So after running roughshod over a pretty good and well respected Oakland defense, taking advantage of some stupid mistakes (this is the Raiders after all) and putting the game out of reach by early in the 4th quarter with a satisfying 31-19 road win on the other side of the country, some of the headlines in the local rags read "This win gift-wrapped", and "Why is Pats defense so terrible?"... there was article after article talking about how this year's team was no better than last year's team (forgetting of course that last year's team was a pretty-tough-to-improve-upon 14-2... but why let details get in the way of a good hand-wringing? We all know that playoff success is the only valuable barometer 'round these parts, and in that light the Pats' are wading in '08 Lions waters, aren't they?).
Pardon me while I digress for a moment.... let me just say that it can be absolutely unbearable being a Boston sports fan at times. The city's sports media is unlike any other. The strange thing about the city's teams' recent string of success is that it's given the long-standing roots of curmudgeony sports-writers a whole different angle to pursue their incessant bitching and overall negativity from. Prior to 2001 and the "decade of champions" in the Hub, sports writers had their staple of years of abject, gut-wrenching, total and abysmal failure to feed off of. The Sox, Pats, Bruins, and even once marquee Celtics were perennial punch-lines, achieving new and glorious heights of futility year after year, until the Patriots came along and shocked us all with a great win by a likable team that personified everything good about team sports. And for a time the mood shifted... the Pats became the model franchise, Belichick the perfect coach. Even the Sox won a World Series and got the likes of Shaughnessy and Massarotti (always two there are with the Sith... a master and an apprentice) to stop complaining and actually embrace their local clubs... for a time.
This, of course, lasted only long enough for the focus of misery to shift from complaining about years of futility, to complaining about not living up to now lofty expectations (and Spy-Gate, of course, which I still think was hatched in the maniacal mind of Dan Shaughnessy). The perceived model of success was the same (playing devil's advocate, finding fault, seeing the "hidden truth" under the success, and general negativity apparently sells subscriptions), the angles had just shifted. Outside of a select few beat writers, like Mike Reiss (a talented reporter and rare actual sports journalist) who rightfully found greener pastures with ESPN, and Chad Finn (still relegated to essentially role of "blogger and contributor", despite being wildly popular among the readership), rationality, objectivity and fair and balanced reporting are not coveted qualities among the Boston Sports media coterie. I've long believed that the widely held stereotype of the Boston sports fan (morose, crotchety, suffering from an enormous inferiority complex) is in large part a derivative of the incessant fog-horn of negativity that has flowed from the keyboards of Boston's most revered and well-read sports journalists for decades. I was once one of the "fellowship of the miserable", until I moved away from Boston and got some distance from the Boston media machine, and some perspective. Once separated from that it's amazing how my entire outlook on my beloved teams had changed. I found I could be hopeful AND critical at the same time... that I could see flaws AND be rational in analyzing them, while still expressing an appreciation for the overall high level my teams regularly competed at. It was freeing... like being released from the darkness of solitary confinement and squinting at the brightness of the sun for the first time in years. And just like the once-confined convict who now has a loathing of small, dark spaces, I find now that I have a keen dislike of the frothing, aggressive, arrogant and pithy style of far too many of the sports writers on the Boston scene... and the worst part of it is the way that style eventually seems to infiltrate the souls of otherwise decent young writers, as if they realize they must join the dark side, or perish.
Ok... I got WAY sidetracked there. Where was I... oh yes, the Patriots defensive performance in Sunday's game. Yes, a great deal is being made about the Patriots last-ranked defense. And to a certain degree, I can understand some of the hand-wringing. But while I'm analyzing the defense, I like to take a rational approach and look at the larger picture and take all the numbers in context. First, let's try not to get hung up on the "statistics" and rankings, as far as defense goes. For example, the top rated defense belongs to... why the Cincinnati Bengals of course. Now... any of you that say you knew that before either looking it up or just reading that are liars. So, what are we to make of that? Are the Bengals the best defensive team in football? No... of course not. And the Pats are not the worst defensive team in football. Not by a long way. Also in the top 10 are Dallas, San Diego, Cleveland, and Houston. Make of that what you will. Like most of you I've watched a lot of football this year and I couldn't have guessed at that.
A more relevant statistic, in my opinion, is points per game allowed. This is usually a better indication of how a team is doing... but even still, after only four weeks, it's tough to really tell. For instance, the top ten in points allowed still includes teams like the Bengals and 49ers... whom we all would consider mediocre at best. The Pats are 20th in this statistic... not great but also not dead last. The Pats are at the bottom half in most defensive statistical categories... this shouldn't surprise anyone.
