Pats Soft - Michael-Mark Pissing Match
JetsLife
soft and will never win anything of note until they become tough. Yet
because the Pats in so many ways keep a lid on things led by their
pretty-boy QB, stake-holders dare not challenge their public persona.
When they should. When they should see the Pats for what the
contenders do: a soft outfit skating by on their past (cheating-
based?) achievements.
The Pats remain a top-heavy team: kill Brady, you kill the Pats.
MZ
Name a (good) team where taking out the starting QB doesn't hurt the
team big time.
Michael
you dont really have to kill brady, just stuff up their system like
the jets did in the playoffs. i agree that they need more tuffness on
defense just as much as i think they need a big star WR instead of WR
by retread committee. they had that line with wilfork, seymour and
warren in front of big smart lb's. it worked to stop the run on 1st
and 2nd. then they had a nice one gap pressure package to put in on
third down. they also had elite skill at the cb position. now old beel-
a-chick thinks he can win all of his battles with retreads and budget
low round draft picks and he sophmoricaly kisses off quality manpower
to get "value" for them.
eric
> soft and will never win anything of note until they become tough. Yet
> because the Pats in so many ways keep a lid on things led by their
> pretty-boy QB, stake-holders dare not challenge their public persona.
If by soft you mean a less than strong defense, yes, that is what they
have. The last two early playoff losses were primarily due to not
being able to stop the opposing offense. 28 points to the Jets? 33 to
the Ravens? Give me a break, these teams offenses are not that good.
From the 2001 up to 2007 season loss to Indy they gave up 28 or more
points only once in 13 playoff games, and that was in the Super Bowl
to a Carolina team that was juiced up on steroids.
They have not managed to rebuild from the loss of the likes of Vrabel,
Bruschi, Colvin, Johnson, McGinest and Harrison to retirement or free
agency. The LB corps was the heart of the team and they are all gone
due to the simple passage of time.
They have also been hurt by raids on the coaching staff. How many
coordinators have they lost?
Crennel
Weis
Mangini
Pees
McDaniels
are the ones I can remember. There may be more. It got to the point
last year where they didn't even bother naming coordinators. This year
they named O'Brien as their OC. Let's see how long he lasts.
MLD
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:954f9fcb-4398-44f5...@b34g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Based on your expert analysis I guess the Pats are destined for last place
and out of the Playoffs. Why are you guys so memorized by the Pats? You're
just not going to make them go away by worrying about them and talking
yourselves into how lousy they are. You don't see any of this "Oh woe is
me" re-Jets on the Pat's NG. Perhaps you should read the following article
written by one of your NY writers.
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/2011-new-england-patriots-preview/
MLD
Michael
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> MLD
huh ??? i think the pats will probably win the div and not the jets...
the jets are not that good of a team. i'm not holding the jets out as
an example for the pats to follow. i like the rex jets because they
are fun and entertaining to follow. rex is a good leader of his
people and an excellent defensive game caller... on top of that, he's
also a fantastic bafoon and is oodles of fun. i'm making a single
critical point about bb, not a comprehensive condemnation. that point
once again, is that he appears to be allerric to game winning
superstars that do their best work as a result of uncommon talent and
not by means of complicity to a blueprint.
MZ
They probably have a better CB group now than they've had in nearly 10
years (Law and Otis Smith in '01 or Law and Poole in '03). McCourty
and Bodden are generally considered one of the better pairings in the
league. You're right about the defensive front seven though.
Definitely weak along the edges.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
i liked one of their older backfields taken as a collective... law,
miloy, clay and hitchcock.
bodden and mccourty appear to be a nice pair, but i'd like to see them
put together another good season before i crown them
Michael
> MLD
no... the pats are destined to win the div, lose to the jets in one of
the regular season games and fall flat in the playoffs, especially if
they meet up with the jets there. the jets are destined to make waves
and headlines and sawagger their way to a wild card and quite probably
back again deep in the playoffs... of course, this is all barring any
major injury(s) to either team.
MLD
That might have been the scenario except for the fact (and past history)
that when BB decides he has to fix something he usually gets it right. This
time he went after fixing the defensive line, third down problems, the pass
rush and getting another WR to add to the current mix. He has always done
well adapting to the skill set of the player rather than force the player
into something he might not be good at. The team additions by themselves
may not accomplish that goal to your way of seeing things but from his
point view, the sum of the parts becomes bigger than the whole. I don't
think the Pats will lose 2 out of 3 to the Jets this year--that is, assuming
the Jets make the Playoffs.
