You could have just asked nicely and I'd have gladly explained it better. Rather than missing the point entirely, I mean. You could travel up to the first post in this string, though, and that might help you out. It's the one where a sportswriter defends the 24 points put up by the Colts -- the purposely-tanking-the-season COLTS! -- as Belichick just playing around unseriously. The point, which you missed, is how Bill Belichick the personnel dude put Bill Belichick the coach in a position where he had to start losers in his defense. Nobody in the goddamn world would argue that was a GOOD thing. Except, it seems you're trying.
You're seriously arguing that their strategy ISN'T to rely on offense to compensate for a crappy defense? So who signed these players that were then so horrible that they had to be released in favor of a handful of street free agents with ZERO starting experience? Surely not I. But let's get this straight - we're cutting Bill a free pass for cutting these horrible, injury-prone player that SOME mysterious Patriots personnel man saddled him with in the first place. Geezus, talk about compartmentalizations. Look, I'm not saying you can't find the silver lining in your team. I'm saying you ought not be so forgiving to the guy who caused his own pitiable plight.
You diminish our teams strong defensive performances by pointing to the fact that we are 1-2 when our offense scores less than 30. Supposedly that is supposed to prove that our defense only "looks" strong when our offense is dominating. My point is that (a)our defense has, for the most part, played "legit" strong games the past 4 weeks, and (b)that statistic that you keep on referencing doesn't mean shit. I can use the same method to make the Jets look like they are reliant on the offense, with a garbage defense. I am not cutting BB a free pass for anything. I am simply being patient while the defense improves, and not cherry picking statistics and in-game examples as evidence that they are worse than they actually are.
It's not supposed to prove anything of the sort. What I mean to suggest is exactly what I said - that you're using your offense to mask your horrible defense. Putting up points like the Patriots CAN (and most other teams can't) means that other teams have to adjust their offensive game plans just to keep up. A seven minute drive with just a fieldgoal to show for it is almost a losing possession against the Patriots. Dan Orlovsky threw for 350 yards and only had seven incompletions. Dan. Orlovsky. If the Patriots' offense weren't able to score 31 points, you know what we'd be saying today? We'd be saying, DAN ORLOVSKY THREW FOR 350 YARDS AND 24 POINTS AGAINST THE PATRIOTS. The only reason we're not is because the Patriots offense won them the game that the defense was desperately trying to lose for them. I was listening to the Boston sportsradio yackers this morning. They certainly weren't cutting BB a free pass. Many of the callers were. Someone suggested that playing scrubs on defense was Bill Belichick's way of exposing how the Colts are purposely throwing the season. My point - and, really, my only point, because I don't care much about it - is that Bill Belichick has had ample opportunity to assemble a talented defense. He is, after all, the last word on personnel matters. Instead, he's assembled a handful of nothings, and he gets defended for using them well enough to win games. If only he'd done a better job as personnel dude, he wouldn't have caused his coach such headaches.
true I should have omitted the first sentence. However, you were making the argument that their defense is terrible based on a misleading stat, then when the Pats fan called you on it you responded by being snarky about striving for mediocrity. My point was that the Patriots defense is more than good enough to make the team a legit contender by the numbers. Basing the assessment of the Defense off one game against the colts is pointless. The Steelers gave up 20 to the Colts in a close win, doesn't mean the Steelers defense isn't good. There is an argument to be made that Bellichek's drafting of defensive players has been poor, but despite injuries and failed draft picks their defense continues to be in the top half of the league in least PPG allowed.
What you say is true about the typical Patriots defense of the past few years. I just don't think it applies as much to these past several games. Our offense has not been coming out of the gate strong in recent games. Typically we are scoring our first TDs in our final drive heading into halftime. Then of course we find our rythym and look unstoppable in the third and fourth quarters. The reason that we are still in the games at that point is because our defense has stepped up and played well. Jets fans love to say the reason the Pats defense sometimes looks good is that opponents are always forced to become one-dimensional and take risks, in order to catch up to our offense. The Pats defense, however, has recently had opportunities to prove that they can perform without a lead for extended lengths of time, and for the most part they have. 224 of those 350 yards, and 21 of those 24 points came in the fourth quarter after the Patriots had built a four touchdown lead. Like I said, by that point BB was already being criticized for having his starters on the field... that is how "over" the game was. If our offense hadn't scored 31 points, I honestly, truly, seriously believe that we wouldn't be having this discussion at all, because our defense would have played better to close out the game. I can agree with that to an extent. Your first post made it seem like you were specifically targeting his personnel moves this past offseason. I don't think any of those players that we released would be helping us much right now. In any case, it is kind of hard to judge the defense that he built this past offseason, when half of them have been replaced by off-the-street talent because of the sheer number of injuries we have dealt with at the same positions. I think it is fair to criticize his moves over the course of the past 5-6 years in this aspect, though.
