Rumors of their demise have been somewhat exaggerated...

OK... so now what?

Left pretty much for dead by nearly every analyst, pundit, and half the fan base, the New England Patriots, starting rookie free agents on defense in their first games as professionals, trounced the boastful, arrogant New York Jets in their own back yard and silenced their loudmouth louse of a coach. Sputtering through much of the first half, the Patriots at least managed to keep the Jets at bay until Tom Brady finally went to the no-huddle offense just before the half.

It's funny... I'm just a nutter fan... an amateur hack with little or no claim to a football acumen anywhere near that of the coaches of the Patriots, but last week after the loss to the Giants I wrote the following:

And here's the last piece of that puzzle: the one thing every Patriots fan will tell you they notice is that the Patriots are much, MUCH better when operating from the no-huddle. ...What we don't understand at this point is why the Pats don't run the hurry up more often... or why they don't go to it the minute they seem to be stuck in the mud. 

Once the Patriots realized how much better they were moving the ball in the no-huddle hurry up, and how disconcerted it left the Jets (how many times was Jets' corner Kyle Wilson caught napping in this scheme, leaving Deion Branch uncovered on the outside for a quick pass and a 15 yard gain? I saw it happen at least twice), they ran it almost exclusively in the second half, with predictable results. As I stated last week, I think the reason for this is obvious... to me anyhow: Tom Brady is a much more capable play-caller than Bill O'Brien at this point. O'Brien has 5 or 6 bread and butter plays that defenses have pretty much caught up to at this point. Also, there seems to be only one audible call for each called play, leaving Brady with few options once he gets to the line and deciphers the defensive set... run plays look like run plays. Pass plays look like pass plays. In the huddled offense the Patriots look plodding and predictable...

But...

Put Brady at the line in the hurry up, and give him a second or two to decode the defense, and Brady will dissect a defense like a brain surgeon. He'll call the perfect play for the defensive personnel and positioning... he'll see the blitzes coming... he'll quick-snap if he sees the defense not getting set... he'll throw the quick out to the uncovered receiver. This team is well coached, and they know their roles and the signals well enough to execute this whirlwind, high pace offense. Every time they play this style, defenses react the same way: with confusion and exhaustion. By the time the Patriots get into scoring range, it's simply a matter of deciding how and where the scoring strike will come from. This is the way the Patriots should play from here on out... for at least 75% of the snaps in every game. Brady is too good and the weapons he possesses are perfectly built for this style: small, quick, deceptive receivers who get open and operate well in tight spaces, and hulking, athletic TE's who present match-up nightmares for LBs and safeties over the middle.

Today on his weekly radio appearance Brady was asked about the no-huddle and why the Patriots don't use it more often, considering how well they seem to operate out of it. His response surprised me a bit...

"Well, we do do it. We do it in every game, at some point. We tried it against Pittsburgh and we got our butt kicked. So, that didn’t work too well. We tried it against Dallas and it worked a little bit, it didn’t work some other times. Against the Giants, we used it a little bit. It didn’t work very well. So, there’s weeks when we use it. Obviously, when it works, you go, 'wow, that was good, let’s stay with it.' When it doesn’t you go, 'what the hell are we doing that for?' So, a lot of it is just a feel for the game and what we’re doing. Last night, it paid off for us."

I have to be honest here, I don't remember things the way Brady does... but then again, I've always known him to be pretty accurate when it comes to reviewing or remembering details from prior games, so I'll have to take his word for it. From my seat in the press box (that's what I call my couch on game days), it looked all the world to me like the Patriots operated much better out of the hurry-up just about every time they ran it, up to and including the Steelers and Giants games. I'm damn near certain of this... I could go back a re-watch the games to confirm my suspicions but I'm much too lazy for that. Suffice to say that what I DO remember is that in the last four games, when the Patriots did look like they were moving the ball well and scoring it was while running the hurry-up. This needs to become a regular part of their offensive plan, from start to finish, and I've been saying it for weeks.

In any case, at some point during the game yesterday the Patriots did go to the hurry up and it paid off in a big way. The Jets looked flat-out overmatched when the Pats were operating out of it. This led to the Pats jumping out to a couple of touchdowns and forcing the Jets away from the ground game, which frankly was doing some damage to the Patriots in the first couple of quarters. But even with the ground game pounding the Patriots line for 5 and 6 yard gains, what the Jets sorely lack is a home-run threat. This means that they must rely on thrwoing the ball to get larger chunks of yards when they get behind. And this is simply not a strength for Mark Sanchez. Brian Schottenheimer has been getting a ton of heat for his play calling this season, but any good coach knows what his players are good at and what they are not. Schottenheimer is a good coach. And he knows that what Mark Sanchez does well is make quick throws on three step drops to his receivers and tight ends in the area of the field 10 - 15 yards down the field. What he doesn't do well is read defenses, survey the field, and throw accurate balls downfield. As was shown yesterday, if his first and second reads are not there, he struggles to see what's going on with the defense downfield and panics, resulting in sacks or throws into coverages he didn't anticipate. Schottenheimer knows this, and generally doesn't construct his offense to make Mark have to make those throws. Sanchez is simply limited... and after three years now his limitations don't seem to show any signs of improvement. The Jets are going to have a very interesting decision to make this offseason, especially if they fail to make the playoffs. They have a championship caliber defense, but lack the skill at the most important position on the field to get to that next level.

As for the Patriots... well, listening to local talk radio and reading the comment sections, I was worried the bandwagon might collapse under its own weight. Boston sports fans (and media personalities, frankly) are among the most fickle and schizophrenic in all of America, and it showed this week, as the region-wide Patriots' funeral dirge was replaced with loud choruses of "We Are the Champions" in a matter of hours. It's kind of funny to watch from the outside now... was I really like that once? I still am to a certain degree, I suppose, but I feel like having a little distance from the city has helped me gain a more balanced, even perspective. So while I thoroughly enjoyed this victory, I do so with no illusions of what this team is and what it isn't.

So, as of right now as I sit here close to midnight on a Monday night, watching the Packers do what the Packers do... dismantle a weaker opponent and look like they are barely trying, I see the Patriots in sharp focus. At this point I have a pretty fair grasp of what they are, and what they aren't. What they are right now is the clear favorite to win the AFC East, with a sweep of the Jets in hand and the easiest schedule (literally) in the NFL ahead of them. They are a team that should finish no worse than 12-4 and possess one of the most potent offenses in the NFL, capable of putting up 30 points on any team on any given night. They have every bit as much chance to represent the AFC in the superbowl as any other team (hey John Clayton... you wanna maybe have a "do-over" on that revised superbowl pick of the Ravens vs. Packers?  Maybe overreacting to one win while ignoring over a month of uneven performances isn't the best way be show how great an 'analyst' you are). But realistically, the Patriots are also a team that could very easily, and without much surprise from this fan, be bounced right out of the playoffs in a first round blowout. Let's face it... this team has very serious issues on defense, still... both in terms of of talent and depth. Belichick really is a great coach... what he has managed to do with this defense is nothing short of remarkable. Yes they have the worst statistically ranked defense in the NFL... but in the only stat category that counts, "points allowed", they are a very respectable 15th. That may not sound like much to brag about, but just think about this for a minute. This team is in the dead middle of the pack in points allowed while rolling out a defense that includes 2 rookie undrafted free agents (Sterling Moore and Jeff Tarpinian), practice-squad all-stars, special teams regulars and a guy that's been signed and waived as many times as his brother (can't tell you how many Pats fans don't know that current Patriot Ross Ventrone isn't the same guy as former practice squad regular and special-teamer Ray Ventrone). OK, we can have the discussion about why the Patriots defensive personnel is what it is in another  column, but the fact is what Belichick is doing with this defense, with this personnel, is nothing short of remarkable. And if the Patriots do go far in the playoffs, it will be every bit the equal, in my mind, of what he accomplished in 2008 in winning 11 games with Matt Cassel.

