rivers (i.e. not Hasselbeck, not Newton, not Campbell) and 21 points to the Chargers. Not to mention from last week: Steelers defense allow 35 points to the Ravens, Flacco throws for 3 TD, Ray Rice runs for 107 yards Brees throws for 419 yards against the Packers, Saints put up 34 points Tony Romo throws for 342 yards against the Jets, put up 24 points and probably would've had more if Romo doesn't self-destruct at every 2-minute warning Let's see some statistics on the Patriots defense: The Patriots are 15th in points allowed, ahead of the Eagles, Saints, Chargers, Packers, and Falcons (all Super Bowl contenders). The Patriots have 6 sacks, tying the Bears, Steelers, and Jets. The Ravens, Lions, Vikings, and Chargers all have 4 sacks (all know how to pressure QB). The Patriots are ranked 31st in passing yards allowed with 381 yards/game ahead of only the Green Bay Packers, who have allowed 400 passing yards/game. I might be reading this wrong, but it seems like our defense fits right up there with all the Super Bowl teams. Now, I know some of you will point out that it's only been two weeks and the stats may be skewed so they don't reflect true performance. Well, if that line of thinking is true, then why are we judging our defense based on the same period of time? But what do I know? Everyone else is probably right. After holding the Chargers to 21 points after a short week, it's time to panic and deem this defense incapable of stopping a pee wee team. Furthermore, let's ignore the turnovers, the goal line stops, and the situational football. Let's just look at how the Chargers moved the ball effectively through 5-yard checkdowns to Tolbert because God knows Belichick can't do anything to stop that. Forget gelling, we're doomed.
    Posted by kevin13130[/QUOTE]

    Great post, Kevin.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense:
    [QUOTE]King/Rusty - I'm relatively new to this board (at least in terms of contributing) and I think that while there is nothing wrong with being a homer here, when you combine that with being a bully about it . . . . chill out a bit, dude.
    Posted by BelichickforPresident[/QUOTE]


    "when you combine that with being a bully about it . . . . chill out a bit, dude.
    "

    Truth told. dont beat up people just because they have a different opinion. its not a competition. it's a sharing of ideas.
    learn how to accept that people have different ideas and dont have to agree.
    try actually listening and considering. without needing to rebuff.
    let a persons ideas stand on their own weight.

    on a different note.
    yessssss! 
    2-0
    and looking good!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense :  I like your post. We need to discuss positives and negatives here, real or perceived. I'm sure that's what BB does and it's what makes any site interesting. BB himself has said that the NFL is a passing league and that defense against the pass has to do with getting pressure on the QB and good coverage by the defensive backs. Are we getting enough pressure on the quarterbacks yet with either a 3 or 4 man rush? Not even close. Will it improve or will we be forced to blitz more? My guess is we'll have to blitz more, especially in long yardage 3rd down situations. As for the secondary, there have been alot of changes---especially at safety---so they can only get better. I'm optimistic but I'm sure BB realizes that the defense needs too improve tremendously.
    Posted by trouts[/QUOTE]

    thanks trout. i like yout posts too.

    re: " My guess is we'll have to blitz more, especially in long yardage 3rd down situations. As for the secondary, there have been alot of changes---especially at safety---so they can only get better. I'm optimistic but I'm sure BB realizes that the defense needs too improve tremendously."

    agreed.


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    guys, the pass rush is much better. on both games so far, the opposing QBs did a good job of releasing the ball quickly.

    I DVRed the first game and reviewed how many times Henne had more than 3 secs to throw. I counted fewer than 5. On every other throw, he either released the ball in less than 3 secs or the D pushed the Oline to crowd Henne. Henne was dumping the ball underneath a lot, precisely because he saw the rush coming.

    I did not see the the fourth qtr yesterday (and I did not record it either), but I maybe saw rivers get more than 3 seconds maybe 3-4 times. Other times, he released the ball quickly or the D was just on the verge of getting to him.

