NFL V - Turkey Day Edition.

[Kalbear]

The problem with SD in that conversation is that they don't have a good pass rush with 3 or 4 linemen. Historically they might have, but not this year.

Minnesota has the pass rush down, but I'm skeptical of their passing attack. Favre has been stellar, but his worst games (and this is a 'bad' Favre game) has been against good defenses who could physically abuse him, regardless of their coverage. Pitt is a good example of someone who dealt with Minnesota reasonably. Ravens too. It's possible they are, but I don't think they're the same kind of team like the Saints or Colts are in terms of exploiting good matchups vs. the Pats.

The Steelers are...odd. They're so freakin' inconsistent.

As to the clutchiness, I'd agree with the above (obviously) that 2005 was the end. Sure, they weren't that stellar of a team, but they lost with Brady looking like a chump against Denver, then they lost with Brady throwing an interception in the last minute of the game vs. Indy, then they lost with Brady being pummeled vs. the Giants. Then they...just didn't make it in at all. If you believe in clutchiness, those are all good signs that the Pats have lost it.

I don't think there's such a thing as clutchiness. I think that good teams can do good 2-minute drills and have been there before, but I also think that a lot of the time that's more to do with luck and a lack of conditioning on the other team's end and less to do with being awesome when it counts.

On that note - what is up with the Pats and their conditioning? One factor has remained very consistent in the Pats losses - and that's giving up big heapings of love in the 4th quarter. This has been true since the 2003 superbowl. They did it in 2006 vs the Colts, in 2007 vs the Giants, and now have done it repeatedly this season. Honestly, that might be as good a way to beat the Pats as any - tire them out in the first three quarters, stay in the game, and then go nuts with 2-minute drills. They just don't seem to react well and they seem completely different of a team on defense.

[Rockroi]

They did it in 2006 vs the Colts, in 2007 vs the Giants, and now have done it repeatedly this season. Honestly, that might be as good a way to beat the Pats as any - tire them out in the first three quarters, stay in the game, and then go nuts with 2-minute drills. They just don't seem to react well and they seem completely different of a team on defense.

Meh... I disagree with much of your post, but it does no good to say "Yes it is, no it isn't."

But this statement is just wrong. While the 2006 Colts game was clearly a game where the Pats D just got completely wore down, the 2007 Superbowl was not that. The Pats D played great even during that last drive and lost to a completely fluky pass (on both ends; Tyree should never have made that catch and Eli was basically sacked before doing a Houdini). The D held the Giants to just 10 points before that drive and that was not a drive where the Giants just passed at will, etc (in fact, if Asante Samuel can get his hands on that ball... why am I doing this?). They hit one amazing ZOMG pass and sometimes that's all it takes. But the Pats D was playing really well that game, the whole game.

[Kalbear]

So you're saying that the Pats D played great except when they didn't? Cause...to me, it sounds like Samuel didn't make quite the right move he needed to, Harrison didn't quite make the right play on Tyree, their defense didn't quite get Manning down, and they didn't cover quite as well as they had been.

I'm confused how that equates to playing great, and I'm confused how that's a contradiction of them being tired.

Though you're right - their OLine also got completely worn out at the end there too, and gave up on that side as well.

[Rockroi]

I'm confused how that equates to playing great, and I'm confused how that's a contradiction of them being tired.

Wow, you confuse easy.

Not making a play does not always mean poor conditioning.

[Jaxom 1974]

Heck, as long as we're prognosticating, it's still possible we could have undefeated conference champions (Indy and NO) playing for the Super Bowl. Now THAT would be amazing.

What a wet dream for the media that would be, eh? Two undefeated teams in the Superbowl and only one could be the winner and that one might be Peyton? If something like that actually did happen, which media personality in Boston would be the first to have their head explode?

[awesome possum]

This has nothing to do with the NFL at present, but remember the last name Sevilla, #36 in this video. Holy crap that little kid is vicious.

[Kalbear]

Wow, you confuse easy.

Not making a play does not always mean poor conditioning.

What can I say, Rock - you're a pro at being confusing and self-contradictory. Poor play doesn't mean bad conditioning, but it doesn't refute it either. And isn't it odd how the Pats seem to make those plays more often in the first half but not the second?

FO actually ran the numbers on this recently, and I was surprised - NE sucks the most in the 3rd quarter, not the 4th. But the second half is decidedly worse than the first overall, and FO does do things like take into account for meaningless scores and prevent style defense; it's not just that. But going from a defense that is harder than average to play against to one that is as bad as Detroit is pretty telling, no?

[Bronn Stone]

The problem with SD in that conversation is that they don't have a good pass rush with 3 or 4 linemen. Historically they might have, but not this year.