My assessment of the Patriots at this point is still more or less what it was before the Jets game (a game I predicted they would win and expected them to win... as my picks column proves)... a very good team that can raise to the level of elite when Brady and the offense is clicking, with a very under-talented and suspect defense that is just good enough to keep the Pats in games as long as the offense is scoring, but not good enough to survive if the offense struggles even a little. That's why the thought of an ultimate matchup with the Packers, should the Patriots be fortunate enough to survive that far, scares the bejesus out of me. The Packers will score just about every time they touch the ball against this team. You can count on them putting up 37... at least. So the Pats will have to outscore them to win. They can, of course... they have the weapons and the ability, not to mention the Packers defense is pretty bad in their own right (30th in YPG, 17th in PPG)... but of the two teams, I think it's more likely that the Packers can shut down the Patriots' offense than the Patriots can shut down the Packers' offense.

The nice thing, as a Pats fan, is that in my eyes, I see such a scenario of finding out a very real possibility. The difference between me and most of the other analysts, pundits, and media "experts", is that I felt that way before last night's game.

Hey hey hey!!! It's CUUUUUUUT ALBERT!

Screw you guys... I'm goin' home...

In Boston today the obnoxious, arrogant and haughty media are tripping over themselves to do the "I told you so" dance. The stink of "we're just smarter than you" is wafting from the pages and pixels of the Globe, Herald and other media outlets in the Hub this morning. Yes, Bob Ryan... we know you warned us... yes, Chris Gasper, we know it was a risk and we should have known better. Blah. Blah. Blah.

I have news for the Bay State newsprint literati... we fans are certainly disappointed at the outcome of the Albert Haynesworth experiment. But one thing we are NOT, is surprised. The only thing we have to say in reply to the finger-wagging. tsk-tsk-ing told-you-soing coming from the Boston sports media is a hearty "DUUUUHHHH". Thanks, gentlemen (So far Shalise Manza Young has refrained from the "told you so" chorus, so for now it's still "gentlemen"), but we were aware waaaaaay back when the Pats sent a 5th rounder to the Redskins that this all may go south at some point. We may be blind at times, but we're not altogether clueless.

Haynesworth has been a combination of trouble, talent, and occasional poor work ethic since we first really heard about him after using Andre Gurode's head like a wine glass at a Jewish wedding. Two pro-bowls and hundreds of thousands of pissed off Redskins fans later, he came to the Patriots with the hope of reviving both his career and his reputation. We knew the baggage when he came in. Look, we had heard the excuses for what went down in Washington... we knew that to some degree Mike Shannahan probably did mis-manage the situation, but we ALSO knew the crux of the problem was with Albert. We also had hoped that he realized it as well, and was willing to make a fresh start on a new team... a team with a top-flight organization and a reputation for rehabilitating troubled stars. But in truth, Albert brought more baggage then any superstar the Patriots had tried to take on before. Not Moss, not Dillon... no player brought more negative history to the table then Albert.

And that's why the outcome doesn't really surprise any of us. There was truly no better place for him to rebuild his image than in Foxborough, on a team with Superbowl aspirations, with a no-nonsense coach and an owner respected by both players and other owners alike, playing alongside a perennial all-pro in Wilfork. If Albert was going to be "pro-bowl" Albert again, he couldn't find a better situation than this one. And that's why it was so worth the risk, especially to we the fans. But even with all that in his favor, we also knew that for it to work out, it would require a change in Albert's mentality... a maturity that to this point was completely lacking. So we understood that it might just not be possible. But still, in general, we loved this move... for all the reasons I stipulated above. We heard all the warning cries and doom and gloom predictions. And it's not that we ignored them as much as we simply accepted them as part of the risk, given the possibility of the reward.

And so we tried to buy in on Albert. We tried to make allowances for, once again, missing large chunks of an already abbreviated training camp. We saw flashes of what might be in the first couple of games and so were willing to be patient when the injury issues began to creep up. And while we stood in support of the big man, not a one of us didn't at least have a certain understanding in the pits of our stomachs that some old issues were beginning to creep up. Some warning signs of elements of "bad Albert" that were beginning to surface. Nagging injuries keeping him off the practice field... showing up for a play here or there in games but disappearing altogether in others. We hoped it would improve but as the weeks went by... we knew. Of course, we knew. We would continue to defend the decision to make the gamble. It was a gamble well worth taking and had every reason to have worked beautifully, except for one thing: Albert just isn't that guy anymore.  And at the end of the day, that's what's behind his release this week.

Oh, the pot-stirrers in the Boston media will tell you of "incidents" and "locker-room presence"... they'll point to the shouting match between Haynesworth and Pepper Johnson on the sideline during the Giants' game and say "that was the last straw"... but I think they are reaching for some dramatic element that lends more juice to the story. I personally think that Albert was probably done this week or the next regardless of that event. And I don't think it's simply because of his "work ethic", which is certainly questionable, or his attitude, or anything non-performance related like that. I think at the end of the day the reasoning for cutting Albert was simply he wasn't able to contribute enough to stay on the active roster. And as we have seen time and time again, Bill Belichick has no use for players that can't be available week in and week out. I think the decision to release Haynesworth was probably being contemplated weeks ago, but until Brace and Deaderick came off the PUP, and were ready to play, there wasn't quite enough depth to make the move, so Albert was given a chance to show he could be the player Belichick needed him to be on every play.

Already the Patriots were using Haynesworth pretty sparingly (only 133 out of 566 snaps did Albert line up), and it was becoming clear that he was simply not able to stay on the field for more than a couple of plays and give full effort. This was a combination of injury, age, and conditioning. Albert's been fighting nagging back and other injuries pretty much all season. It's kept him from practicing and working out as much as an NFL defensive lineman needs to in order to be able to contribute as an every down player. It's kept him out of playing shape and caused him to become tired and easily handled after one or two plays. This is what we saw in the Giants game. After making a decent play and drawing a holding penalty, he was gassed. But the situation dictated he needed to stay on the field. He basically took the next three plays off and looked totally overmatched. This simply can't happen in the NFL. And especially not to a guy who's supposed to have elite skill and talent. Yes, this caused Pepper Johnson to read him the riot act (rightfully), and yes, it caused a heated exchange on the sidelines... but the tete-a-tete with Johnson was merely a sideshow to the problem Belichick and the rest of the coaching staff already realized: Haynesworth simply could not contribute to this team on a regular enough basis to make keeping him around worthwhile, especially with the two DLs coming off the PUP. His release was sealed long before the sideline incident with Pepper.