    The pressure is there eventhough there were only few sacks. Other than PM, I don't think there are QBs in the league now who will succeed against the Pats if they just keep up what they are doing.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

     The comments claiming our defense is pretty good because our stats are almost as good or as bad as the Packers defensive stats is ridiculous. A lot of Green Bay Packers fans (and coaches I'm sure) are seriously worried about their defense. I'm pretty confident that the Packers will not be winning another super bowl this year if their defense keeps playing the way it has so far.
      These comments that the game has changed and defenses are not as important as they once were is a crock. The Pats lost the superbowl in 2007 because of great defense. They lost in the playoffs the last two years because the other teams defenses outplayed ours dramatically. There is no shame in allowing a great quarterback like Manning, Rivers or Brees put up big numbers against you but watching Sanchez and Henne do it too you is pretty sad.
     If you want to argue that the Pats defense is complicated and the short training camp is causing a learning curve and it will improve is fine but to say it is obviously good right now and the rest of us who disagree are stupid is myopic at best.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from HOTBLITZ. Show HOTBLITZ's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    You people who think others are not allowed to have an opinion that the defense was bad are hilarious. Calling us trolls and whiners just because you think otherwise is simply foolish.

    Everyone is entitled to an opinion whether you agree or disagree, and quite frankly you can make a solid case regardless of what side of the debate your on.

    Right or wrong there are far more people, analyst's, journalist's and whomever who believe the defense is weak. Not that there's not potential to be good but at this point the secondary isn't playing well.

    Dmac next to Mayo is my favourite player but I certainly think he's slumping and looks a step slower so far this year. That being said I still think he's gonna be amazing and as far as his potential, the sky is the limit. Bodden is a stud but to me looks rusty still and his 2 holding penalties were bad.. imo. Dowling looks impressive so far but can he stay healthy?

    Not a fan of Josh Barrett, maybe it's just me but it looked as if he did nothing in either game.

    Sergio Brown has potential...

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense : bredbru - welcome to these boards.  A lot of the self-professed "knowledgeable bullies" are wrong half the time which is about the rate of any amateur (not saying you are).  Just let their words roll over you.  They tend to get down anyone's throat with name-calling attacks.  And then to prove their superiority, they will put you on ignore.  Because they don't want to be called out for being wrong.  Some of us are more mature than that.   All opinions are welcome.  We ALL hated losing to the Jets last year. It stunk. But, it especially messed with the hardcore types' heads here.  It threw them for a loop that their chest-thumping came to an ugly halt.  And they couldn't rag on any of their so-called "whiner" or "wagon" posters here. I've been a Pats fan since they were an afterthought on the Boston sports scene and played in a place called Schaeffer Stadium in Foxboro.  
    Posted by ipot[/QUOTE]


    hey ipot,
       thanks for the post! and the welcome.
    of course i am an "amateur" here. like anyone else. if we were getting paid to coach in the nfl we wouldnt be here :).
    i like to shy away from the labeling / using names of people. it just marginalizes them and doesnt add to what we are doing here: celebrating and discussing things patriot.
    further, besides marginalizing others, it displays insecurity about what youy are spouting. if the idea can stand on its own, a person wouldn't need to attack others for having a different idea.
    so lets all share the fun and the different opinions about being pats fans.

    peace
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense:
    [QUOTE]I don't know if this has been discussed already, but it occurred to me that the yardage (and points) given up on defense could be a direct result of what we're doing on offense. Brady is going with a no-huddle, quick tempo offense that scores points quickly. But that also means the defense gets more playing time than if we were playing ball control, normal-paced offense. If you look at the game stats, Henne had 49 pass attempts and Rivers had 40. I mean, if your a NFL QB and your given 40+ pass attempts, you should have over 300 passing yards, right? Now, obviously we could do better. We could force some turnovers late in the game or some 4th down stops that would allow the offense to just run out the clock (we actually did it in Miami at the 1-yard line but instead of running out the clock, it was a quick 99-yard TD to Welker), but what I'm saying is the yardage and even the points allowed is inflated because the other team gets so many more opportunities. Again, I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but what do you guys think about this theory?
    Posted by kevin13130[/QUOTE]

    Not so sure this theory is valid. TOP was 31/29 in SD's favor. That's not overly supportive to the theory. And the Pats had one more play over the game than the Chargers. First downs were also within one of each other.

    Basically, both D's were owned by the Os. But the Pat's D got turnovers and the Chargers didn't.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense:
    [QUOTE]The problem is, what happens when a team holds us to 21 points?
    Posted by HaverhillBob[/QUOTE]

    As far as I can see BB is resting/rotating his D tackles and limiting them to a 2 man front with any combination of outside linebackers on either side; a 2/4/5 package.  