I don't see the difference between a 3-4 team sending a linebacker and a 4-3 team sending 4. Or do you have numbers from FO that suggest that the Chargers high sack total results from sending 5 or more?

[Kalbear]

I don't see the difference between a 3-4 team sending a linebacker and a 4-3 team sending 4. Or do you have numbers from FO that suggest that the Chargers high sack total results from sending 5 or more?

I don't see a difference either. What I have seen is Merriman not getting particularly good pressure on teams not named Kansas City or Oakland.

The Chargers have 28 sacks this season - that's 10th in the league. Not bad. Of those, 10 were credited to Phillips or Merriman. 4 more were to Boone/English. And then you have 14 sacks credited to various other LBs, CBs, and safeties. That's likely half of their sacks, and those represent (most likely) rushing 5 or more.

Another article lists sacks by number of rushers, and this was the Charger's numbers:

Chargers 0.0% 37.5% 56.3% 6.3% 0.0%

that's 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 rushers. They lead the league in sacks when rushing 5. They had 6 sacks (at the time of that writing) when rushing 4.

By comparison - the Colts had 16. The Saints only had 7, but I suspect getting Ellis back helped that a lot too.

So it's not FO stats, but it jives with anecdotal evidence, the spread of sacks among their players and what we've seen.

[Rockroi]

What can I say, Rock - you're a pro at being confusing and self-contradictory. Poor play doesn't mean bad conditioning, but it doesn't refute it either. And isn't it odd how the Pats seem to make those plays more often in the first half but not the second?

I am pleased you recognize your own logical misjudgment. Merely because you cannot rule something out does NOT mean that it is proved. In fact, all of your work is still ahead of you. Also, please note, I take no umbrage at your contention that the 2006 AFC Championship game was lost, in one respect, due to the wearing down of the D. However, that does not mean every 4th quarter loss by the Pats (and there have been only a hand-full) means that they are per se poorly conditioned.

Also, when looking at the Pats overall record in the second half, their numbers are decidedly strong, at least historically. From 2001 up to 2008, (so including the SB loss to the Giants) the Pats are 77-4 when leading at halftime and are 79-3 when leading after three quarters. In 2008 they lost one game (Pitt) in the second half; they were tied 10-10 at half-time and then lost 33-10. 2009 is really the only season wherein they have shown significant issues after halftime wherein they have lost 3 games when leading at the half. Jets (9-3 at half-time; final score 9-16); Denver (half: 17-7; Final Score 17-20, in OT where the Pats never touched the ball); Indy (half 17-7, final score 35-36). But even using these numbers, the Indy game is strange because the Pats scored just as many points in the first half as they did the second (so the O is not the issue). But in each game the D got cracked, and I think that has A LOT to do with the adjustments teams make in the second half to open up weaknesses.

So, seriously, I do not think we are dealing with an endemic problem. The last two years I would say have had far greater changes than a difference in conditioning. In other words, it appears that your logic is "The Pats have poor conditioning. The proof is that they lose sometimes in the 4th quarter, except when they don't."

FO actually ran the numbers on this recently, and I was surprised - NE sucks the most in the 3rd quarter, not the 4th.

For starters, this would run directly counter to your hypothesis because if the Pats are truly worn down, they should be falling apart in the 4th quarter, not the 3rd.

And this surprises me not at all. The Pats lose games when the other team comes out and (contrary to myth) make good adjustments to the Pats while the PATS make poor adjustments (recently) to the other team. I really think this is due to the relatively shallow talent pool in the Secondary and the development of younger talent (and the apparent recession of Jerrard Mayo).

But the second half is decidedly worse than the first overall, and FO does do things like take into account for meaningless scores and prevent style defense; it's not just that. But going from a defense that is harder than average to play against to one that is as bad as Detroit is pretty telling, no?

But it could be from a host of factors, no one all inclusive. Where is your proof that it is conditioning specifically? I would actually BET that the reason the third Q numbers are so high is because the opposing teams can now EXPLOIT weaknesses in the Pats really young secondary (I did not look at your numbers, but I would bet that opposing teams' passing yards jump. And I bet they jump up by a lot). I bet opposing teams (in the 3rd Q) get away from the run because they now have all they need to pass. Gee... its almost as if I have watched every Pats game this season!

Now, one final note: I am NOT SAYING that I am happy with the Pats D this season. Its been terrible. But what I am saying is that the Pats' problem is not necessarily conditioning, which was your theory all along.

[Arakasi]

I don't see the difference between a 3-4 team sending a linebacker and a 4-3 team sending 4. Or do you have numbers from FO that suggest that the Chargers high sack total results from sending 5 or more?

It should not be a surprise. Merriman still really hasn't returned to form, and they're missing a huge piece of their defense in the middle there with Williams out. He drew a huge number of double teams and a player of his caliber is not easy to replace.

