Is a Bill Belichick style defense now obsolete?
by bbismyhero on Feb 3, 2010 12:22 PM EST
Email
Print
I was listening to the BS report yesterday and Mike Lombardi made an interesting point... He said that the 2010 Colts would beat the 2004 Patriots if they played under today's NFL rules. I kind of agree with Mike Lombardi and I'll take it a step further and say that under today's rules that the 01 Pats would not have beat the 01 Rams. I know this harks on a point I made in my previous fan shot but I think it is worth looking at to see where the Patriots are going...
A Bill Belichick defense has always revolved around big, intelligent defenders that played very physical with receivers. We saw it with the Giants against the Bills, and we saw it with the Patriots versus the Rams/Colts. Even at their peak, the Giants defense and the Patriots defense was never really described as quick a la the modern Colts defense. They were big physical defenders that countered quicker receivers by jamming them, harassing them, and just plain being physical with them. Well... that counter is now gone...
Looking at this eventual SB champion (either Colts or Saints) and the past 2 SB champions one thing stands out... they are all fast defenses with great pass rushers. Because defenders can't be as physical with QBs and receivers anymore, they don't need to be as big or as strong but they do need to be fast.
So what does this mean for the Patriots? Personally I think that Belichick will modify his system. One of the things that is always said about BB is that he is forever a student of the game and that he is willing to evolve. I think that he realizes that the 04 Patriots wouldn't beat the 2010 Colts under today's rules and that change is in order.
Ever since Mr. Polian's rule changes, the Colts have arguably been the most successful club in the NFL and I do think that Belichick will try to mimic some of their success. The Patriots have already mimicked the Colt's high powered offensive approach with great success and now I think the same will happen to the defensive side of the ball (with some Belichickian wrinkles, of course). For 2010, don't expect the Patriots defense to look like your older brother's Patriots defense... the evolution that started in 2009 will continue and be more pronounced...
The views expressed in these FanPosts are not necessarily those of the writers or SBNation.
21 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I has been several years since the Pats played the style of D to which you are referring.
Since the rule changes, the Pats have seemingly adopted a far softer, zone-blitz style defense. I don’t think it’s fair to say that this “Belichick” defense has remained unchanged for 10 years.
I don’t think we can slap a label on BB’s defensive scheme and say he has to change it, because in truth, it changes from year to year and game to game, based on available personnel and that week’s particular opponent.
Lombardi assumes that the 2004 Patriots would have employed the exact same schemes, with the exact same personnel, given today’s rules, but I’d bet my life that that is a poor assumption. If today’s rules were in place in 2004, the defense would have been different, and nobody can say whether or not that team would defeat or lose to the 2010 Colts. It just isn’t a comparison you can engage in, because there are so many factors that would be completely and unpredictably different.
And let’s not forget that the OFFENSE would have been drastically different, too. It’s a sloppily constructed thought experiment to pit the 04 Pats D against the 10 Colts O, put today’s rules in place, and conjecture as to who would “win.”
I think we are all in agreement that the defense will change and has changed
The point I was trying to make is that I think the defense will change more towards the mold of the Colts and Saints rather than a team like the Jets or the 04 Pats… There is no dominating defense now and every NFL defense is now suspect to a great passing attack (The Pats put over 30 points on both the AFC Championship finalists) but a defense like the Colts and Saints just strikes me as the way to go from now on… not physically dominating, but geared towards fast pass rushing, gang tackling and creating turnovers…
The Colts and Saints bumped out the following defenses in this year’s playoffs: The Ravens, Jets and Vikings… arguably the most physical defenses in the league… I say try and imitate the winners and not the losers.
Lombardi’s statement just kind of brought to the forefront how different the NFL is now. Like any “this historical team would beat this historical team” argument, its not one to be taken serious but rather as an indication of how the league has changed… except the ’07 Patriots beating the ’72 Dolphins because well all know the ’07 Pats would destroy those Dolphins =]
Of course it could just be a good year for teams like the Colts and Saints
And they may not be indications of the future of the league or what defensive approach works best… but then you read things like this having been the highest rated NFL season ever and it just makes you wonder if this IS the future you know?
The Ravens and Jets had issues on the O side of the ball
And the Vikings were right in it until F-word did the cardinal sin of throwing across his body into double-coverage, etc etc.
More to the point – the refs actually allow a little more physicality in the playoff games, so the ability to play both styles is actually a benefit. Moving completely away from big, strong point of attack Pats defence to a strictly Colts-style quick, gang-tackling might work, but I suspect it wouldn’t. There are reasons why the Colts have failed as soon as they reach the playoffs after dominant regular season play. I suggest one of the reasons is that they can’t adjust to the more physical playoff football allowed by the referees. They get hit around a lot more than in the regular season and can’t adjust to it, because their roster is smaller, lighter, and not as physically dominating. I wonder if the Jets would have had more success if they hadn’t tried to open it up early, and instead ground down the Colts D with a steady dose of heavy, physical running. They made it an aerial game and naturally lost.