MLD
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
could be... this is all guess work. a football rolls funny some
times... i'd think the pats would still do well to carry a major stud
wr. i will tell you how to beat the rex jets... you dont beat the
jets defense with scheme. rex is too smart. you beat rex with a few
elite players that he cant scheme for... manning, santonio and ben
repistburger all sent his defensive scheme packing in the playoffs.
not because they had the better system... it was one of a kind
individual ability that rex's brian power cant accont for. if you
want the pats to get around the jets, rely less on bb's brains and
system and throw talented offensive skill players at him that are
beyond his control.
MLD
Can't argue with someone who makes good comments and good sense as well. I
hope BB reads what you have to say <g>.
MLD
MZ
Which stud WR are you talking about that the Pats should have gone
after?
I still think replacing Brandon Tate with Ochocinco is a big upgrade.
They scored 21 points in that game with Tate. We're not talking about
a goose egg here. And they still led the league in points.
Nope, I'm glad Belichick is focusing on the defense, because that's
where the problems have been. The offense will again be a top 3 unit,
no question.
eric
> could be... this is all guess work. a football rolls funny some
> times... i'd think the pats would still do well to carry a major stud
> wr. i will tell you how to beat the rex jets... you dont beat the
> jets defense with scheme. rex is too smart. you beat rex with a few
> elite players that he cant scheme for... manning, santonio and ben
> repistburger all sent his defensive scheme packing in the playoffs.
> not because they had the better system... it was one of a kind
> individual ability that rex's brian power cant accont for. if you
> want the pats to get around the jets, rely less on bb's brains and
> system and throw talented offensive skill players at him that are
> beyond his control.
I think you might be able to beat the Jets with individual offensive
elite players, however I think that is a crapshoot. The Jets beat
several teams with elite offensive players last year.
I think the easiest way to beat the Jets is with a good defense. Rex
isn't an offensive mastermind, his OC is highly questionable, as is
the Jets QB and OL. The Jets Red Zone offense is putrid. The new
kickoff rules will make it even harder for the Jets to score as they
reduce the utility of their excellent kick return squad. The teams
that beat the Jets last year have sound defenses. Ravens, Steelers,
GB, Bears. In other games they lost the Jets offense just played
really bad. With their unsettled WR squad the Jets offense could well
be even weaker this year.
IMHO this is why Belichick is beefing up his defense. The easiest and
least costly way to improve a team is to find the weak points and
bring them up to a good level, not take the good parts and try to
elevate them further. The best way to beat a team is to not butt heads
with their strengths but to exploit their weakness. The best teams of
all are balanced; good in all phases of the game. Like GB was last
year.
Sun Tzu: The Art of War ... Attack the enemy where he is unprepared
That is what you are seeing NE do.
Michael
any top rated guy in any of the last three drafts... look what the
falcons just did with jones...
i expext it is not possible for you to consider my point as you appear
to be a hard core belichic shill. some of what worked at austerlitz
to an ideal economy did not work well at waterloo
MZ
Yeah, I'm a real Belichick apologist. Didn't I just criticize him as
recently as yesterday re: Solder?
Eric said it best: "The easiest and least costly way to improve a team
is to find the weak points and bring them up to a good level, not
take the good parts and try to
elevate them further."
The Pats had the #1 offense in the league last year. This was more
due to their passing game than their running game. They further
improved the passing unit by adding Ochocinco. And you think this is
going to be a problem for them. Unbelievable.
Michael
Solder was a good pick. Needs work, but will probably wind up being a
high quality LT for a good long time. I see him as being very much
like the Jets D'Brick. He'll take his knocks early one if he plays
before he's developed, but once he gets up to speed physically, you'll
see how smart BB was in picking him. Good LT's dont fall out of the
sky... It was smart of BB to recognize what Solder can be.
> Eric said it best: "The easiest and least costly way to improve a team
> is to find the weak points and bring them up to a good level, not
> take the good parts and try to
> elevate them further."
>
> The Pats had the #1 offense in the league last year. This was more
> due to their passing game than their running game. They further
> improved the passing unit by adding Ochocinco. And you think this is
> going to be a problem for them. Unbelievable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
their #1 offense being billed by one commentator after another as the
best in the nfl, unstopable, their best offense ever... even better
than 2007... no one can stop them... And what happens ??? They play
the Jets at home... who were as big of an underdog as you have seen
all season... And... The Pats mesianic offense was frustrated and
contained. I submit to you again... You'll see that repeated again
this year. They will beat a lot of teams... But not the Jets in the
playoffs. They may not beat the Jets all season.