[Arakasi]

Rockroi, the score at halftime for Indy/NE was 24-14, not 17-7.

[Rockroi]

Sorry. I had not written it down. My argument remains unchanged, though. In fact, the fact that the Pats D gave up 7 less points supports my claim further (but in all candor, not by much).

[Arakasi]

Sorry. I had not written it down. My argument remains unchanged, though. In fact, the fact that the Pats D gave up 7 less points supports my claim further (but in all candor, not by much).

Well not quite. It doesn't support your point that the offense underperforming in the second half wasn't the issue. In fact in all the losses the offense underperformed in the second half. Which probably is a good part of the reason why the defense underperforms as well. One thing for sure, NE does not adjust well, either offensively or defensively.

[Rockroi]

Well not quite. It doesn't support your point that the offense underperforming in the second half wasn't the issue. In fact in all the losses the offense underperformed in the second half. Which probably is a good part of the reason why the defense underperforms as well. One thing for sure, NE does not adjust well, either offensively or defensively.

Agreed. I am not about to assume the position that the Pats are playing just as well in the second half as the first. In fact, if people recall, its one of my reasons why I believe the Pats will not succeed in the post-season. My only contention is that there is no evidence that conditioning is an historical, recurring problem for the Pats.

[Kalbear]

Rock, I was just tweaking you. You're right - 3rd quarter performance of the D definitely points to poor adjustments by the coaching and not necessarily conditioning, though in all cases the performance in the second half has been worse than the first by the D. It's anecdotal evidence, but there are sufficient anecdotes (2006 Indy, the 2003 Superbowl, two games this year) that it may be an actual issue. My only point is that bringing that up doesn't really refute the conditioning argument at all. What would would be showing that they did better as a unit as the game progressed, which hasn't been shown, or that they do better as the number of plays/drives in a game increases, which also hasn't been shown.

I bring it up because it's been pointed out recently about my Ducks too, except in the opposite way; they've performed really well in the third and fourth quarters recently, and something that the opposing Ds have said repeatedly is how tired they were later on and how fresh the Ducks seemed. I also think that this might be a perception bias; no one 'sees' the coaching decisions when they're in it, but they know they're getting their ass kicked so there's got to be some reason, and they're tired, right? But there's possibly something else there too.

Something else odd to consider is this - if one measure of good coaching is how well your coaches adjust the game plan after seeing what the other team will do...is Belichick a bad coach now? Or the Pats coaching, I probably should say, given how many other members they've bled off. Belichick's made a lot of odd decisions this season, but this isn't the only time the Pats have collapsed spectacularly late in the game. And unlike prior seasons, there aren't the 'good' coaching moments to bring this back up. I don't have the capacity to check it out now, but I'd be curious to see how often this correlation of defensive collapse has happened to the Pats, and whether it stopped at a certain point. My gut feeling is that it didn't happen at least until 2004, maybe as late as 2006, but it has been consistent from then on. Heck, even when they had their awesome run in 2007 I remember a number of times when they just didn't seem to be able to put away a team.

Finally, since the argument is about the Pats of 2001-2004 vs. the Pats of 2005-current, using stats from both groups is a bit silly.

[LCOTNW]

There are probably a 1000 ways to measure a good coach, but the most important is wins and losses. Any way you slice it, Belichick is a great coach.

Has he made some questionable decisions of late? probably, but YMMV. He plays his cards close. I suspect he is doing as well as he can with what he has to work with, and you can't have super dominance every single year.

[Bronn Stone]

The Chargers have 28 sacks this season - that's 10th in the league. Not bad. Of those, 10 were credited to Phillips or Merriman. 4 more were to Boone/English. And then you have 14 sacks credited to various other LBs, CBs, and safeties. That's likely half of their sacks, and those represent (most likely) rushing 5 or more.

Another article lists sacks by number of rushers, and this was the Charger's numbers:

Thanks. Though 28 sacks actually has them tied with Dallas for 7th according to Yahoo, the gist of the argument is the same. And only ten of the 28 came against KC and Oakland - which considering that those are four of their eleven games is not disproportionate. 2.50/gm against that pair and 2.57/gm in the rest.

[Rockroi]

if one measure of good coaching is how well your coaches adjust the game plan after seeing what the other team will do...is Belichick a bad coach now? Or the Pats coaching, I probably should say, given how many other members they've bled off.

I will repeat what somebody much smarter than I said:

There are probably a 1000 ways to measure a good coach, but the most important is wins and losses. Any way you slice it, Belichick is a great coach.

Has he made some questionable decisions of late? probably, but YMMV. He plays his cards close. I suspect he is doing as well as he can with what he has to work with, and you can't have super dominance every single year.

