No Mega Playmakers on D....True? Flaw?

[DarrylStingley]

As I consider whether this Pats team is really going to do what I think it's going to do -- win the damn Super Bowl -- I wonder whether a team without a bona fide mega star on D is flawed.

1. Am I right? Are there no mega stars?

The only players who could fit that bill in my view are Mayo and Seymour. Mayo fell off a bit after the Jets game last year and needs a full year of dominance to be considered a true mega performer. Seymour has been on the downswing the last few years.

2. Does it matter? Maybe not. The 01 team had Ty Law. The 03 team had Seymour and Law and Harrison. The 04 team had the same guys. McGinest was a pretty big peformer.

3. It seems to me that the 09 Pats have a lot of strong players but no mega starts.

Discuss this Patriots football related issue, please.

 

[TommyD420]

I think Mayo (who did drop off a bit after the Jets game, but that can be rookie-wall related) would be my first choice. I think Thomas, should he stay healthy, would be my second.

My sleeper is Merriweather.

 

[midgar8784]

As I consider whether this Pats team is really going to do what I think it's going to do -- win the damn Super Bowl -- I wonder whether a team without a bona fide mega star on D is flawed.

1. Am I right? Are there no mega stars?

The only players who could fit that bill in my view are Mayo and Seymour. Mayo fell off a bit after the Jets game last year and needs a full year of dominance to be considered a true mega performer. Seymour has been on the downswing the last few years.

2. Does it matter? Maybe not. The 01 team had Ty Law. The 03 team had Seymour and Law and Harrison. The 04 team had the same guys. McGinest was a pretty big peformer.

3. It seems to me that the 09 Pats have a lot of strong players but no mega starts.

Discuss this Patriots football related issue, please.

It depends, is AD a star? Wilfork? Seymour? Mayo? Everyone else is just really young which is what everyone in the media was screaming we needed, so..

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I don't care if we have zero mega-stars. As long as the D is very good. Doesn't have to be '04 great, just very good.

Our Offense will be great. They'll be enough of a cushion to win it all.

 

[Oswlek]

As I consider whether this Pats team is really going to do what I think it's going to do -- win the damn Super Bowl -- I wonder whether a team without a bona fide mega star on D is flawed.

1. Am I right? Are there no mega stars?

The only players who could fit that bill in my view are Mayo and Seymour. Mayo fell off a bit after the Jets game last year and needs a full year of dominance to be considered a true mega performer. Seymour has been on the downswing the last few years.

2. Does it matter? Maybe not. The 01 team had Ty Law. The 03 team had Seymour and Law and Harrison. The 04 team had the same guys. McGinest was a pretty big peformer.

3. It seems to me that the 09 Pats have a lot of strong players but no mega starts.

Discuss this Patriots football related issue, please.

You are right that playmakers are needed, you can't win a championship with just competent guys out there. I'm not sure mega-stars is the best way to describe NE's playmakers, though.

Did anyone consider Law a mega-star playmaker in 2000? Or Bruschi? Or Vrable? Wille Mac? About the only guy that fit that bill was Milloy, and he was the one of the bunch who didn't see another SB with the team. Hell, Tebucky made tons of plays that year.

This defense has plenty of guys who can be playmakers. At this point I'll be surprised if Meriweather doesn't show some premier stuff. On top of that AD and Mayo are near certainties to make some big plays and at least one of the CBs is likely to step into that role. I think you will be surprised at what this defense can do when the coaches aren't covering up for inexperience and incompetence.

 

[Michigan Dave]

Mayo is ready to dominate. Everyone I've talked to as well as the "experts" that I've read has said he's the next big thing at LB. I agree.

Meriweather is going to be a stud. This year people will know his name. Ed Reed-esque.

 

[Oswlek]

Mayo is ready to dominate. Everyone I've talked to as well as the "experts" that I've read has said he's the next big thing at LB. I agree.

Meriweather is going to be a stud. This year people will know his name. Ed Reed-esque.

Does "everyone" include people on the team?

 

[WisColtFan7]

Our Offense will be great. They'll be enough of a cushion to win it all.