MZ
Yes, "contained" = only 21 points instead of 45. A team with a good
defense will win almost every week if they score "only" 21 points.
The Pats D was consistently a problem last year. So it was maybe not
all that surprising that the Jets O hung 28 points on them in the
playoffs. As you mention, people were surprised that the Pats O
scored only 21 points, which just highlights the fact that the
expectations were high from that unit. So by pointing out how many
predictions were wrong, you're conceding that the Pats O was generally
recognized as a very good unit. On paper, they got even better. With
some defensive support, maybe the offense will no longer have to be
perfect every single week.
You guys want to talk about what's different between the championship
Pats teams and the '07-'10 Pats teams, look no further than defense
and special teams. The championship teams had units that complemented
each other. They weren't built to be a powerhouse offense that tried
to compensate for the weaknesses on defense. In that sense, I agree
with the thread title. Even the Colts championship team had a strong
D -- before they had that, they couldn't win a damned thing.
As far as Solder goes, you may be right that he turns out to be a star
after a while. But maybe Mallett becomes a star at QB too. That
doesn't do a team much good if they already have a QB and they already
have a LT. Granted, Light doesn't have many years left, but with the
way contracts go now, they'd only get 2 years out of Solder on his
rookie contract. I'd rather they spend their first round picks on
guys who are likely to contribute right away, so as to maximize the
value of the draft pick.
MLD
Don't know what you do to earn your bread and butter but isn't it a bit
feeble to pit your football insight against BB or any coach for that matter.
There you are laying out a plan on how BB can beat the Jets--we all put in
our two cents but when push comes to shove we're well below the novice
level. The Pats won Super Bowls with mostly "no names " and a lot of good
schemes and planning. As I noted earlier, it's the right guy in the right
place doing what he's best at--not necessarily all first round picks. It's
not rocket science to think that BB has the Jets on his mind and he will
figure it out---that's what he's good at.
MLD
MZ
Mostly with you, but those "no names" turned out to be really good
players (even if for only short periods of time). For example, Otis
Smith in '01 and Tyrone Poole in '03 had stellar years at CB; Ted
Washington had an amazing year at NT in '03; and guys like Tedy
Bruschi, Joe Andruzzi, and Troy Brown were among the best at their
positions for a stretch of 2-3 years, but won't be remembered as being
top tier players because their prime was so short-lived. Was there a
better ILB in football than Bruschi in '03? Maybe Lewis, but that's
about it. Was there a better CB than Law between '01-03? No way, not
even Bailey. There weren't very many better SS's than Rodney in '03
and '04, and Dillon in '04 was 2nd in rushing yards. Nobody outside
of New England is going to remember those guys up there with Brady,
but they were arguably every bit as important.
I'd like to give Belichick's schemes a lot of credit, and some of them
deserve it ('04 defensive scheme against the Eagles, '01 defensive
scheme against the Rams), but he's had some great personnel to work
with. Those championship teams had very few holes. The '01 team had
terrible depth, so I guess that's a hole, but that was a season where
injuries weren't a big factor (except at QB of course).
The common theme in all of those championship teams was that Belichick
built primarily through the draft and supplemented the roster with
aging veterans. It evidently worked. This is exactly the strategy
he's using now. The last two big money free agents he signed from
other teams were Rosevelt Colvin and Adalius Thomas. At the time,
they were both among the top free agents available. Neither became
major contributors, and they didn't win championships.
Tannenbaum went for the big splash in all years except this one.
Yeah, they went for Asi, but not really. I like some of the theories
(e.g. shortened camp so don't bring in new faces...was that Harlan?).
They make sense. Or, they're just out of money. Either way, the Jets
are banking on scheme this year, because they haven't seemed to fix
any of the problems from last year. That's not to say they won't be
contenders -- they were a pretty good team last year and figure to be
one again. But bringing back essentially the same team with very few
prospects hoping to make a splash makes the Jets maybe a little more
predictable than other teams.
Michael
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
the jets did nothing to improve ??? what do you call drafting
wilkerson and k. ellis ??? above all they needed help on the d-line.
the lack of pressure from the olb's was a result of having to multi-
task. as i have pointed out before... if either one of the two guys
they drafted for the line can two gap, pace and blt will all of a
sudden look good again and so will their pass rush.