And we, the fans, while disappointed, are not really at all surprised. We knew the potential, and the risks. It was a chance worth taking. So please, please Boston sportswriters, stop telling us all how prescient you all are, and how this was so inevitable and we should have known better. We did. We knew this was one of the likely outcomes, just as it was with Dillon and Moss. And given the same opportunity, we'd do it again. In a heartbeat.

The Chucker does it to the Pats again

Hey, watch this... I'll close my eyes and heave it and
something good will happen... it almost always does.
Nope, I don't really understand it myself.

**NOTE - I wrote most of this column before I noticed the awful story on ESPN.com about Manning's 'elite' status. Aaaaaaaand the hype machine has begun. I knew it was coming... I want to just wash my eyes with sulfuric acid so I won't be tempted to read it.**

A bad throw late in a big game... a throw that should probably have never been made... a nearly unknown wide receiver making a spectacular play to bail his quarterback out. Then a good throw to an open receiver in the endzone for the winning score. Does this sound all too eerily familiar to Pats fans? Yup... just as it did in the Giants victory in superbowl XLII, it happened again last night. And just like in 2008, consummate chucker Eli Manning will get way, way too much credit... we'll come back to that later in the column... but first let's talk about the Patriots.

The Patriots did themselves no favors last night. I often times have a hard time knowing where to lay the blame for the Patriots' struggles, when they struggle. Often I feel like it's a matter of personnel, sometimes a matter of coaching / play calling. For three quarters last night (and 6 quarters out of 8 prior to that) the Patriots offense looked predictable, out of sync, and inefficient. But at this point, I'm done even attempting to blame the personnel... unlike the defense, the offense is loaded with pro-bowl caliber talent... Brady, Wes Welker, Hernandez, Gronkowski, the running backs as a group, the O-Line... they are all top notch, and more often than not have shown that to be the case this year. So what changed in the past few weeks? Simple, really... opposing teams now have 6+ weeks of film to go on, and the Patriots under Bill O'Brien don't seem to be able to do the one thing this team has thrived on doing for the last decade: adapt. The Patriots of old could change a game-plan mid-quarter. The Patriots of old could beat you in multiple ways, with multiple schemes... they could handle attacking defenses, or defenses that loaded the back-end. They ran screens, quick outs, deep balls on play action... anything to overcome whatever it was a defense was trying to do to stop them.

This offense has gone from prolific to predictable. I sat on the couch watching this game, and on nearly half the plays, was able to successfully call the play about to be run based on formation or down and distance. This is something I was never able to do with any regularity in the past. The Patriots last night ran when it looked like they were running, and passed when it looked like they were passing, with very few exceptions. And even when they would line up in a power formation, bunched with 2 TE's and RBs in a power-I, and the Giants would look, like the rest of the viewing country, and see an obvious running play, they would stack 8 at the line, and the Pats... well... ran the ball into it with predictable results. This happened several times, and not just on short down and distances. This is not the Patriots offense I've come to know. For the better part of ten years, one of the staples of the Patriots offenses was the screen pass. They executed them as well if not better than any team in football. The screen pass is a highly effective weapon against attacking defenses. As is the quick out and the quick slant to the TE. Given that the Patriots have now played attacking, aggressive defenses in 4 consecutive games now, you'd think we'd have seen a fair share of those types of plays, correct? No... I can't recall seeing a single screen or quick slant. The Patriots have, for the most part, not deviated one bit from their offensive play-calling from opponent to opponent. I've seen direct snaps to running backs with some success... I've seen reverses and double reverses... but not the bread-and-butter bubble screens, WR screens and TE screens that the Patriots once made a staple of their offense with such success. And it's not like they don't possess the personnel to run these plays. In Welker, Woodhead, Edelman and Faulk (and even Ridley, I believe), they have the quick, agile players to run these plays... what they don't possess, however, is a play-caller that believes in using them. The Patriots of 2010 completely overhauled their offensive scheme mid-season after the departure of Randy Moss, with great success. They developed a quick-pass offense that took defenses by surprise and took some time to find ways to adjust to. But the better defenses in the league began to realize that the Patriots run essentially four basic pass plays: Option routes across the middle to Welker or Branch (usually slants or curls), seam routes to Gronkowski and Hernandez, out routes to Branch and the occasional deep release to Welker or Hernandez off of play-action or pump fake. That's pretty much it. That's an offense even Mark Sanchez could run. So defenses have begun taking away the Welker short routes by jamming him at the line and putting LB's in the middle. The Patriots have got to stop running that seam route to the TE's... defenses know it's coming. They are putting safeties and linebackers in the seam about 15 to 20 yards deep and just waiting for the ball there. I swear at least 5 of Brady's interceptions have come on this route (the two I can remember clearly were both killers... one against the Bills on the goal line, and one yesterday that set up the Giants first FG). Either Brady's not seeing the defenders dropping into that area for some reason or he isn't getting enough loft on the ball... either way it's an easy read at this point and they need to stop calling it so often because defenses are just sitting on it. And they can do that because the Patriots have been totally unwilling to adjust their play-calling during the game.

And here's the last piece of that puzzle: the one thing every Patriots fan will tell you they notice is that the Patriots are much, MUCH better when operating from the no-huddle. This is explained easily, in my opinion, because in the no-huddle, the calls are made by Brady at the line, after he reads the defense, which normally has not had a chance to substitute and Brady, who's seen pretty much every defensive alignment the league has to offer, can call the right play for the situation and the defense. It works because for the most part the play-calling is taken out of the hands of O'Brien and the coaches. It's Brady vs. the defense... a matchup I'll take every single time. What we don't understand at this point is why the Pats don't run the hurry up more often... or why they don't go to it the minute they seem to be stuck in the mud. The first 4 games of the season the Patriots ran this quick offense regularly... in fact I think they ran it almost exclusively against the Chargers, and it looked unstoppable. But now It seems that we only see this come out in the final quarter of games in which they are behind. Look at the last three games. In each game the offense struggled for most of the game, got behind, and then went no-huddle. And in each of those games the offense clicked immediately after doing so. When Brady is calling the plays and reading the defenses it's like watching poetry in motion. There's probably only one QB in football who does it better (Eli's big brother)... but it happens too infrequently at this point and I'm not quite sure why. What I do know is that the Bill O'Brien huddled offense has become predictable and too easily defended. Jam the receivers and push the pocket and you will slow this team to a creeping halt. And that should never be the case with weapons this talented. Something needs to change at this point... and in my opinion it's the play calling... or more pointedly, the play caller. 