    At any given time, especially if we're playing a very solid defensive team (Jets) he can go back to a 3 man front by sticking another tackle next to Wilfork and Haynesworth.  The run yards we're giving up, the lack of sacks I attribute to the insistence on playing this formation regardless the opponent, but I really hope we go back to a 3/4 and 3/3/5 when we play the best teams or we could be in trouble. 

    Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of room for improvement with this defense but if by seasons end we lead or are near tops in the league in turnovers and 3rd down defense then we'll be in pretty good shape.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Vacilando. Show Vacilando's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    Since this is a repetitive thread I'll repost...

    First of all, give credit where credit is due:

    SD Charger's Rivers stood in that pocket like a man with the pocket collapsing around him and tossed bullets to receivers that made spectacular catches.  Given though we did lose the underneath passes to Tolbert but honestly Rivers is an elite QB that took advantage of a realigned D.   The ONLY QB in our future that would stand in there like Rivers would be Rothlesberger (sp?) in week 8.

    As previously mentioned:

    Patriots are 8th in the league in sacks, and 6th in INTs.  Including 2 fumble recoveries in the SD game.

    WAIT PEOPLE! BE CALM! More sacks and interceptions to come by much more skiddish QBs!

    Let's see what happens with Fitzpatrick this week before we all act like Chicken Little's.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    are people acting like chicken littles or simply making their observations and speaking to where they see we need improvement?

    i called the red sox troubles/weak areas earlier in the year but remained optimistic. 
    the trouble areas not delt with are coming to fore and making winning a championship more difficult. 

    observastions are just that.

    to anyone who feels the need to label others, you dont need to try to diminish other's observations by labeling them, troll, chicken little, or whatever else. feel better about yourself and just understand anothers point of view and leave it at that.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2012. Show Evil2012's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense:
    [QUOTE]are people acting like chicken littles or simply making their observations and speaking to where they see we need improvement? i called the red sox troubles/weak areas earlier in the year but remained optimistic.  the trouble areas not delt with are coming to fore and making winning a championship more difficult.  observastions are just that. to anyone who feels the need to label others, you dont need to try to diminish other's observations by labeling them, troll, chicken little, or whatever else. feel better about yourself and just understand anothers point of view and leave it at that.
    Posted by bredbru[/QUOTE]

     There's a big difference between saying the D needs improvement and whining that it's terrible. People also seem to forget that Rivers is a very good QB and Jackson was a 1000 yd receiver for two seasons before screwing up his career with several DUI arrests. Now he's back and in good form. Add the fact that Tolbert is impossible to tackle by anyone smaller than a LB and that accounted for most of the Chargers offense.

     One thing that seems to be overlooked here is the effect of Brady's offensive efficiency on the defense. We could use one or two time consuming drives a game to give the D a chance to rest, regroup and get coached. I think the max drive time Sunday was around 5 1/2 minutes.
     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense:
    [QUOTE] The comments claiming our defense is pretty good because our stats are almost as good or as bad as the Packers defensive stats is ridiculous. A lot of Green Bay Packers fans (and coaches I'm sure) are seriously worried about their defense. I'm pretty confident that the Packers will not be winning another super bowl this year if their defense keeps playing the way it has so far.   These comments that the game has changed and defenses are not as important as they once were is a crock. The Pats lost the superbowl in 2007 because of great defense. They lost in the playoffs the last two years because the other teams defenses outplayed ours dramatically. There is no shame in allowing a great quarterback like Manning, Rivers or Brees put up big numbers against you but watching Sanchez and Henne do it too you is pretty sad.  If you want to argue that the Pats defense is complicated and the short training camp is causing a learning curve and it will improve is fine but to say it is obviously good right now and the rest of us who disagree are stupid is myopic at best.
    Posted by ccnsd[/QUOTE]

    I disagree a little and I didn''t say Defense isn't important

    Defenses are very important but the deck has now been stacked against them
    The game has changed: 5 yd the bump and run rules, QB roughing the passer,
    a plethors of Gates like TE's, the less importnace of RB's, not to mention the size and speed of the players, Great offensive plays just cannot be stopped.