MZ
Hey, I've been a pretty big proponent of the Jets dealing with the
issues on the defensive line. But it's not clear that they've
improved yet. They got younger at the position, which is good, but
they replaced Shaun Ellis with Wilkerson which doesn't seem to be an
immediate upgrade. It might be. Then again, it might be a
downgrade. Ellis is an intriguing prospect. I'm not saying the Jets
don't have any. The point is that, relative to other teams, the Jets
didn't have much firepower in the draft. They trade away all their
picks and rely on undrafted free agents for depth as a general
strategy. Sometimes it's paid off, but this is a year where I think
the chickens have come home to roost.
Michael
could be... i dont think the jets really had a lot to do as far as
improving the roster. they needed help on the d-line. i agree 100 %
as far as not knowing what either wilkerson or k. ellis can do. i
have not seen enouhg of k. ellis yet, but he looks like a dud coming
off the ball. i hope i am wrong. some "clues" have come out in rex
commentary that wilkerson has to learn how to pass rush... so... he
might not be a big help early one. the rest of the jets roster is
good. i am happy with the lb corps, SUPER happy they got poole back
and added strickland. devito and pouha dont get enough credit. they
are not the same guys they were two yeard ago. thay can play well as
dt's. they also locked down their cb tandem for the next few years.
i really like their defensive roster a lot. sure, i'd love to have a
suh or pass rush specialist on the edge, but they have a decent
defensive roster. the offense has only one problem... and no... not
plax in exchance for edwards... they need depth for the o-line. mason
is an upgrade on cotch, and plax can crap out and they will still be
OK if they use keller properly... after all this, in the end... what
the jets season is really hinging on is sanchez... that is really the
key... not the plax saga or what wilkerson and ellis can do. sanchez
has to even out. better timing and ball placement... especially on
the intermediate range stuff... IMHO... that shadows the rest of it.
Michael
That is a silly point to make… You just put sports journalism and fan
involvement out of business. Unless you can show me that you have a
PhD in communicatios I dont think you have the standing to come in
here and use the English language. Leave that to the experts.
> > There you are laying out a plan on how BB can beat the Jets--we all put in
> > our two cents but when push comes to shove we're well below the novice
> > level. The Pats won Super Bowls with mostly "no names " and a lot of good
> > schemes and planning. As I noted earlier, it's the right guy in the right
> > place doing what he's best at--not necessarily all first round picks. It's
> > not rocket science to think that BB has the Jets on his mind and he will
> > figure it out---that's what he's good at.
> > MLD
you dont "figure out" the jets defense... you can "out man" the jets
defense, but you cant figure it out.
> Mostly with you, but those "no names" turned out to be really good
> players (even if for only short periods of time). For example, Otis
> Smith in '01 and Tyrone Poole in '03 had stellar years at CB; Ted
> Washington had an amazing year at NT in '03; and guys like Tedy
> Bruschi, Joe Andruzzi, and Troy Brown were among the best at their
> positions for a stretch of 2-3 years, but won't be remembered as being
> top tier players because their prime was so short-lived. Was there a
> better ILB in football than Bruschi in '03? Maybe Lewis, but that's
> about it. Was there a better CB than Law between '01-03? No way, not
> even Bailey. There weren't very many better SS's than Rodney in '03
> and '04, and Dillon in '04 was 2nd in rushing yards. Nobody outside
> of New England is going to remember those guys up there with Brady,
> but they were arguably every bit as important.
>
> I'd like to give Belichick's schemes a lot of credit,
is that the scheme that included the use of cameras to record the
defensive signals of opposing teams ???
>and some of them
> deserve it ('04 defensive scheme against the Eagles, '01 defensive
> scheme against the Rams), but he's had some great personnel to work
> with. Those championship teams had very few holes. The '01 team had
> terrible depth, so I guess that's a hole, but that was a season where
> injuries weren't a big factor (except at QB of course).
>
> The common theme in all of those championship teams was that Belichick
> built primarily through the draft and supplemented the roster with
> aging veterans. It evidently worked. This is exactly the strategy
> he's using now. The last two big money free agents he signed from
> other teams were Rosevelt Colvin and Adalius Thomas. At the time,
> they were both among the top free agents available. Neither became
> major contributors, and they didn't win championships.
>
> Tannenbaum went for the
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
MZ
Nope, it's not. If you paid attention to what I wrote, you would have
seen that I referred to defensive schemes.