Meanwhile, the defense played very, very well for 3 quarters of this game... and while they lapsed in the final quarter and allowed the Giants to march down the filed twice, let's give them some credit. The Patriots offense didn't help them at all for the 3 quarters they held up their end. They held a very talented offensive team to 10 points on 1 for 11 on third down at one point, with the only TD coming after the Brady fumble inside the 20. They did their job. Belichick did some different things this game. I didn't see the soft underneath zone deployed as much. I saw DBs crowding the line, I saw the D-Line getting a push and getting in Manning's face all day. What I saw from this defense was Belichick admitting the scheme was not working for the personnel they have, and an attempt at changing on the fly was made... and it worked for the most part. I saw hope for future games from this defense... I saw a pretty damned good defense doing a pretty damned good job. And then I saw... the Chucker...

I have stated this many times before, and I will say it again: since the 2007 season there may be no more over-rated, over-hyped, under-criticized QB in the history of the NFL than Eli Manning. I'm sure the name has to do with it... and I'm sure the miraculous win in superbowl XLII didn't hurt. But I've never seen a QB make more terrible, back footed, lobbed, prayer-thrown heaves than Eli Manning. And I've never seen any other QB get away with it more often. Eli has relied on the skills of his wide receivers to bail him out time after time, year after year. I live in upstate NY... I see a LOT of Giants games. And year after year I continue to hear pundits proclaim this guy as one of the elite QBs! Do these guys really not watch the games? Even Eli's stats don't lie. Eli is a career 58% completion passer. His career QB rating is 81.6. These are ok numbers, but hardly elite. Ok... so he won a superbowl with the Giants. But if you actually remember that regular season, Eli was awful for almost half of it... there was talk of benching him and how he was teetering on "bust" status. But his running game and defense caught fire and in the superbowl he did very little. His one "great" play was a play that should never have happened, as he should have been whistled for a sack 2 or 3 seconds before he heaved the ball. The ball was a prayer that he just chucked hoping for a receiver to make a play, and his WR somehow pinned it against his helmet while two defenders were trying to swat it away. It was a miraculous play that was two parts extraordinary skill by the wide receiver and one part pure luck. It had nothing to do with Eli. Last year Eli threw 25 interceptions, and somehow the perception was that it was mainly the fault of tipped balls and poor receiver play. I will never understand this. You can not blame 25 interceptions on anyone but the quarterback who threw them. Looking back, many of those interceptions came on typical Eli throws... balls thrown into places they shouldn't be thrown that require receivers to make spectacular plays on the ball for them not to be intercepted. The song has remained the same this year... Eli has either been bailed out by his receivers (see Victor Cruz in the Arizona game), or had poor throws into places he never should have thrown them deflected or intercepted (see Victor Cruz later in the same Arizona game). The game last night was just another prime example of what I'm talking about.

For 3 quarters Eli made bad pass after bad pass... completing under 50%, throwing off his back foot and making a terrible throw that was picked off in the endzone. And he did the same thing in the 4th quarter, except finally his receivers, poor defensive plays and lady luck intervened on his behalf yet again. Three plays were the difference in this game. Three plays. All of them terrible throws by Eli... all of them somehow, through no fault of Eli's, winding up as game-changing long yardage plays that set up scores.

With the Patriots leading 13-10 in the 4th, Eli throws up a prayer... a horribly underthrown ball on a "go route" that caused the receiver to stop, and try to reach back for the ball while the defender, Kyle Arrington, was running with him. And as has happened so may times, Arrington, unaware of the underthrown ball, makes contact with the receiver and a flag is thrown. I hate this rule. Hate it hate it hate it. There is no justice with this rule. No fairness. This rule does nothing but rewards a horribly underthrown ball that a receiver no more "has a right to" than anyone else on the filed. Frankly, the whole "pass interference" rule needs to be looked at closely and completely revised, because plays like this change games constantly, and should not be so rewarded. If I were writing the rulebook, I would write it thusly: if a receiver must make an obvious effort to redirect his intended route to make a play on a ball, incidental contact where the defender is not intentionally trying to push or move the receiver or interfere with the catch will not be called a penalty. It should be incumbent on the quarterback to make a good throw, and if the receiver has to break back towards the ball and is run into by the defender incidentally, then it should not be a foul. Period. And no-one takes advantage of the rule the way it is like Eli and the Giants. Mainly because no-one quite underthrows long-bombs as often as Eli. And why not? Were I an offensive coordinator, I'd make sure we had at least 5 of these types of plays a game... sideline posts or go routes with speedy receivers... especially against lesser cornerbacks and safeties. I'd wager I'd get 3 out of 5 to be ruled Pass Interference. (I would be somewhat judicious... I wouldn't call these types of plays against the Champ Bailey's and Darelle Revis' of the world, because those guys can not only run stride for stride with most receivers, but also can look back for the ball while staying on their receivers... it's a rare skill that very few possess). I hate this rule, and I hate how often Eli in particular benefits from it. Just to clarify... I'm not trying to make the case that this isn't a penalty.. it clearly was by the current definition... I just think the current definition sucks (especially in how inconsistently it's called. To wit: the next Pats' possession Brady throws a ball to Gronkowski at the goal-line that Gronk needs to reach back over the oncoming defender, who's facing him and not the ball... defender runs into him and Gronk can't corral the ball. No flag. Same exact play, only not on a long bomb. Same play, different call. It's maddening). So Eli made a terrible throw, but got away with it... 35 yard penalty sets up the Giants in the red zone... Touchdown a few plays later. Fast forward to the final possession of the game. Giants down again by three with 1:03 to go at their own 39. Manning gets time as the Pats drop 7... he throws another bad pass down the seam this time... a pass that was over and behind his intended receiver, Jake Ballard. Pats' safety Pat Chung see the ball coming right at him and jumps to intercept... but Jake Ballard makes what can only be described as an unbelievable snag, snatching the ball with one hand behind him and over his head and bringing it down to his other and Chung's hands skid across the tip of the ball. It was a spectacular football play worthy of every yard it gained... made by a receiver bailing out Manning yet again on a ball that 9 times out of 10 is going to be intercepted. But praise Manning, 28 yards later the Giants are already in Field Goal range to tie the game. But wait... there's more. After a Manning run of 12 gives the Giants even better FG position with 35 seconds remaining, the Giants do something which I thought was completely baffling. The only thing that was going to lose the Giants the game at this point, with the ball on about the 20 and 35 seconds left, was an interception, which Eli had already done once in the red zone and came dangerously close to doing a couple of times before. In my mind I remember being actually thrilled that the Giants were going to risk letting Eli throw it. And for a moment, I was almost right to be... Eli dropped back, and throws what I guess was meant to be a fade pattern for Cruz in the endzone... but there were two Patriots defenders there, one of which was in much better position to make a play on the ball. As the ball was in the air I could see CB Kyle Arrington moving towards the ball in the endzone, in better position to make the play then the trailing Cruz... and then I saw maybe the worst defensive play I've ever seen. Ever. I saw Sergio Brown (another practice-squadder in the Patriots practice-squad all-stars' secondary) just run over Cruz. He later said he was looking back for the ball but I've watched that play several times now. He just... ran him over. He played the body... completely. He crumples Cruz as the ball is in the air, and that causes Cruz to run into Arrington, knocking him to the ground. Ball falls incomplete about 8 yards past the pile of players. Flags out immediately. No doubter. Game over. It was the singe worst defensive play I can ever remember seeing in the past 5 years (I'm sure there are worse, but I can't think of them and this one is up there). Brown had no chance to make a play on the ball... none, and the Patriots had a defender in perfect position to make the play. Brown showed a complete lack of awareness and skill on a play that decided the game. Cruz was never going to catch that ball, and unless Arrington can get there for the interception, it's likely falling incomplete. And given the time and the situation, the Giants might make one more shot, but more likely they run the ball to bring the clock down and set up for the tying field goal. Just astoundingly bad. So once again, Eli makes a bad throw and is bailed out. He gets bailed out three times in the 4th quarter, twice in the final drive and comes away the hero. Get me a bucket... I think I'm gonna puke.