    The SD game exhibited all of this. (SD 1st td = Floyd 2 great indefensible
    catches), the roughing the pass call, our 2 TE's - effective running but
    not the center of the game plan.

    We are in

    "The Gunslinger Era"

    There are at least 15 qb's that can have great games-

    If a qb is mobile, gets the ball off quickly, is accurate  the D  has a hard time
    making stops  in the middle of the field - only in the Red Zone, where the space is compressed, do they have a chance against a top rated Offense.

    Henne and  Rogers both put up #'s but then made mistakes
    with the D making big plays- (Henne had a great game for him)

    BTW - why SD ran instead of passed on 4th down is beyond me;
    this is one area we have greatly improved - our run D
    I would not run on the Pats 4th and 1 yd line


    I have to admit the team that is starting to scare me the most is Detroit -
    they have a Dline like the Giants did and a real Gunslinger QB-

    WE however have the fastest and deadliest Gunslinger with a D that
    can make plays.

    We will win the SB if: the Oline gives TB time to throw.
    We will not know that until the playoffs.
    It will probably be very tense.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2012. Show Evil2012's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

     It seems like BB and the D are trying to adjust to the new reality in the NFL. The line between not being aggressive enough and being so aggressive you get flagged with what Tommy Heinsohn used to call ticky/tacky fouls has become so fine you can't tell how it's going to go from play to play.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense :  There's a big difference between saying the D needs improvement and whining that it's terrible. People also seem to forget that Rivers is a very good QB and Jackson was a 1000 yd receiver for two seasons before screwing up his career with several DUI arrests. Now he's back and in good form. Add the fact that Tolbert is impossible to tackle by anyone smaller than a LB and that accounted for most of the Chargers offense.  One thing that seems to be overlooked here is the effect of Brady's offensive efficiency on the defense. We could use one or two time consuming drives a game to give the D a chance to rest, regroup and get coached. I think the max drive time Sunday was around 5 1/2 minutes.
    Posted by Evil2012[/QUOTE]

    "One thing that seems to be overlooked here is the effect of Brady's offensive efficiency on the defense. We could use one or two time consuming drives a game to give the D a chance to rest, regroup and get coached. I think the max drive time Sunday was around 5 1/2 minutes. "

    Agreed

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davedsone. Show Davedsone's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense:
    [QUOTE]Since this is a repetitive thread I'll repost... First of all, give credit where credit is due: SD Charger's Rivers stood in that pocket like a man with the pocket collapsing around him and tossed bullets to receivers that made spectacular catches.  Given though we did lose the underneath passes to Tolbert but honestly Rivers is an elite QB that took advantage of a realigned D.   The ONLY QB in our future that would stand in there like Rivers would be Rothlesberger (sp?) in week 8. As previously mentioned: Patriots are 8th in the league in sacks, and 6th in INTs.  Including 2 fumble recoveries in the SD game. WAIT PEOPLE! BE CALM! More sacks and interceptions to come by much more skiddish QBs! Let's see what happens with Fitzpatrick this week before we all act like Chicken Little's.
    Posted by Vacilando[/QUOTE]

    I think you are ignoring that Henne did the same, and BADLY underestimating Fitzpatrick.  What I saw last year was enough to make me respect him, and this year his O line seems to have gotten their act together.  Not saying they will win, just saying he will hang at least 21 points on us.  He can think under pressure and does not make stupid mistakes, so far.  Hope we change all that.  

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense :  Say what you want, but those kinds of long drives HELPED the 2001-2004 Dynasty Ds a lot more than some want to admit. The 3.5 yard run, a screen, a QB sneak, etc, worked BETTER long term than a 3 minute drive with sick Brady darts to 5 different people.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing[/QUOTE]


    I think you're going to have a hard time selling the spin that the offense in the good old days was better than the highest scoring in the league type we enjoy lately wonderboy. Most folks think the D was just much better in those days.
     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    I know I would take Superbowl wins over #1 scoring offense in the NFL anyday. Not sure about anybody else......To me high scoring offense's doesn't equate to winning in the playoffs. Balanced offense with good defense does. Tough to have a good defense when your offense goes 3 and out 3 out of 4 plays.
     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share