This was the argument being made by John Seibel on ESPN Radio yesterday. He was saying that NE should run away with the AFCE because they should put up in his words "video game numbers on offense".

 

[DarrylStingley]

I think you need a dominaitng D, too. That said, the Pats could be that. But relying on the offense to be 2007 like or video game like puts a lot of pressure on them.

The Pats SB winning teams were all much more balanced.

 

[Michigan Dave]

Does "everyone" include people on the team?

Well, only one person on the team. Mainly other former college players, some in the NFL, that I talk to about this stuff.

 

[babalu87]

Mayo is ready to dominate. Everyone I've talked to as well as the "experts" that I've read has said he's the next big thing at LB. I agree.

Meriweather is going to be a stud. This year people will know his name. Ed Reed-esque.

Thats pretty bold

Ed Reed = Future Hall of Famer

If Merriweather actually holds on to 5 picks count me as suprised.

 

[midgar8784]

I think you need a dominaitng D, too. That said, the Pats could be that. But relying on the offense to be 2007 like or video game like puts a lot of pressure on them.

The Pats SB winning teams were all much more balanced.

eh kinda...2001 the defense came on late but was not dominating during the season by any means, the offense was just better than it had been but not lights out, 2003, great defense, no running game to speak of, 2004, good running game, injured secondary, not dominating on defense except up front. I think we have done it in most ways. There was no reason except for a miracle drive that the pats failed in 2007, so it could have been done, and the defense was not as good as I think it is now, I dont think the defense would ever be able to reac what the offense was or maybe is now.

 

[Oswlek]

I think you need a dominaitng D, too. That said, the Pats could be that. But relying on the offense to be 2007 like or video game like puts a lot of pressure on them.

The Pats SB winning teams were all much more balanced.

You don't need a dominating D at all. Even in 2001 they weren't dominant, they just made plays when they had to, which is why they were 24th in yards allowed and 6 in points allowed. This sounds more like a personal preferance to me.

And, as I think we discussed before, the 2001 and 2003 teams went into those years coming off worse defensive seasons than NE had last year. Did you feel they were laden with top tier, playmaking talent at the beginning of those seasons, or only after they proved it on the field? What is it about this roster that says they cannot do the same?

 

[Michigan Dave]

This was the argument being made by John Seibel on ESPN Radio yesterday. He was saying that NE should run away with the AFCE because they should put up in his words "video game numbers on offense".

We should run away with the AFCE because atriots! is still on the side of our helmet.

The video game numbers will allow us to run away with the AFC, win the Super Bowl, and keep the "0" in the L column.

 

[DarrylStingley]

The 01 D got better as the season progressed, did it not? What I mean is that the numbers reflected a tough beginning.

And all three SB winning defenses were dominating at times. They had the ability to rise up and make very big plays. The 01 team didn't let the Bus run on them in the playoffs. The 03 team embarassed the hell out of Peyton in the playoffs. The 04 team did it again, and was very good in the SB against the Iggles.

So, true, none of those teams was the 86 Bears on D. But all had their moments. And all had some real playmakers on D.

My point is not that this year's team does not have that. My point was really just to spur the discussion.

And no, I don't buy that last year's D was as good as the SB winning Ds. The numbers might say that, I dunno, but last year was defined, for me at least, by the utter inability to get off the field on third down. That Jets game when Dead Fahve won it in OT was an utter abomination in that regard. The SB winning teams didn't share that flaw.

 

[Michigan Dave]

The 01 D got better as the season progressed, did it not? What I mean is that the numbers reflected a tough beginning.

And all three SB winning defenses were dominating at times. They had the ability to rise up and make very big plays. The 01 team didn't let the Bus run on them in the playoffs. The 03 team embarassed the hell out of Peyton in the playoffs. The 04 team did it again, and was very good in the SB against the Iggles.

So, true, none of those teams was the 86 Bears on D. But all had their moments. And all had some real playmakers on D.

My point is not that this year's team does not have that. My point was really just to spur the discussion.

And no, I don't buy that last year's D was as good as the SB winning Ds. The numbers might say that, I dunno, but last year was famous, for me at least, by the utter inability to get off the field on third down. That Jets game when Dead Fahve won it in OT was an utter abomination in that regard. The SB winning teams didn't share that flaw.