The other reason I don’t wish to change to a completely lighter, faster Colts-style defence is the durability issue. Smaller, lighter players the Colts like are historically less durable over a long season of full-contact – Dwight Freeney’s Superbowl-threatening injury included. Polian has recognised this and benched some for the dead-rubber late-regular season games, but then they risk getting rusty and losing game conditioning. It’s lose-lose, whereas the big, physical Pats D never seemed to lose players late in the season, and could rely on continuity because of it.
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
I like that
I think we need to look at the coaching staff here,it is a big concern of mine. It’s been a career builder here, come here for a year then move on. This revolving door should be able to reward coaches and keep them here to remain at the top.
This was what I seen this year a very predictable offense and no pressure on the QB. Also a poor 2nd half of the game except the final minutes of the Colt’s game. Which I believe Faulk bobbled the ball and regained control and came down in bounds on slow motion replay that should have been challenged.The ref that called that one was looking at his back check it out on you tube!
The Colts game...
…was all Belichick’s fault. He was behind the pass on 3rd and two, he was behind the “let’s barely get the 2 yard gain” on 4th and 2, he wasted the challenge earlier and left us with none left (always leave one until the 2 minute warning, unless it’s a definite win. Which it wasn’t).
Going for it when it was 4th and 2 was the right choice. What led us into the 4th and 2 was a series of bad decisions.
Saints D-coordinator Greg Williams
wasn’t backing off any of his earlier statements about wanting his team to hit Manning, knock him down and disrupt his game on Sunday. Good luck to him on that.
A physical defense that can pull it off will still win against most teams not led by the top three elite QBs, who excel in getting the ball off quickly, and effectively, against the blitz. If the Patriots could have pressured Brees into throwing even a tad earlier, Wilhite doesn’t get targeted and burned so deep so often in that game.
A physical defense requires players having more discipline. The D has to make sure all the bumping and hitting stays within that 5-yard boundary, and those PI penalties are game-changing defense-killers and morale-suckers.
I don’t believe BB is so stubborn that he’ll keep sticking with something that doesn’t work. He’s pretty savvy about what’s worked around the league on teams like the Colts, what schemes have worked against Brady, and will modify the defense – and offense – depending on the strengths and abilities of the core personnel on hand at the start of the season.
Keep the faith!
There is a change, but then its hard to explain last year
The Steelers defense is not that much different than the Pats of 03/04. The Steelers were a bit faster, the Pats a bit more versatile. Pretty similar. Great defenses can still win. The jets rode great defense to the Title game. Last year, you had two great defenses meet in the AFC Title Game.
Also, the rules were changed before 2004, so the 2004 Pats played with the new rules.
EVH+DLR=BFFs........ God I Hope So!!
That's my point
great defenses have won (or at least reached) the Super Bowl since the “new” rules were put in place.
EVH+DLR=BFFs........ God I Hope So!!
dont know about that
look @ the 07 pats, 08 cards, and 09 colts.
Non Sibi Sed Patriae.
i love my ZX-6r Kawasaki.
I bleed Scarlet and Grey...A Buckeye for Life
'07 Pats lost to a good D
Eli Manning isn’t Peyton. That D got him to the Superbowl, and really did win it – 5 sacks on Brady and a half-dozen other hits meant he wasn’t Brady-like. Helmet-ball might get all the press, but that was the fewest points Brady and the O had achieved all year, and that’s solely down to a good D – there weren’t misfires by the Pats, it was good play by the Giants.
Same with the Steelers last year – they rode a very good D into the ‘08/’09 Championship. They have all the same personnel on O this year (in fact, it’s improvemed – they had a healthy Mendenhall), yet they failed to even make the playoffs. Why? Polamalu was out, the D was a little stretched because of it, and their linebacking corps wasn’t up to their usual standard because they had to make the plays Polamalu would’ve been guaranteed to do.
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
Not to mention
that the ’07 Pats defense was also good, often looked as “underrated”
A LO PROFUNDOOO...NOO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NOO...DIGANLE QUE NO A ESA PELOTA!! GANAN LOS CACHORROS DE CHICAGO!!
by Azul Cachorro on Feb 7, 2010 11:25 PM EST up reply actions
To put this argument to bed
The Saints were running a Pats-style (or near enough to) 3-4 D in the Superbowl. So-so corners, very good safeties and a versatile LB corps. And they won. So yeah, I think Pats-style Ds still work.
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
Yep. We just don't have the personnel for our own Defense.
by Richard Hill on Feb 10, 2010 11:56 PM EST up reply actions
Sad, isn't it?
I suppose a lot of it is competition for those guys in the draft/free-agency/trade market. Now everyone’s running a 3-4, so big nose tackles/DEs, every-down 6’4 outside linebackers and shutdown safeties are de rigeur. In the copycat league, every team will try to copy the Saints… so even more player-finding issues. Damn.
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
by Comedic.Sans on Feb 11, 2010 3:51 AM EST up reply actions
Ship us up some rugby guys stat!
My life has been a trivial pursuit. Trivia: where three roads meet.
The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.
by SlotMachinePlayer on Feb 11, 2010 8:06 AM EST up reply actions
Hmm, TEs and DEs, eh?
I can think of a few who could be RBs and LBs too. I’ll make up a list and perhaps make it into a story.
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
by Comedic.Sans on Feb 12, 2010 4:37 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Media requests: Please email patspulpit at gmail.com
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