MZ
> could be... i dont think the jets really had a lot to do as far as
> improving the roster. they needed help on the d-line. i agree 100 %
> as far as not knowing what either wilkerson or k. ellis can do. i
> have not seen enouhg of k. ellis yet, but he looks like a dud coming
> off the ball. i hope i am wrong. some "clues" have come out in rex
> commentary that wilkerson has to learn how to pass rush... so... he
> might not be a big help early one. the rest of the jets roster is
> good. i am happy with the lb corps, SUPER happy they got poole back
> and added strickland. devito and pouha dont get enough credit. they
> are not the same guys they were two yeard ago. thay can play well as
> dt's. they also locked down their cb tandem for the next few years.
> i really like their defensive roster a lot. sure, i'd love to have a
> suh or pass rush specialist on the edge, but they have a decent
> defensive roster. the offense has only one problem... and no... not
> plax in exchance for edwards... they need depth for the o-line. mason
> is an upgrade on cotch, and plax can crap out and they will still be
> OK if they use keller properly... after all this, in the end... what
> the jets season is really hinging on is sanchez... that is really the
> key... not the plax saga or what wilkerson and ellis can do. sanchez
> has to even out. better timing and ball placement... especially on
> the intermediate range stuff... IMHO... that shadows the rest of it.
I like most of the roster too. But they needed help at safety, at
OLB, at DE, at NT, at TE, and possibly at OT. They needed depth at
all those positions plus ILB. Like every other team in the league,
they needed help.
Michael
you mean the defense that was able to stay off the field longer
because the offense had an "advantage" ???
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
i dont think they are too bad off at safety... rex has his guy smith
written in as the starter, but i'd wager we'll see brodney pool on the
field with leonhard more often than we will see smith. with lowrey,
wilson and strickland they have enough manpower for coverage. with the
way rex does his coverages appart from the two cb's playing press man,
all you need is a pile of guys that have decent cover skills... does
not matter if they are listed on the roster as a cb or a s. in the
colts and ne playoff games, it was pretty much a loaded zone from
sideline to sideline from five yards out to twenty yards out. if the
jets play an offense like the chargers, they have the cb's to win that
battle... if they play Brady or Manning, they have a slew of db's to
blunt their options and frustrate their reads
MLD
>
>
>
>
.
>
>
> I'd like to give Belichick's schemes a lot of credit,
is that the scheme that included the use of cameras to record the
defensive signals of opposing teams ???
That argument is getting real old---you might recall that when all that
hullabaloo was going on it came out, more than once, that they were not
alone--it was not that uncommon a practice.. They were the ones that got
caught with their finger in the till (think disgrunted, ungrateful ex Pat
coach) and they paid the price, but you can't keep dragging up that
argument everytime you want to down a reason for the Pat's success. Do you
recall how they made out the following year??
MLD
Michael
What I racall is the Pats uncanny blitz pick up in the superbowl vs.
the Eagles. Reminds me of a line from the movie Tombstone.
"Twelve hands in a row? Holliday, son of a bitch, nobody's that lucky."
eric
It's funny how that since Belichick stopped filming defensive signals
the Patriot's offense has gotten much better.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
btw... i like what the pats have better as a starting defensive
backfield... bodden, mccourtey, chung who really came on and
meryweather... i like meryweathers talent, but he need to keep his
mind active. barring blown coveraged by meryweather, they have a real
nice group that is only going to get better.
MZ
Nope, not that one either. There's no evidence that the Pats D stayed
off the field much longer than other teams. Even in '04, when they
had one of the top ranked running games in football and a pretty
successful possession offense, the Pats D didn't face a whole lot more
drives than other teams. There were 6-7 other teams that had the same
number or fewer defensive drives (within 2-3 drives per season). In
'01 and '03, they had even more defensive drives (close to average).
Nice try though Michael, hahaha.
Michael
sorry, mark... any way you slice it... an unfair advantage for your
offense = extended time of possession. hence... your defense stays
off the field longer than it would have. it does not matter if the
offense had an average or below average time of possession or an above
or below average ratio of scores per offensive drive. the larger
point is that their offensive time of possession and scoring
percentage per drive was enhanced by an unfair advantage... and that
in turn translates in to help for the defense.
cant wait for the jets and pats first meeing at JET LIFE STADIUM.
BRADY SUCKS !!!! BRADY SUCKS !!!! BRADY SUCKS !!!!
MZ
> On Aug 20, 7:21 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 18, 11:58 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 18, 11:41 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 18, 10:25 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 17, 7:43 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
> > > > > > I'd like to give Belichick's schemes a lot of credit,
>
> > > > > is that the scheme that included the use of cameras to record the
> > > > > defensive signals of opposing teams ???
