Shaun Ellis and Jermaine Cunningham seeing game action isn't rare, and Ochocinco has had at least one reception in more than half the games this season. Poor article.
You would think the Patriots would want to put in Ochocinco in garbage time. Seriously, they really hate him.
Cunningham has been inactive for something like 6 games so far this season, and Ellis hadn't played since the game against us, so it is pretty rare.
So, wait a second. The offense was perfectly fine. The defense was atrocious. How is this different than most of the Patriots' other games of 2011? Is this season just one grand Belichickian experiment? Let's bottom line it - the guy cut two starting safeties - one of them a ProBowler. He cut at least one starting cornerback and a couple of what I assume would be starting in nickel or dime packages - pretty high draft picks, by the by. He took a flyer on another "experiment" in Albert Haynesworth - that didn't pan out either. He cut another former All-Pro defensive lineman, but I suppose he gets a pass on that one since the guy is out for the season. So, the guy causes huge headaches for himself because of his own personnel decisions, and now he gets a fucking pass by calling it experimentation??!! Come on, dude. That's a huge joke. You've GOT to see it.
None of the above players are any good (including the pro-bowler Merriweather). We have gotten better play and production from Kyle Love than Haynesworth. And yes that was an "experiment" from the start. Leigh Bodden hasn't played a snap since we released him, because he has been injured the entire time. Much of the other "experimentation" that has happened has been a direct result of injuries to key players. Chung, Spikes, McCourty, Mayo, Dowling, and Bodden have all missed considerable time. To rephrase, that is 3/4 of our starting secondary, plus our nickel DB, and 2/3 of our starting LB corps. The only defensive group that has actually had its starters play more than a game or two together is the defensive line, which has actually improved significantly compared to last season. Sure, you can argue that we would have been better off with Merriweather or Sanders over Ihedigbo, but we are not talking about season changing decisions here; they are all JAGs. Anyway, the point of the article wasn't to make BB out to be some sort of genius over these decisions. It was most likely a response to all of the articles acting like the team is doomed because we allowed 21 points to the Colts. Did you actually watch the game, or are you commenting based on highlights that were showed during the Jets game. The reason that I ask is because i really don't feel like the defense played that badly overall. They held the Colts to 3 points through about 50 minutes of play. By the time the Colts started scoring TDs, announcers had been criticizing Belichick for keeping his starters in for several minutes. Of course I would rather see them execute well for 60 minutes, and of course it is embarrassing that we let them score the final two touchdowns so quickly, but if the prevent defense is the biggest problem on this team that leaves me feeling pretty good. Before those final 10 minutes, we had gotten four consecutive games of very solid play from our defense, which is part of the reason that I am not jumping on them for their poor play in that span. Lets bottom line it, as you say. Bill Belichick is the HC of a 9-3 team that is currently in first place in the AFC. That is why he gets a pass. He won the game. That is why he gets a pass. What exactly is the alternative to giving him a "fucking pass"? Should his job be on the line? Should we be making it clear to him that a win isn't good enough, we expect them to cover the spread? Belichick got plenty of criticism when the patriots lost two games in a row, despite still holding a 5-3 record, tied for the division lead. You can only berate a guy so much when he has his team in the position that the Patriots are currently in, and plenty of other analysts and journalists are trying.
I'm not defending the article here... whatever happened in the 4th quarter, experimental or not, was an abomination of defensive football. I didn't like the defensive play calls (lots of Cover 4 zone) and it was definitely a diversion away from the usual "step on their throats" philosophy that Belichick usually employs. Normally, in those situations, they play a lot of 2-deep man and blitz more often, but I don't know if they ran a single one in the 4th quarter yesterday. Despite all the personnel changes you mentioned - cutting Meriweather and Sanders, cutting Boden, Butler, Ty Warren and others - the 2011 Patriots have given up 247 points on defense. Through 12 games last year, they'd given up 269. So while I can see why you'd question cutting ties with all those players, the result has been the same at least, and actually slightly better, than 2010.
How about let's just stop bending over backwards defending a guy who put together a horrible defense. Ripping off a list of injured players is great and all, but there are only a few small exceptions to the general rule that says the Patriots 2011 defense has been god-awful. The Patriots are 9-3. The lesson there is, if you score 30 points a game, 88% the time your team will win. And, as far as the 2011 Patriots go, score LESS than 30 points a game, 66% of the time your team will lose.
There aren't many journalists "bending over backwards" to defend Belichick's defense. This article is an exception, certainly not an indication of the common perception. You are also ignoring the fact that there is a trend in the way the defense has played this year. Our past four defensive performances have all been solid, with the exception of the final 10 minutes yesterday. With a drastically overhauled defensive system this year and a drastically shortened offseason to prepare for that, combined with all of the personnel shuffling that has been necessary, I don't think it is fair to ignore that trend.