Please don't take this entirely the wrong way. I'm not trying to take anything away from the Giants as a team... they benefited from penalties, yes... but they were penalties (bad rule or not, still a penalty)... and they did do a great job of holding the Patriots' offense down. And Ballard made a sensational catch worthy of the win... up and down the line the Giants did what they needed to do at the end of the game, despite being outplayed for most of it, and earned the win. But what I just can't stomach is another week of praise and accolades for a guy who did nothing but get away with bad passes and bad decisions.

So, where does that leave the Patriots? In my view, you simply can not consider this team elite any longer. Not right now. Not with the current set of problems they have. I don't care what the record is, this was not a great Giants team. This is a team that lost to Seattle and struggled to beat Arizona. They are just not that good. And the Patriots couldn't beat them. At home. With the defense actually playing pretty well. That simply tells me that the Patriots, right now, are just not that good of a team either. I've often been accused of being a Pats' apologist by the more curmudgeony element of the Boston fan base (I like to refer to them as 'Mikey's'... they hate everything), but more often I'm a realist. This team has held elite status for over a decade. They've won 11 games with a guy who hadn't started a game since high-school. They've re-shaped their entire offense half way through a season and still won 14 games. This has been the best organization in football for the past decade and it's not close... and I keenly remember what it was like before that, in the late 80's and much of the 90's. So I don't feel compelled to go after the hierarchy that brought the team to that level all that often. But they're still not perfect. And where and when they have issues I point them out as fairly as I can. I thought last year they were a superbowl team that came up against a better defensive scheme on one day... it happens even to the best NFL teams (Ask the early 90's Bills about that). But for the first time since probably 2005 - 2006, when the Patriots major problem was lack of depth and skill at the WR and RB position (and even that 2006 team went to the AFC Championship game and should have won it but for a 2nd half collapse), I don't feel like this team holds elite status at this point. I feel like they are now, at this stage, a step below the top teams. Although as I type that, I'm having a hard time identifying who the "top teams" are right now. In the NFC you've got Green Bay, who's just on another level than pretty much anyone else right now. Then you have San Francisco... at 7-1, are they really elite? Boy, it's hard to say it with any conviction, but they've got wins over some good teams... Dallas, Cincy, Philly, Detriot (and those last three on the road)... so yeah... I'll buy the Niners' as elite. After that it's the Giants, Lions and Saints all with 6 wins. Everyone else is just pretending at the moment (although that could change... check back in 3 weeks). And right now I'm not inclined to call any of those teams elite. The Lions have struggled of late and lost two at home, and almost lost to a terrible Vikings team. They are close, but not yet elite. The Giants are pretty good as long as they aren't playing a bad team, but they lost to the Seahawks, and probably should have lost to both the Cardinals and (then) winless Dolphins. That doesn't sound elite to me, by any stretch, despite the win against the Patriots. The Saints might be but they haven't shown it consistently yet. Again, check back in three weeks. In the AFC, I would have said the Steelers had they won, but after the loss at home to a Ravens team who lost to Jacksonville and struggled beating Arizona at home, it's tough to list them as elite with their 3 losses. The Ravens and Bengals both have 6 wins, but the Ravens offense is purely schizophrenic and the defense, as good as it is, has had lapses in some games. The Bengals had the easiest schedule in the NFL over the first half of the season and also the best average field position. Things get decidedly tougher going forward for them and I can't call them elite at this stage. Very good, yes... but not elite. The AFC East is now ripe with "better than average" teams. And of the three top teams I really believe only the Patriots have the pieces to actually get back into that "elite" status, but as of right now, no... none of them are. The AFC West? Please. They are the new NFC West. That leaves the 6-3 Texans, and no... sorry, at this time I can not consider them elite until they actually finish out a season strong. Talk to me in December.

So that leaves me realistically thinking that as of right now we have two teams that can be honestly considered "elite", and they are both in the NFC. Whereas in the AFC we have just a whole bunch of "better than average but beatable on any given day" teams. Given that, the Patriots are every bit as much a contender for the AFC title as about 6 or 7 other teams. And that thought takes the sting off of yesterday's loss a bit. So what do the Patriots need to do in order to stay contenders and not slip into 9-7 territory? Well, the pieces are there, I think. On defense, I'd like to take the last 4 weeks on the whole as a better indicator than just the last game, or the one before it. In 3 of the last 4 games, the Patriots have shown vast improvement on the D-Line. They are creating pressure more regularly and forcing QBs to make quicker decisions. In the secondary, Bill Belichick continues to try to scheme a defense that best suits the limited personnel he has, and we saw glimpses of that working well yesterday. They still have very little talent along the back line and will lose more one on one battles than they win, as was witnessed yesterday at the end of the game... Belichick will need to continue to figure out how to get the most out of what he has... but in truth, is there anyone who does that better? I feel confident that they will struggle most of the year, but the Giants were the last premier passing team the Patriots will see until the final week of the season against Buffalo. and they will be good enough to win with by the end. On offense, for me it simply comes down to play selection. The Patriots need to run the two minute offense more than half of every game. They need to continue to remember that they are a team that sets up the run with the pass, not the other way around. Even against good pass defenses with good rushes, BE WHO YOU ARE... let Brady make calls at the line and decipher defenses like only he can do. Take some of the play calling away from Bill O'Brien, who is beginning to get predictable and stale. The weapons are there. I think Belichcik will recognize this ultimately and I think you will see much more of that Brady-led, two minute passing offense that we saw in the first few weeks again, starting next week against the Jets. And I think it will be successful again.

