For those who say our defensive scheme is too "vanilla"

[Muck]

Originally posted by zachseau13
So last year the best defense was the simplest - Tampa Bay, two years ago the championship defense was, arguably, the most complex - the Patriots.

The Patriots shut down a team - the Rams - that lit up the Dolphins earlier in the year like a pinball machine on full tilt

Excellent point.

The Patriots threw so many different looks at the Rams, they were dumbfounded. New England felt the Rams were a finesse team who couldn't play rough. So they adjusted accordingly and beat them up every chance they got.

They also gambled effectively on the arrogance of Mike Martz. They said, "we dare you to throw on us". And Martz took the bait, alienating Marshall Faulk.

The difference between the Patriots and the Rams was.....the Patriots D adjusted and the Ram O, like our defense, didn't.

It works both ways.

 

[relive1972]

Originally posted by DeDolfan


IMO, your point makes the most sense so far. That fact that we dominate pretty much everything at home and play like panzies on the road shows a real problem. Granted, playing on the road will affect you somewhat but not like night and day. I mean, if it's not the talent or the schemes, what else is there left??

The 2nd half offense in road games failed to sustain drives, giving the opponent more opportunity to score. Any defense that stays on the field too long is going to eventually break. If the offense kept attacking in the 2nd half like they did in the 1st half last season on the road, I think the defense wouldn't have allowed the comebacks they did.

 

[Merman]

Originally posted by Muck


The difference between the Patriots and the Rams was.....the Patriots D adjusted and the Ram O, like our defense, didn't.

It works both ways.

If I remember that game correctly the Rams came from behind to tie in the second half. The Pat's great complicated defense broke and choked at the end. That happens to any defense if they are on the field too long. The Pats won because they put up points at the end.

 

[zach13]

Originally posted by Merman


If I remember that game correctly the Rams came from behind to tie in the second half. The Pat's great complicated defense broke and choked at the end. That happens to any defense if they are on the field too long. The Pats won because they put up points at the end.

Here's the way NFL.COM remembers it:

The game was really won by the defense, which held the NFL's best offense without a touchdown until less than 10 minutes was left in the game. And even as the Patriots played with five, six and seven defensive backs, they got pressure on Warner from Willie McGinest, Mike Vrabel, Richard Seymour and Roman Phifer, among other big guys.

"They say it's the best track team in the National Football League, but I never saw anybody win a 100-yard dash with someone standing in front of them," said New England cornerback Ty Law, whose 47-yard interception return gave New England its first touchdown.

Defense was the answer all year for the Patriots, who started 0-2 and lost Bledsoe to a chest injury.

 

[XoPhinsoX]

That year NE had their D moving around ALL the time.

They had some creative things going.

 

[Merman]

Originally posted by zachseau13


Here's the way NFL.COM remembers it:

The game was really won by the defense, which held the NFL's best offense without a touchdown until less than 10 minutes was left in the game.

So I'm wrong??? The Rams didn't tie the game with less than 10 minutes to go??? The Pat's didn't win because they scored a field goal at the end???

If I am wrong then the Fin's D would have won the game last year in NE if the offense had scored one more time??? Yet many on this board say the Dolphin D choked last year with 11 minutes to go. That it didn't matter that the D held em all game until the final 11 minutes. So if I understand it, the D wins the game if the offense scores enough points to win but the D loses the game if the points aren't scored???

 

[zach13]

Originally posted by Merman



So I'm wrong??? The Rams didn't tie the game with less than 10 minutes to go??? The Pat's didn't win because they scored a field goal at the end???

If I am wrong then the Fin's D would have won the game last year in NE if the offense had scored one more time??? Yet many on this board say the Dolphin D choked last year with 11 minutes to go. That it didn't matter that the D held em all game until the final 11 minutes. So if I understand it, the D wins the game if the offense scores enough points to win but the D loses the game if the points aren't scored???

Your comparison is deeply flawed.

The New England defense allowed 17 total points against the #1 offense in the NFL, an offense that had averaged 31.4 points per game, an offense that had put up 42 points on the Miami defense.
By any account, the New England defense won them that game.

You are comparing that performance to that of the Dolphin defense surrendering 27 points against the New England Patriots, whose offense was ranked 21st in the NFL, and who averaged 23 points per game.

 

[Merman]

Originally posted by zachseau13


Your comparison is deeply flawed.

The New England defense allowed 17 total points against the #1 offense in the NFL, an offense that had averaged 31.4 points per game, an offense that had put up 42 points on the Miami defense.
By any account, the New England defense won them that game.

You are comparing that performance to that of the Dolphin defense surrendering 27 points against the New England Patriots, whose offense was ranked 21st in the NFL, and who averaged 23 points per game.

You are missing the point entirely. I am not comparing teams and their performances compared to each other. I am comparing games where the defenses held until the end of the game. In one game the offense came up with points to win, in the other game the offense did not. The point is that neither the offense or defense is to blame individually for losing a game. They play as a team and win or lose no matter whether the score of the game is high or low.

 

[Sherif]

You both make good points statistically. Merman is Right in his contrast as to why NE won and the Phins didn't. Against the Rams, the Pats sealed the deal against a charging Ram team with a late Field Goal. They did the same thing against the Raiders the game before. The Phins failed to do anything on offense against the Pats in the second half. They also failed to produce any offense against Minn in the second half. The Phins need to turn this second half conservativeness into agressive play on both sides of the ball especially on offense on the road.

 

[DeDolfan]

Originally posted by relive1972


The 2nd half offense in road games failed to sustain drives, giving the opponent more opportunity to score. Any defense that stays on the field too long is going to eventually break. If the offense kept attacking in the 2nd half like they did in the 1st half last season on the road, I think the defense wouldn't have allowed the comebacks they did.

That's part of what I'm getting at. The other is the coaching attitude, ie, jump out with a lead and then lay down and let the D hold'em the rest of the way. That way of thinking only sets you up for disaster to strike, as it proved itself already to us. The coaches have to let the O play the whole game as well, not just to the point of getting a lead.