You have that luxury. You have the luxury of installing the Foxboro Jr. High crossing guard at any particular position on defense because your game plan counts on your offense hanging at least 30 points up. And maybe that's why Bill Belichick wanted someone to suck his dick after the last Jets game - because he was able to put up 37 points on a decent defense, and his "best defense is a great offense" strategy worked out. And all I'm saying is - let's just call it what it is and stop trying to add to the Belichick mystique.
Who gives a goddamn about what journalists say and think. C-students with by-lines. Look at the FANS defending it. You should have a defensive backfield stocked to the gills with first and second round draft picks. Instead, you have a handful of guys who I'd bet even most PATS fans can't name, never mind give their resume. That doesn't make you angry? Every draft we hear about the genius who assembled all these wonderful draft picks. To what end?
They are ranked in the middle of the pack when it comes to PPG which is impressive when teams continually have to put up high points against this defense. People need to get off the "they let up the most passing yards, their whole defense must suck" thing. It's simply not accurate.
You can't hold Belichick's drafts to a different standard just because he makes more picks. He starts with the same thing as everyone else (less if you count draft position). If he ends up with a comparable amount of talent, who cares how he got there? He has maintained a very strong team for a very long time (in NFL standards), even if it is not particularly well balanced. The past four drafts have actually been pretty decent, but look at where those players are right now: Mayo (active, made a big play yesterday) Spikes (out with injury) Chung (out with injury) Dowling (out for the season with injury) McCourty (just returned this week from injury, disappointing sophomore season) Pryor (out for the season with injury) From 2006-2008 we drafted poorly, which has hurt us a ton. But, I don't really think that Belichick has had much of a chance to recover from that yet. I thought that last year was a decent start, and that this year was when it would begin to take form, but circumstances clearly have not allowed for that. Instead, I am forced to learn new names each week because our #4 CB to start the season is now our only consistent starter, and we are forced to play two no-name safeties aside them, instead of just one (Ihedigbo). Maybe I am just exceptionally patient, or maybe it is just that we have the luxury of a poor defense, as you say. But I really am optimistic that we can turn this corner in the next year or two and play consistent competitive defense (I said competitive, not '85 Bears level). In the meantime, I think that our problems are exaggerated by people such as yourself, and I won't complain until I can no longer convince myself that we are at least improving. So far that hasn't happened.
Congratulations! Striving for mediocrity, you've finally arrived! I saw a replay of one touchdown where your corner did a 360 before he was torched by 15 yards. And with such flair!
So, I see where you're going with this. You're saying that Bill Belichick likes to draft injury-prone players. They must have such great up-side.
I just looked it up. The Patriots are 13th in PPG, while the Jets are 16th. The Patriots offense is also known to be slightly better.
Yes, this is the goddamn point. As I said, the Patriots are employing the "offense is the best defense" strategery. So, as long as they are scoring 30+ points a game, they are winning eight out of nine games. When they AREN'T scoring 30+ points a game, they are losing two out of three games. Let's not leap to the point where we have to believe you over our own lying eyes. Their defense sucks. The point of it is to suck LESS than the 30+ points per game the offense will score. And the point of this discussion was how much *talent* you've let go such that you're left with advanced r'tards in your defense, and how will some fans *cough* still are defending that as acceptable. Championing mediocrity. Neat-o.
That's a pretty stupid argument. They are 13th in scoring defense, 32nd in yardage defense, 3rd in scoring offense, 2nd in yardage offense. By comparison the best team in football is the Packers they are: 17th in scoring defense, 31st in yardage defense, 1st in scoring offense, and 4th in yardage offense. Those numbers are almost identical, if anything the Patriots are better on defense. We by comparison are 16th in scoring defense, 7th in yardage defense, 8th in scoring offense, 26th in yardage offense. This would seem to indicate that yardage allowed is a lot less important than it is made out to be. There is a good chance that the two one seeds in this years playoffs will be the teams with the most yardage given up. They get away with it because they don't give up that many points. One cause of this may be that they get lots of big leads, and as such are more willing to let people rack up short passes and runs to prevent big plays. In fact I would love to see a breakdown of yards allowed for those teams by quarter and/or score to see how many yards they give up when comfortably ahead vs in close situations.
Yes, because there is no other possible reason that multiple defensive players on the same team could be injured at the same time. The Jets are 1-5 when they score less than 27 points. Does that make them a offensive reliant team? Does this mean their defense only sucks slightly less than the Patriots? Please provide your humble explanation. Again, where is all this talent that we let go? Is it Merriweather, Sanders, Haynesworth, Bodden, Butler, Wilhite, or Warren that is the great talent who should still be on this team? Any one of them would offer a minimal improvement at best, most of them wouldn't even offer that.