Ultimately, I still see the Patriots as the favorite to win the AFC East, and honestly because I see all three teams in the race as equally flawed. The Bills are starting to show that they still have a ways to go and will struggle against good defenses, and their defense is below average. They've only played 4 teams with winning records and are 1-3 against them, and 5 of their last 8 games come against playoff-contending teams. The Jets are still a struggling team on offense but the Defense is once again playing at a high level... and I might change my mind again should the Pats get run out of Met Life stadium next week. But given that I see all three teams as close and all with major flaws, I'll take Brady and Belichick, everything else being more or less equal. I can't really speak at this point about what to expect from the Pats once the playoffs come around because I think they are still a bit of a work in progress. Given their remaining schedule I could see them running the table and going 13-3. They play the Jets next week in what I see as the last tough game on the schedule, after which they play the Chiefs at home and then the Eagels, then it's the Colts, Redskins, Dolphins and Broncos before finishing at home against Buffalo. But given the way they are playing of late, I could also see them stumbling against the Jets, Eagles, and Bills and going 10-6 and missing the playoffs. However I really I just don't see them continuing to play that way. The next three weeks are really the season for the Patriots, I believe. We'll know much more about what this team has after that. I hope... I really do, that it's more than what we've seen the past few weeks.

Can't defend the indefensible...

For the better part of the first 7 weeks of the season, I've spent a lot of time defending (ok, some would call it 'rationalizing'... whatever... po-tay-to, pa-tah-to) the Patriots defense... particularly their league-worst statistical pass defense. I've made arguments that teams are forced to throw because they are down big so often, and that the Pats are willing to allow over-the-middle completions 10 or so yards downfield that move the ball but chew up clock, while generally playing pretty good defense in the red zone. I've said that while I accept that this is by no means not a good defense... heck, maybe even a fairly poor defense... they were not the worst defense in the league as stats would indicate.

After watching yesterday's game, I'm forced to reluctantly consider the fact that they might well BE the worst pass defense in the league, and that perhaps the numbers are in truth a reflection of just how soft they are. To wit: Ben Roethlissberger will never be confused with Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers... he's a very good QB but that's simply not his normal M.O. However yesterday he looked every bit the part of Tom Brady, carving up the Pats defense with 10 - 15 yard passes to receivers who were so wide open only Tim Tebow could miss them (by the way, dear Tebow supporters, please shut the hell up now. Thanks). The Steelers' offense looked eerily identical to the one the Patriots have employed over the past two two seasons. The routes looked similar, the yards after the catch was a huge component. The running game ticked off just enough chunks to keep the defense honest... they were a precision machine that, with any ability to get in the endzone consistently, would have had this game wrapped up in about the middle of the third quarter.

As a sidebar, If I'm a Steeler fan today, I'm half ecstatic about the way our offense performed and half panicked about the fact that in truth if the refs hadn't totally botched things in the last 4 minutes (we'll get back to that) the Steelers would have been in very real danger of losing a game they dominated in every phase and held the ball for nearly 40 minutes. I don't care how much you dominate an opponent in a game... if you can't score touchdowns in the red zone eventually you will lose games you have no business losing... especially to a team like the Patriots who can score so quickly and have so many weapons. The Steelers damn near had that happen to them yesterday, and fans should be at least a bit concerned about it.

OK... back to the Patriots defense. Earlier in the week the Patriots made what might be the most dizzyingly confusing move in a season of absolutely odd moves. Look... far be it for me to question Coach Hoodie... the man has forgotten more about football than I will ever know. He's made very few decisions that are flat out wrong, and his guidance is the main reason this team has been a top 5 team in the league for the better part of a decade. But if there was one clear weak spot on this team going back to last year, it was the pass defense. Whether a result of scheme or personnel (I happen to think it's more of the former... I'll discuss more in a later article), it was clear the Patriots had issues on the back end of the defense. Outside of the drafting of the talented but injury-prone Ras-I Dowling, little was done to shore up this group. However it seemed what it lacked in pure top-end talent it made up for in quality of depth. Coming into the season the Patriots had rookie-of the year candidate Devin McCourty, a healthy Leigh Bodden, the underachieving but serviceable Darius Butler, the solid Patrick Chung, the mercurial Brandon Merriweather, who has talent but lacks good football sense, Brandon McGowan: a decent backup who showed flashes of being a good nickle option at safety, Antwaun Molden: an unknown discarded commodity but former 3rd round draft pick, former 4th round draft pick Jonathan Wilhite, who isn't good enough to play CB in this league frankly, Kyle Arrington, who lacks speed and natural skill but makes up for it with hustle and great instincts, the "Token Ventrone" (Ross this time instead of brother Ray), Jets cast-off and mainly special-teamer James Ihedigbo, and last year's starter James Sanders. So while there were only a couple of players with real top-end talent (McCourty and Chung... Merriweather is just not smart enough to consider his talent top-end), there was real depth, and fairly quality depth. However since the start of training camp Belichick has cut ties with DBs faster than Kim Kardashian goes through professional athletes (her sudden filing for divorce just 72 days into marriage is the top trending story on the internet right now... don't you wish you didn't know that now?). Sanders, Merriweather, and Butler, three players who logged significant time the past couple of years, were cut. McGowan was let go, as was Wilhite. So right off the bat you've cut 3 safeties and 2 CBs with real NFL experience and knowledge of the Patriots scheme. That's before a down of regular season football is played. As the season moves on we see that the pass defense is a serious problem. With a lack of quality depth the Patriots are left exposed playing practice squad players in nickle and dime defenses. McCourty and Bodden struggle to maintain their high level of play as they are basically being asked to anchor the entire defensive backfield... a tall order for a 2nd year pro and 12 year vet just coming off of major surgery. Fast forward to this week: the Pats pass defense is getting gashed regularly. Chung is still solid in the middle, but hampered playing with a surgically repaired hand in a cast. He's being paired with players who should be relegated to special teams or the practice squad. The Patriots have NOTHING at safety beyond Chung. Nothing. So now you've got to rely on what depth you have at CB to fill the field with DBs on passing downs. Unfortunately Ras-I Dowling, who's shown flashes of being pretty good, is put on IR... so obviously the Patriots need to pick up another CB from somewhere for depth, at least... right? RIGHT? No... instead they go ahead and CUT Leigh Bodden. The ONLY veteran presence in the defensive backfield and the LAST hope of being able to match up with a 5 WR spread. I simply do not understand this move at ALL. Not at this point in the season. Unless there is an injury we don't know about or a very serious locker-room issue. Are you telling me that Antwaun Molden is a better freaking option than Leigh Bodden?  I don't care how much of a genius Belichick is, not even Rich Kotite would try and make that case. For a team wracked with depth issues surrounding the worst position on the team, cutting Leigh Bodden made no sense.

Oh, of course the Patriots did add some depth by adding CBs Malcolm Williams and Josh Victorian to the practice squad. What, you've never heard of them? Me neither. And trust me, with a name like Josh Victorian, if he'd ever done anything of note we'd remember it.