All I would add (or in this case, subtract) is that even if you discount the term "super-dominance" (which I would say, after 2004, is not really applicable for each year except 2007), Belichick's entire philosophy is that its the coaches job to maximize the team's chances of winning the game by good decision making. Using that metric, Darth-Hoodie has done more to put his team in the best chance of winning than the vast majority of coaches in the NFL during that same period. No other head coach has the same track record. I think there have been lean years (2005, 2006, 2009) where Bill has made decisions that he would not have to make if the team had more defensive talent. In 2008 Bill had to steer his ship without Tom Brady; he went 11-5 (though, as I explained in an earlier thread, his record without Brady is not good; his record with Brady is astronomical).

However, in 2009 I think he has less on D. The adjustments are just not enough. Our D backs have been a source of consternation since training camp (IIRC, I made a comment that I would feel better about the Pats but for the fact that their best DBs are formerly of Cleveland and Detroit (Leigh Bodden). Otherwise, here are the AGES of our DBs and Ss: 23, 23, 34, 24, 25, 22, 23, 26, 25, 26. In other words, including Bodden (28) there are TWO guys over 27 and SEVEN guys 25 or younger. That is a VAST unporven area right there.

And our LBs? Not much better. Thomas has been an epic disappointment. Mayo has hit a snag (it was unavoidable after the Colts game where he was missing his gap assignments). Merriweather has had great games and terrible games. Our D line is playing well against the run; horrible against the pass because we lack any semblance of a pass rush. And that is killing us.

Conversely, if I were the head coach of a Pats opponent I would realize something very fast: on O, the Pats have Brady throwing to Welker, Moss (in that order, btw) and nothing else that scares me. The TE is remarkably inconsistent, their #3 WR unreliable. And in no way do I need to respect the run. Watch the NO game again. The Pats were running very well. Why did the Saints not adjust to defend the run? No need! The run could not kill them BECAUSE the Saints knew that the Pats D would give up loads of points and you cannot answer that with running ... especially if you JUST turned the ball over! An moreover, the Pats Running game is only mediocre.

Thus, when taken as a whole, the Patriots scream to me to be an eminently beatable opponent. Their three unavenged losses were all to teams that had two outstanding QBs and one solid QB (Manning, Breese, Orton). If you look at it that way... pass all over the D, have no fear of their cruddy running game, cover Moss and Welker, and what on the Pats can beat you?

Now, the issue for other teams is the whole "Cover Welker and Moss" and "be able to pass a lot." Hence, the Pats (on just talent) can beat bad to good teams, and will always struggle with very good and great teams.

In other words, a team like that will have trouble in the playoffs.

[Kalbear]

(though, as I explained in an earlier thread, his record without Brady is not good; his record with Brady is astronomical).

I guess that's sort of where I was going with that.

The posit is simple: let's assume that talent is consistent with respect to how well they're going to do. It's a silly posit, much like a spherical cat, but it's reasonable for this thought experiment. So, for example, we'll say that a team will play at a level X assuming average coaching.

How would you measure good coaching? How would you measure bad? I mean, you can argue that Barry Switzer is a good coach if you look solely at wins-losses, but we all know that's bunk. The trick there is that he had a ridiculously talented team who could play well themselves. The question then becomes: how do you separate out that value - the coach and the players?

Well, one way is by seeing how that coach does without said talent. In Belichick's case, he's done fairly poorly without at least Tom Brady, as you point out. That's not entirely fair, mind you; losing your star starting QB in a league where QB play is one of the primary correlations of winning is a big hit. But it's one datum.

Another, I would argue, is how well you play in the second half vs. the first half. This is a relative value; it depends a lot on the other team's adjustments. But at least this year, Belichick has been consistently outcoached in the second half.

Another might be how well drafting has panned out. This again seems to be something that's gone down with time; the majority of 'wins' for the Pats recently have been in free agency, not in the draft. Heck, Mayo and Merriweather were both lauded early and seem to be hitting slumps of some kind. Their early drafts were clearly very strong, but it seems to have declined somewhat.

I don't think Belichick is a bad coach. I do suspect that the caliber of people around him has declined some, and while he was clearly the better part of Weis, Crennel, Mangini, McDaniels, and Pioli they had their own talent too.

In any case, it seems like a death of many cuts. Belichick had relied on having a lot of proven players and good drafts in the defense and dealing with a competent offense that could deliver when it counted. That was the formula in 2001-2004. The formula along the way changed, and it doesn't seem like Belichick does as well with less talent on defense (compared to, say, Dungy and Polian, who were legendary for making nothing out of something). And as odd as it sounds, it really sounds like he's getting outcoached by the better coaches in the league.