It's not a misleading stat; it's an unimportant stat. Maybe Bill Belichick is such a shooting-star genius that he's discovered something that no one else in the history of the league ever figured out - that you don't really even need a defense. If you can light up the scoreboard with enough points, at some point, all you need is 11 guys who fall down and make the defense eat up clock. Look at the time of possession yesterday. The Colts had the ball 11:00 more minutes and scored seven fewer points. Hell, if you have an offense that is that much more efficient, even defensive penalty plays work in the Patriots favor.
This is a paradox. He was being criticized for having his starters in, but these same starters weren't really playing hard, and willing to give up 21 points? Hell, he should have been criticized for NOT taking his starters out because they were sucking the life out of the football universe. Apparently the game wasn't so over. And whether it was scrub time or not, whether it was the coaching choices or the players' talent - SOMEONE sucked. Why would you excuse that? Why wouldn't you be pissed off that your quarterback - the heart of your team - only has so many years left, and shouldn't be saddled with a mediocre defense that puts all the pressure on HIM to succeed?
It isn't a paradox. Guys aren't going to play well when they don't think it matters, starters or not. If Belichick was truly worried, do you think he would have put Hoyer in for our last possession (besides the kneel-downs)? I am not happy with the way the game ended, but I am willing to overlook it once. Saying that this is indicative of our defensive play just doesn't seem reasonable when 50 minutes of gametape and the prior three games all point in the other direction. If it becomes a recurring problem (as it seemed to be last year) I will begin to worry. Until then, I am content believing that the players just took their foot off the gas pedal a bit too much, and a bit too early, for comforts sake.
I think youre confused. That's 13th in scoring defense which is better than the Jets. What exactly is your point?
I see where you're going with this. You're thinking the Jets put up 30+ offensive points per game. A simple scan down the stat sheet should clear that up. If you're trying to argue apples to apples, you're point is wafting somewhere in the breeze. You can read and review above for the correct point. Or maybe you can't. Proof to follow.
No. They aren't not playing defense, they are playing a particular scheme on defense that minimizes big plays and points, while giving up more yardage. Your argument would be valid if they were actually giving up lots of points and simply scoring so many that the other team couldn't keep up. What they are actually doing is scoring lots of points, AND limiting the opposition to a reasonable number of points. The time of possession is a different issue, the colts kept the ball longer because they ran a standard huddle up offense that uses far more time per play. The Patriots ran only 7 less plays, however they run a hurry up no huddle and as such use less time per play. This is backed up by the stats: The Patriots are tied for 2nd most plays run on offense but 27th in TOP. They have allowed the 6th most plays run against and 7th highest TOP against. They have run 802 plays and opponents have run 804. Their time of Possession is 28:33 vs 31:27 by opponents. So really TOP is a by product of their offensive tempo. I understand that looking at the players on that team you want to say the defense is terrible, but the stats just don't back it up. They play a true bend but don't break defense, and are doing so effectively. Bellichek isn't just throwing guys out there to slow down the game as you put it, he is putting guys out there with the objective of not giving up big plays, and tightening up inside the 30 where the zone defense they run becomes more effective as the field can't be stretched as far. Also just be virtue of forcing teams to put together long, many play drives the chance for the offense to make mistake or penalty increases.
^ this. SundayJack, you can keep saying the patriots have a bad defense, but it doesn't make it true. They have a scheme that has resulted in the 13th fewest points allowed this season.
If anything, it would correctly be argued that opposing teams get the ball more often due to the quick scoring offense. Despite this disadvantage, the patriots allow less points than the jets. When it comes to defense, the goal is to let up the fewest amount of points.
The article was a jab at Belichik, not a pass! It was Curran giving him shit for shitting all over the media this week trying to convince them that the Pats considered the Colts a real threat, when his actions proved that he had so little respect for the team they put on the field he used the game like a preseason game... which he did! As far as the defense, they held the Colts to 3 points through 50 minutes of this game with Slater, Koutivides, and Jones starting. Two special teamers and a guy picked up Wednesday.
So you're saying the article was tongue in cheek? Nope. I don't see it. He talks about the "irony" of BB's treatment of media questions last, but that's hardly taking a shot at the guy.
The guys who have been cut, who you seem to think were world-beaters, did a shittier job last season than the no-names who are being trotted out there now. How was the team, or the defense, hurt by Brandon Meriweather (who was an idiot with a lot of talent) getting dropped? Or James Sanders (who I always liked and was sad to see him go)? Or Leigh Bodden, or Darius Butler, or anyone else you've mentioned? Were they great picks to begin with? Probably not. But I don't care about Pro Bowls or big names. I'd just rather see them win games. And right now, it would be almost impossible for someone to argue that the 2011 Patriots' defense is worse than the 2010 defense. Neither of them are the '85 Bears, but on the whole, they've played better this year than last year, and they've done that with no-names. This is also not the first season this has happened due to injuries and/or roster cuts. Remember Earthwind Moreland? Maybe not, but he's started one more Super Bowl at CB than Revis.
Curran is saying that Belichick spewing compliments to the Colts all last week was completely disingenuous. That's all.