So here we are going into week 9 having submitted maybe the worst pass-defense performance I've ever witnessed in my 35+ years as a Patriots fan (ok, clearly an exaggeration, but work with me here), and our league-worst pass defense is made up of the confidence-shaken Devin McCourty, undrafted Kyle Arrington (I don't care that he's leading the league in interceptions... he looks lost out there most of the time), One-handed Patrick Chung, and whoever the hell they decide to stick next to him from special teams. How can Belichick possibly see this as a recipe for success? Are they really trying to convince us that holding on to Bodden, even as a safety net in case of injury, was just not a viable option? And if production is simply the bottom line, how the HELL does Ochocinco still have a role on this team? Here's a position with actual depth and youth if you count Hernandez as a WR (and you should, that's what he is), yet Ochocinco, who basically punctuated his entire season with that slow-footed half-effort to catch up to a Brady throw (you could see the look on Brady's face after the play.. it said "ok, son... clearly you have no idea how we do things here... that's the last ball you get... ever") in the third quarter, still has a role on this team and Leigh Bodden, who never made the slightest wave off the filed and was by all accounts a very good player on it, can't crack the lineup on the worst pass defense in the NFL? I know Belichick plays things close to the vest but this is one time I think fans are entitled to SOME sort of an explanation. I've yet to hear one. Throw us a bone... tell us you heard Champ Bailey was about to be put on waivers and you needed the cap space and the roster spot... give us something... just don't let us sit here thinking you're just too arrogant to think you actually need more than one viable option at cornerback.

So what does this mean for the Patriots, ultimately? I wrote a column last week about the Patriots ability to win a championship with the defense as currently construed. I stated that it was absurd to say otherwise... but that was before they released Bodden, put Dowling on IR and decided to play with 2 viable starting DBs total. No, no... in all seriousness I still believe what I said. I think if the Pats and Steelers played again tomorrow the outcome would be much different. No team adjusts week to week better than the Patriots under Belichick, he almost never loses twice in a row to the same opponent (regardless of personnel), and I'm guessing the Patriots will come out with a completely different plan the next time they face each other, especially if it happens to be in the playoffs. The Steelers yesterday were ready... they were pumped, they saw this as much more of a measuring stick than the Patriots, I think... and they came out the hungrier team. The Patriots played like a team that had just come off vacation... and with the stupidly negotiated rules the players put in the new CBA for themselves (I'll bet money the players themselves ask to have that changed next season after the obvious effect it's had on teams coming off a bye), that's more or less what it was. It was a really bad day at the office for the Patriots and the Steelers played their best game all season. And here's the really encouraging thing, the red-zone defense was still pretty damn good, holding the Steelers to only field goals in the second half (and a safety that should never have counted, but that's not on the defense either way), which gave the Pats a chance to make a run at winning the game late... speaking of which... 

Despite all the yards and all the plays they gave up, they still had a damn good chance to pull out a win. In fact there was a point where I said aloud to no-one in particular "if they score here with about 4 minutes left on the clock, they're winning this game". I had seen it before... Brady had that look in his eyes... the offense was operating in "hyper" mode, and for once the Steelers looked totally powerless to stop it. I was absolutely convinced of it, and it would have happened, without a doubt in my mind... until... once again (for reference please see the pass interference call in the endzone vs. the Bills, turning a Patriots interception into a first and goal for the Bills. Horrible call, cost the Pats the game), the referees stepped in and literally took the game from them (they actually screwed up twice, however the last one was really not going to help the Patriots anyhow... but just for the record the Steelers should not have been awarded a safety on that last play, as Polamalu intentionally slapped the ball forward, which every pop-warner coach knows is illegal but apparently this bungling crew of refs isn't aware of). So, with just about 4 minutes to play and the Patriots in hurry-up, Brady hits Gronkowski with a pass in the end-zone that every person in the stands and watching on TV knew was a TD... even the crowd silenced for a moment till the hit put Gronk back out of the endzone and the completely inept official called down at the one, leaving the Pats with no choice but to continue the drive, and the crowd delirious that they had missed such an obvious call. I know a lot of people are blaming Belichick for not challenging, but for some unknown reason, CBS refused to show a replay of the play so the booth upstairs couldn't instruct Belichick as to what to do... you can't risk giving up a timeout there, so you need to run the play and score as quickly as possible. It was a no win situation for the Pats... and it never should have come to that. And here's my biggest problem with the call, and the reason I say that the refs are either corrupt or completely and totally inept to the point that they don't deserve to work the games: with the goofy new rule all SCORING plays are reviewed... but by some cosmically absurd and totally idiotic oversight, plays that are on the goalline but AREN'T ruled a score are not reviewed. How does this make sense in any way? This might be the dumbest rule change of the past 20 years, mainly because it is totally incomplete. At any rate, referees are aware of this rule. They know that scoring plays are reviewed. Every one of them. They also know the situation: down two scores, about 4 minutes left... a play at the goal line, perhaps mere inches deciding touchdown or not. Wouldn't the PRUDENT and FAIR thing to do, knowing that ONLY a score is reviewed, be to simply give the benefit of the doubt on a play you MUST know carries some doubt, call it a score, and let the replay flush out the truth of it? Isn't that the only thing fair to do in such a flawed system? Isn't this something officials would certainly have talked about? You know... I HAVE to believe at some point in these ref's travels over the course of the year someone must have brought up this exact scenario. And I would have to think that in any fair evaluation of the situation, the obvious suggestion would be to call any close play on which there is any hint of doubt the way that would allow for a video replay... right? RIGHT? In any case, this mickey-mouse crew blew the call (which replay clearly showed was a touchdown... would have taken about 15 seconds to overturn), didn't even huddle to have the discussion as I see regularly happen in other games, and stole about a minute and a half from the Patriots, now down one score with barely 2:30 to play. A minute and a half for Tom Brady is the amount of time it takes him to win a superbowl. So had they had that chance, yes... I have no doubt the Patriots would have walked away winners from a game they had no business being in a position to win in the first place. But in the NFL, you take every win you can get, no matter how it comes about. The Patriots were denied a chance at this win by nothing less than sheer, utter, and total incompetence and lack of any sense of the situation, the moment, or fair play by the officials. What a failure. What a joke.

That aside, let's take a look at how this plays out going forward... once again there is a great deal of hand wringing in the Boston sports media circle. It's a bit more justified this time... although the "I told you so" crowing by some (not mentioning names) is still a bit on the premature side 7 games into a 16 game season. Look at the schedule from here on out... It's pretty favorable for the Pats, from a passing effluence standpoint. Of the remaining 9 games, only three are against teams with any real threat of a passing game (Next week against Chucker Manning and the Giants, week 12 against the "new and improved Dream Team Eagles" who for reasons that escape me, are suddenly the darlings of the league again after throttling Dallas at home, and the Bills in the final week of the season, on New Year's day in Foxborough). The other six are against the Jets, Chiefs, Colts, Redskins, Broncos and Dolphins. Talk about a favorable schedule. There isn't a top-flight NFL QB in that group. Not even close (shut up Jets fans and accept it). The Pats should go 7-2 in that stretch (I don't see the Bills beating them in Foxborough). So in the end I still like their chances at a division title, first round bye and decent playoff run, but at some point this team is going to have to figure out how to stop someone on third and long, or I'm not going to be able to watch them anymore, having spider-cracked my flat-panel TV with the remote.