>
> > > > Nope, it's not. If you paid attention to what I wrote, you would have
> > > > seen that I referred to defensive schemes.
>
> > > you mean the defense that was able to stay off the field longer
> > > because the offense had an "advantage" ???
>
> > Nope, not that one either. There's no evidence that the Pats D stayed
> > off the field much longer than other teams. Even in '04, when they
> > had one of the top ranked running games in football and a pretty
> > successful possession offense, the Pats D didn't face a whole lot more
> > drives than other teams. There were 6-7 other teams that had the same
> > number or fewer defensive drives (within 2-3 drives per season). In
> > '01 and '03, they had even more defensive drives (close to average).
>
> > Nice try though Michael, hahaha.
>
> sorry, mark... any way you slice it... an unfair advantage for your
> offense = extended time of possession. hence... your defense stays
> off the field longer than it would have.
That's a neat theory, but look at the numbers and you'll find that
you're wrong. Like I said, the Pats D generally hasn't faced fewer
drives than most other (non-sucky) teams. Certainly no fewer in the
"cheating" era than '07 and beyond.
Not that it matters a whole lot. Time of possession is one of the
most useless stats in football. By itself, it doesn't confer an
advantage to either team, except when it comes to fatigue -- which
isn't an outcome measure. The main things an offense can do for a
defense are: 1) reduce the number of turnovers and therefore reduce
the number of drives (i.e. scoring opportunities) for the opposing
team; 2) give the defense good field position; and 3) limit the number
of three-and-outs (see fatigue above).
Time of possession doesn't actually give you a possession advantage.
It may reduce the number of drives your defense faces, but it also
reduces the number of drives your offense faces. It just makes the
clock tick faster.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
i dont agree about that, mark... if you have the ball, your defense is
not at risk of being scored on AND... you have a chance to add to your
own points. you also control the clock. it would be interesting to
do a statistical study on the top five rated superbowl teams of all
time and check t heir TOP against the league average.
MZ
I'd expect most of them would have a TOP imbalance. But it's a
symptom, not a cause. It's the result of a good defense stopping the
opposition from getting first downs, or a good offense getting a lot
of first downs (first downs, btw, are also symptoms...). TOP doesn't
win games. There's undoubtedly a correlation, but its causal role is
very weak. Its role is mostly limited to just fatigue issues, which
then manifest as scoring issues (fatiguing the other team is only
useful if you can get points out of it).
Sure, there are lots of situations where increasing your TOP is
beneficial. For example, if you have a sizable lead, you want to
limit the number of scoring opportunities the other team has. But,
even still, scoring 7 is more effective. It's rare to prefer TOP over
points (there are some end-of-the-game scenarios where that's the
case, but usually you take the 7).
But what's important here is that an increase in TOP generally means
you're reducing the total number of scoring opportunities for both
teams. If an offense is somehow able to "control the clock" by
hanging on to the ball for longer, that primarily helps the defense by
limiting the number of scoring opportunities the opposition had.
Sure, that's a big deal when you use simple measures like "points
against". But like I said, the Pats have generally not had fewer
defensive drives than a lot of other teams. And when you evaluate
defensive "points against" per drive (a statistic that football
outsiders compiles), their defenses from those years are still among
the best. That stat takes into account any potential TOP benefits.
MZ
> And when you evaluate
> defensive "points against" per drive (a statistic that football
> outsiders compiles), their defenses from those years are still among
> the best. That stat takes into account any potential TOP benefits.
Just so there's not any confusion, I'm referring to the '03 and '01
defenses mostly, here. Those two defenses were among the best in the
league in those years. Their points per drive stat, in particular,
was very good.
If you look at the same measure with the Ryan-led Jets, you see they
also come out really good. When you look at the Mangini-led Jets, I
seem to remember that it looks even worse than the regular numbers.
And we all know Mangini filmed signals too. :)
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
sound reasoning, but it some cases, it is confusing the issue. take
a few of the marino fish teams. the defensive rosters and coaching
were not that bad, but the performance was. same deal with the fouts
chargers. those teams scored quickly and their respective defenses
were often gassed... especially the secondaries. you hear it said
quite often when commentators talk about potent offenses... especially
ones with great qb's. you need your offens to control the ball, the
clock and keep the star qb for the other team off the field. having
your defense force three and out's or prevent scores is only part of
the way to win a game. also consider the pychological impact on the
other guys team if you can sustain long running drives. hold on to
the ball for eight minutes or so, and the other guy's offense is iced
down on the bench while their d-lien gets worn down.