I wouldn't say last year's D was like the SB teams for that reason. I would say 07's was, though. That NYJ OT was an abortion. 3rd and goddamn 15.

 

[Oswlek]

The 01 D got better as the season progressed, did it not? What I mean is that the numbers reflected a tough beginning.

And all three SB winning defenses were dominating at times. They had the ability to rise up and make very big plays. The 01 team didn't let the Bus run on them in the playoffs. The 03 team embarassed the hell out of Peyton in the playoffs. The 04 team did it again, and was very good in the SB against the Iggles.

So, true, none of those teams was the 86 Bears on D. But all had their moments. And all had some real playmakers on D.

My point is not that this year's team does not have that. My point was really just to spur the discussion.

And no, I don't buy that last year's D was as good as the SB winning Ds. The numbers might say that, I dunno, but last year was defined, for me at least, by the utter inability to get off the field on third down. That Jets game when Dead Fahve won it in OT was an utter abomination in that regard. The SB winning teams didn't share that flaw.

I never said that last years was as good, I said that it was better than 2000 and 2002. In both of those cases the team made some major overhauls and the D improved, which is the same thing this team did except they are starting from a better position.

 

[DarrylStingley]

I never said that last years was as good, I said that it was better than 2000 and 2002. In both of those cases the team made some major overhauls and the D improved, which is the same thing this team did except they are starting from a better position.

No argument with that. Then again, 2000 was 5-11 and 2002 was 9-7....neither team was any good.

In any event, I hope that the collective answer thus far that they have some players who can be big time playmakers is right.

My eyes don't see it AT ALL with Merriwether but damn, I'd love to be wrong.

Can Burgess be a big time player for the Pats?

Notwithstanding two blah pre-season games, I say yes.

 

[midgar8784]

The 01 D got better as the season progressed, did it not? What I mean is that the numbers reflected a tough beginning.

And all three SB winning defenses were dominating at times. They had the ability to rise up and make very big plays. The 01 team didn't let the Bus run on them in the playoffs. The 03 team embarassed the hell out of Peyton in the playoffs. The 04 team did it again, and was very good in the SB against the Iggles.

So, true, none of those teams was the 86 Bears on D. But all had their moments. And all had some real playmakers on D.

My point is not that this year's team does not have that. My point was really just to spur the discussion.

And no, I don't buy that last year's D was as good as the SB winning Ds. The numbers might say that, I dunno, but last year was defined, for me at least, by the utter inability to get off the field on third down. That Jets game when Dead Fahve won it in OT was an utter abomination in that regard. The SB winning teams didn't share that flaw.

You dont think this year's team has what? The ability to rise up in a game? I dont see anymore playmakers on those teams..what did we have 2 pro bowlers? 2004, the secondary consisted of a undrafted free agent rookie and earthwind moreland. The 01 team also gave up 426 yards passing in the superbowl, no we held them on points, well until the 4th quarter, the 03 team did embarrass manning but got embarrased in the superbowl giving up 29 points to a pretty mediocre carolina team. Harrison was good against the eagles, but giving up that late td made the game more nervous than it was. The difference in all those years and now is this team can put up 45 on you.

 

[DarrylStingley]

You dont think this year's team has what? The ability to rise up in a game? I dont see anymore playmakers on those teams..what did we have 2 pro bowlers? 2004, the secondary consisted of a undrafted free agent rookie and earthwind moreland. The 01 team also gave up 426 yards passing in the superbowl, no we held them on points, well until the 4th quarter, the 03 team did embarrass manning but got embarrased in the superbowl giving up 29 points to a pretty mediocre carolina team. Harrison was good against the eagles, but giving up that late td made the game more nervous than it was. The difference in all those years and now is this team can put up 45 on you.

Dude, I wrote that I did not know if this is team has big time playmakers or the ability to rise up when it needs to. Last year's team did not really have that. The continual problems on third down were a testimony to not having that.

As to this year, I'm just asking the question.

No agenda.

I want to know if people think we have some real big time playmakers.

Some apparently do think that. And I hope they are right.