Defensive stats don't tell the whole story

The Patriots went across country this past weekend, after a tough loss to the very game Buffalo Bills, to face the NFL's best rushing attack in one of the toughest places to play in the NFL: Oakland's O.co Coliseum, where the Raiders just last week ran the Jets right out of the Stadium. This was going to be a test for the Pats, and of course an opportunity for every sportswriter in the Greater Boston Area to completely miss the point when analyzing the final outcome... and of course the Boston Media doesn't disappoint (they rarely do).

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...

Is Pats defense defensible?

It was another win for the Patriots yesterday, and another other-worldly performance by Tom Brady and the Pats offense. But of course, the win was not without concerns, especially on the injury front and the defensive side of the ball in general. I won't go as far as Greg Bedard in today's Boston Globe, where he called the Patriots "lucky Tom Brady continues to throw for a gazillion yards." and that "they’re fortunate to have two tight ends in Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez that can’t be matched up with down the field." I'm never one to attribute to luck that which is clearly the output of hard work and skill at the highest level. They Patriots weren't "lucky" to win. The interception by Wilfork wasn't "good luck", for example... it wasn't even a poor throw by Rivers. It was an outlet to the flat that is made hundreds of times a week, Wilfork just made an outstanding, athletic play. That and the continued dominance of Brady and his offense make attributing any Pats win where they score 35 + points and win by 10 points or more to "luck" a bit of hyperbole. 


Having said that, two games into the season it's clear that the Patriots have some serious issues to address on defense. In my view, those problems are up the middle, where lack of depth and skill at both safety and inside linebacker are starting to be revealed. As a result, the Pats are having a hard time establishing any real defensive identity. They spent a good deal of money and effort in the off-season upgrading their defensive line, to add bulk in the middle and a bona-fide pass-rush. I think they have the personnel, up front, to be a monster D-Line, that can pressure the QB and stop the run, but ability to take advantage of those skills and apply that pressure means being able to aptly defend the middle of the field, and it seems the Patriots coaches don't have confidence in this aspect of the game, at this time. As a result, what you're seeing is that while the Pats have been regularly employing four down linemen on the line (occasionally three in long down and distance passing situations), they have not been running LBs like Mayo and Fletcher and Ninkovich off the edge or up the middle to pressure QBs. Instead they have been playing a zone along with the safeties. And teams are noticing this. Something I noticed in the last quarter of the Miami game, as well as a large chunk of the San Diego game, is that opposing offenses were exploiting that zone by sending backs and tight-ends on up-and-out routes, or flat routes that are drawing linebackers out to the flat, and vacating large portions of the underneath-middle of the field. They are then sending slot receivers across the middle about 7 - 10 yards out. With the corners playing deep and outside, this leaves undersized safeties trailing speedy wide-receivers across that middle; not only an easy completion, but an opportunity for Yards After the Catch with the middle of the zone opened up. Or, teams are sending backs to the flat, looking that way to draw the LBs in and then hitting TEs or WRs lined up inside on seam routes. 


The Pats have been using Patrick Chung, their one high-skill safety, to often defend opponent's skilled TEs or receiving backs man-to-man. He's done an admirable job (notably keeping all-pro TE Antonio Gates without a catch while spending much of the game assigned to him). It's an obvious asset that Chung has the skill to handle this responsibility, but it also takes Chung out of the "read and react" safety position that was once played with aplomb by Rodney Harrison. With Harrison accompanied by capable safeties like Eugene Wilson and James Sanders, the middle of the field was kept pretty well defended. The Pats don't have that second capable safety and are too often asking Chung to be almost a third or fourth cornerback. I see the safety position as a huge problem for the Pats right now that has a trickle-down effect on the rest of the defense, and the style of defense they can employ. 


Now, many Pats fans have made the claim, in defense of the Pats defensive performances of the past couple of weeks,  that they are deploying a "bend but don't break" defensive mentality. Let them get the yards from 20 to 20, but defend the red-zones and minimize points. And to a point they are correct... but I don't think its in the intentional way they seem to think. I think the reason for the Pats success inside the 20 defensively has to do with the same reason they struggle outside of it: and that is, the middle of the field. Inside the 20, space is compacted and you can't vacate the middle as readily, or with as much space, as you can between the 20s. With the field shortened, the Pats can play to their strengths: strong D-Line play, solid CB play on the outside, and now the LBs and safeties have much less ground to cover in that middle-zone... as a result they become much harder to score on, and have a chance to make plays using the best of their skill-set. They've done this in two consecutive weeks now. 


But there are a couple of major problems with this style of play: first, no matter how good your defense plays inside the 20s, the odds are always in favor of the offense in those situations. Eventually they will give up points. Points they wouldn't have to if they were better defensively between the 20's. And second, any team in the NFL will tell you that the best way to defend Tom Brady and the Patriots offense is to simply not allow him on the field. Brady and this offense are based on rhythm... the more they are on the field, the better they get... they get into that quick-set no huddle and dictate the pace of play and DARE you to keep up. And the best way to prevent that is to put together long drives of short-to-medium yardage plays, and most importantly, convert on third down. If you do that enough in a game, you will score points AND keep Brady off the field, giving your team a chance to steal a win in the final minutes. And one of the most glaring problems with the defense yesterday was that they just could not get off the field on third down. The Chargers deployed this strategy beautifully this past Sunday... they had the ball longer than the Pats, put together long, sustained drives, and kept Brady off the field for long stretches of play, especially in the 3rd and early 4th quarter, and converted a staggering 10 of 12 third-down opportunities. Had they managed to not be victimized by a combination of poor play calling (the 4th and goal play call), poor decisions (the second Rivers interception was gawd-awful, and the Tolbert fumble after hitting the hole and running backwards), and outstanding individual efforts by the Patriots (the Wilfork interception, and the play by Mayo, diving over a defender to swat the ball out of Tolbert's hands), they would have been in excellent position to have kept this game close and maybe even win it. 


And that's my fear... that the Pats are going to have trouble with a smart team that plays well in the middle of the field. You're not going to beat this team straight-up trying to outscore them in a slug-fest. Brady is just too locked in right now. If I were a coach of an opposing team I would revolve my entire game-plan around that philosophy: clear out the middle and send slants, crosses and seam routes to take advantage of that middle... put together long drives... mix in runs, mainly around the edge, and chew up clock. Keep the game close, then turn up the defensive pressure in the second half and try to steal the game late. 


I'm not sure the Bills are the team to succeed with this. They are scrappy, and they will try this approach, I promise you, but their team is built around speed on the outside with players like Stevie Johnson and Roscoe Parrish and CJ Spiller. Fred Jackson is a great between the tackles runner but I think the Pats hold up well against him. And the Bills defense is not great... so while I think the Bills will be scrappy and will put up a fight, I don't see them having the horses to keep the Pats off the board for less than 35 - 45 points, and I just don't see them putting up that many points themselves. 


I think pretty much the same of the Raiders the following week, frankly. They don't have anywhere near the type of controlled offense they would need to beat the Pats. Looking ahead, though, the Jets and Steelers do... and I think it will be by that Jets game in 3 weeks that the Pats will need to have fixed their safety problem and start allowing that D-Line to play a more sustained attacking style... otherwise we'll be looking at the wrong end of a 28-24 score.