Looking at some numbers from last season seems to support that idea. Maybe giving your offense time to rest is a benefit...
The Pats last 3 years 21st in yards, 7th in points allowed. 29th in yards, 5th in points allowed, 8th in yards, 1st in points allowed. The Pats have been winning with bend don't break for years. They rarely 3 and out on O which also means that the starting position for teams that play against them usually means they have to drive the field. They don't lose games where teams kick field goals against them. They are great in the red zone when the field the O has to work with is small. They play a decidedly bend don't break D inside the 20's. They keep the play in front of them, they contain, they don't over pursue. They make teams drive the full field and wait for a mistake.
You hit the nail on the head. As I recall, the jets won both games (half of their win total for the year) when Rodgers was out and Bowles called the defense. Not great defensive efforts,but a win is a win. I was surprised Bowles didn't realize/recognize the improvement and demote Rodgers or take away the play calling from him when Rodgers came back. Wait, no I wasn't.
It will be interesting to see how our defense responds to Greg Williams. It seems like he likes to pit his dogs against those pussies on offense. Should be fun...or something.
How do you suppose a defense can be very good at preventing yards but terrible in preventing points? The answer is the offense and specials giving up touchdowns, and/or turnovers with short field position, which all counts against defenses in the points stat. Can't just look at points stat, as it doesn't account for points/turnovers given up by the other 2 phases, which was often the case in the Sanchez/Geno eras. Attacking style defense is the way to go imo......if you want conservative bend but don't break stuff you can have Bowles back.
Seattle, Philly, Carolina, Atlanta, Denver all recently made Super Bowls with attacking defenses. The Patriots can play bend don’t break because 1. Their offense chews a lot of clock and 2. They’re disciplined and tackle well. We need to play balls to wall, downhill, physical, attack routes and attack the ball. He’s running a deep out, get inside his hip and get a hand(s) on the ball. Pin your ears back and beat your man in the trenches and hit the QB. Someone comes across the middle lay their ass out. Somebody from their offense needs to feel pain every snap.
Points scored as a result of a turnover that gives the opposing offense good field position count against the defense. But if the offense or special teams gives up a touchdown, it doesn't count against the defense. Having said that, you can be good at not giving up yards if you usually get a quick stop, but you still give up points on big plays. So the opposing teams' drives have a bunch of three and outs along with a few touchdowns. Ideally you want a defense that prevents big plays, is good in the red zone, and forces turnovers.
Offense or specials giving up a TD, like a pick 6 or punt return TD, absolutely does count against the D. It's not filtered out of the points stat. Also offense or specials giving up a turnover in the red zone, defense does it's job and holds to FG, the 3 pts still count against the D. In terms of your big play example, that big play would also count as big yards. The best way to look at D imo, look at total yds, and look at either Red Zone % or Total TD's given up by D. Looking at just points has too many other aspects factored in. It's like looking at "Wins" for a QB, one of biggest pet peeves.
Bowles ran a decidedly attacking D in Arizona. He could, he had a Patrick Peterson and he had a healthy Tyron Mathieu. The Cardinals blitzed like crazy because they could single cover 2 receivers on every play. A football field is easier to cover when the field shrinks. When the field is big the easiest way for field position to flip is by loss of containment. Loss of containment happens when guys are overly aggressive. I want a smart D that contains and stiffens when the field the O has to attack is limited. I want special teams that win the field position game. I want an O that when they can't score at least moves the chains a few times and sets up our punter to switch field position. To put it another way, I want a smart talented team that doesn't have to take stupid risks to win games as a matter of style. I'm not saying you lose your nerve, I'm just saying smart winning teams the first job is for guys to contain and do their job. You don't need hero football you need smart execution and when you have a mismatch take your shot. Every defensive player is aggressive and wants to attack by nature. The league is full of undisciplined guys who DC are trying to jack up. I want a smart team where guys do their job. Defense in the NFL today is about containment.
From what I've read Williams isn't just a "pin your ears back and attack" guy. I think he coaches aggressive, but also smart, and mixing up a lot of different looks. I don't see him as the same as Rex who was blitz crazy.
Wow you're right, it isn't filtered out of the points stat. That's dumb. Still, it's worth looking at a better version of scoring defense in addition to total yards given up.
No thanks. I prefer attack Ds. Rex's teams couldn't create a TO to save their lives. I believe that this one will.
IMO it sounds like you're equivocating an attacking defense with a reckless, dumb style of play with players who don't do their jobs and take unnecessary/stupid risks. I don't think that's what an aggressive, attacking D is at all. I think what you're talking about is just a bad defense. Attacking with quick penetration gives the opposing QB less time to scan the field and increases the chances that he will throw an incompletion or interception or be sacked. Read and react is too passive, and is deadly when your players don't read that well or don't have the speed/athleticism to react quickly. I think that our D will be smart and our offense will move the chains.
Yes I do agree with most of what you posted. Gotta be smart, keep your assignments, limit penalties, and gotta protect field position with both defense and specials. That shouldn't preclude you from attacking on defense, just like you would attack on offense though. Force teams to make mistakes rather than hoping they do on their own. I agree about Bowles coaching a much more aggressive D in Ariz also. Bowles as a DC was more attacking than Bowles as a HC, and I think Rodgers was out of his depth which didn't help here. He called things painfully conservative on D every time we had a lead, which usually led to blowing that lead.
I agree it's kind of dumb. I guess it's because points is really a team stat, which people just tend to apply towards D. I like looking at a few key D stats, but total yds and red zone efficiency are usually my go to's. If you're not giving up field position, and you're not giving up TD's on the short field, that's a damn good defense. For added measure Turnovers, Rushing yds, 3 and out %, 3rd and 4th down efficiency are all good indicators.
especially if you have the ability to go down the field and score right after If you do not get the QB, the QB gets you. simple fact in todays NFL
you have to be flexible enough to do both. Blowes used to start some game soff with real aggression but he always backpedaled ont he way to losing
I want minimize the amount of time QBs have in the pocket. And I want our guys glued to Receivers in coverage. We’re not a fast team defensively but I hope we play fast.