But those statistics aren't relevant by themselves. To get a full picture you need to add offensive statistics. This is important for a couple of reasons: first, a team with great offensive stats will often find themselves looking somewhat weak defensively because teams will be playing from behind, throwing on every down, and piling up garbage time stats while the team in the lead is trying to just make the clock tick while letting opposing offenses move between the 20's, if it means chewing clock. This is born out in the statistics, as 5 of the top offenses in football this year, New England(1), New Orleans(2), Green Bay(5), Oakland(8) and Buffalo(9), are all in the bottom half of the league in total defense (Saints 15, Bills 27, Packers 28, Raiders 29, Pats 32). Yeah, I know the Saints at 15 isn't technically "bottom half", but you get the drift. In many cases there is an inverse relationship between high-scoring offense and total defense... often it's simply the nature of the game: you score lots of points, teams go full-throttle to catch up, and unless you have one of the truly elite defenses in the league, you're probably going to allow some fat yardage as a result. And second: an offense's proficiency will often dictate the style of defense played. Teams with high-powered offenses often employ "bend-but-don't-break" style defenses predicated on playing with big leads. The Colts defenses of the 2000's and Saints of the past few years did this with great success, as have Patriots teams over the past decade. They won't lead in any statistical categories, but they will be effective for that particular team's scheme.
The key here isn't in how many yards you allow, but in how you allow them and how many points they turn in to, at what point in the game. Ever since Belichick has been the coach of the Patriots he has held a philosophy on defense that has little to do with holding opponents down statistically. His approach is to take what you do best and shut it down, or at least limit it. He feels that if he achieves this, he will beat you, no matter how many stats you put up outside of that area.
Coming in to the Miami game it was thought that the Dolphins would try to establish the power running game and attack the middle and the perimeters of the line with Reggie Bush (this was dumb... Bush is not an every down back and certainly doesn't have the game to run the ball up the middle consistently). The Pats shut the running game of the Dolphins down completely. And while they were lit up through the air, the Pats jumped out to a big lead and were content to let the Dolphins chew up the middle of the field late in the game. But Miami was never able to control the lines and were forced into a shootout, which they are not built for. This was Belichick's plan... he knew the Dolphins could not match them in a shootout. Scrap the yards, the plan was for the most part executed.
The plan for the Chargers game was to not allow them to beat the Pats up the middle with Gates and running backs out of the backfield. This plan worked to a certain degree, but Pats' DBs were burned on the outside all night long. While the plan was successful on holding Gates to no catches, the Pats gave up several big plays in the passing game. But ultimately they were able to make big plays and again get out to a sizable lead, forcing the Chargers into passing almost every down, racking up stats late.
The Bills game presented a challenge in simply not knowing the Bills' particular strength. I think ultimately Belichick decided to play to stop the run. Unfortunately this led to a great deal of man-to-man coverage where the Pats DBs were routinely burned. The Pats got out to a big lead and I think started playing a little soft (and forgot to run the ball). The Bills were good at both running and throwing the ball, and the Pats killed themselves with turnovers. We know how this one ended. Whatever the plan was, it didn't work in this case.
Against the Raiders the goal was fairly simple. Stuff the Raiders' top ranked running attack. This was going to be accomplished using 4 man fronts and LBs on the edge, playing man on the outside and zone underneath. Say what you want about the final statistics... yes the Pats gave up over 500 yards total offense. Yes they allowed Jason Campbell to throw for 344. But what was the game plan? Stop the run... do not allow the Raiders to establish a running game, chew up the clock, and keep the Pats offense off the field. And they effectively accomplished that. Yes, the Raiders gained 160 on the ground, but almost half of that was racked up in two plays: a 41 yard run by McFadden in the 2nd that led to the Raiders only non-garbage time TD, and a 30 yard end-around to receiver Jacoby Ford just before the Chung interception in the 2nd. The Raiders never established the running game as a force. McFadden was a non-factor after that 41 yard run. Take away those two big runs and the Pats held the Raiders to 89 yards on 25 carries, a 3.5 yard average. Oakland had the ball a bit longer, but only had 5 more total plays. This game was never really in doubt after the first quarter, and about 99 of those total yards came in total garbage time in the last minutes of the game when the pats played WAAAAAYYYY off and let the Raiders simply march down the field. Whatever... score and give us the ball back so we can kneel and go home, ok?
So on balance, I think the Pats defense performed well given the goals of the game: control the running game, get off the field, let the offense go to work. Do I have concerns with this defense? Of course... I'd be a liar (and a moron) if I claimed otherwise. They are terribly thin, injury ravaged and inconsistent. They have literally 2 practice squad players in the defensive backfield, and still give up too many big plays over the middle of the field where defenses go right at that soft underneath zone. And whether by design or not, they generate almost no pass rush... but they execute, for the most part, the key elements of the defensive plan and allow the high powered offense a chance to put games out of reach. If they can get healthy in the backfield (Bodden is the key here and I think he's close), and get Haynesworth back into the D-Line rotation, I think they will be fine. Safety is a concern... I think they need to go get a player or two there.
So really here's where I come down... the Patriots are 3-1 with the last-ranked defense, and the Bengals are 2-2 with the top-ranked defense. Who would you rather be right now? Yeah... that's what I thought...
No comments:
Post a Comment