D-Nucleus Rank: Pats 18th Overall

[TKO]

A piece written on the official NFL site ranks the best nucleus of Defensive talent by team and puts the Seahawks at #1 with the Pats at #18.

That pretty much sums up what I've said about the job Belichick has done rebuilding the D over the last five years compared to Pete Carroll.

It's opinion, but it's based on a combination of fact and a perception of what other teams have in place.

I think the Pats D will be much better next year if they add a few missing pieces through the draft or free agency...that being said...it shouldn't have taken six years IMO.

Seattle Seahawks boast NFL's best defensive nucleus - NFL.com

 

[JDM]

So they're top 10 I'm scoring defense despite playing almost the entire year without their two best defensive players (both of whom are very near the top of their respective positions), and they're 18th?

 

[TKO]

So they're top 10 I'm scoring defense despite playing almost the entire year without their two best defensive players (both of whom are very near the top of their respective positions), and they're 18th?

I think you're talking apples and oranges. The article is more about the assembled talent in place while you're talking more about what Belichick can do with Xs and Os.

The question he tried to answer was:

If I am the best coaching candidate on the market, which defensive personnel would I most want to take over?

 

[JDM]

And if the personnel are capable of having a top ten scoring defense without their two best players and with the next best player impaired by injury almost the entire year as well, there are 17 teams a coach would rather work with? I don't buy it.

BB is a good coach, no doubt, and capable of some very impressive things, but taking below average talent and losing their stars, then still being top 10 in scoring defense? That's too much credit for his coaching ability. No one ever has been that schematically brilliant.

 

[Bruschi_Warrior]

A piece written on the official NFL site ranks the best nucleus of Defensive talent by team and puts the Seahawks at #1 with the Pats at #18.

That pretty much sums up what I've said about the job Belichick has done rebuilding the D over the last five years compared to Pete Carroll.

It's opinion, but it's based on a combination of fact and a perception of what other teams have in place.

I think the Pats D will be much better next year if they add a few missing pieces through the draft or free agency...that being said...it shouldn't have taken six years IMO.

Seattle Seahawks boast NFL's best defensive nucleus - NFL.com

Krafty - I would say that list is just about right with one exception. The Jets do not have a better personnel grouping than the Patriots. With that said - there is no doubt that all of the NFC West teams have better defensive personnel than the Patriots (I am glad that the Rams and obviously the Cardinals were not neglected on this list), as well as the Panthers, Chiefs, Browns (another underrated group who simply needs a better quarterback and running back to take their team to the next level), Ravens, Lions (their defensive front 7 in my view is top 5; they have secondary issues and an issue with their offensive consistency), Bills (better than the Patriots), Buccaneers (very underrated group), Bengals, Eagles and Saints.

I would rank the Patriots at #15 at this point and ahead of the Jets, Packers and Texans. They will need to draft a defensive tackle in order to continue to provide a stable run defense presence with Wilfork getting up in years.

 

[rehone]

This is just another post in a nauseating and continual attempt to prove Seattle is better at drafting. It is a tired, overdone, overblown, and silly argument but even attempting to argue the point will result in trouble.

Drafting is a team process and the better you are the more difficult it is to acquire talent in the draft or even in free agency. The only thing that counts is team record and the Pats win that hands down. I do love the talent on Seattle's defense but how long can they keep it together and besides Seattle has a pass rush problem since they are behind Pats in sacks and since Pats have a pass rush problem according to TKO the Seahawks must have a pass rush problem.

 

[Bruschi_Warrior]

This is just another post in a nauseating and continual attempt to prove Seattle is better at drafting. It is a tired, overdone, overblown, and silly argument but even attempting to argue the point will result in trouble.

Drafting is a team process and the better you are the more difficult it is to acquire talent in the draft or even in free agency. The only thing that counts is team record and the Pats win that hands down. I do love the talent on Seattle's defense but how long can they keep it together and besides Seattle has a pass rush problem since they are behind Pats in sacks and since Pats have a pass rush problem according to TKO the Seahawks must have a pass rush problem.

Rehone - they are better at drafting and their draft outcomes is the reason why they are the #1 team in the NFL and in the toughest division in the league.

 

[JDM]

They had a lot more chips to start with. They should do better. They are one of 2-3 teams you can even argue have done a comparable job at drafting given what they had to work with, though.

 

[Bruschi_Warrior]

They had a lot more chips to start with. They should do better. They are one of 2-3 teams you can even argue have done a comparable job at drafting given what they had to work with, though.

The Seahawks had more chips to start with?

Since Carroll has been the head coach, they have drafted the following defensive personnel:

2010 - Earl Thomas (Pick #14, All-Pro, Potential DPOY), Walter Thurmond (starting cornerback with Browner out, slot corner when Browner is on the field, 4th round), Kam Chancellor (5th round, starting safety)

2011 - KJ Wright (Round 4, starting linebacker), Richard Sherman (Round 5, possibly the best cornerback in the NFL)

2012 - Bruce Irvin (1st round draft pick, starting defensive end, a very good situational pass rusher and former Briz Binkie), Bobby Wagner (Round 2, a sure-fire top 10 linebacker in the NFL), Jaye Howard (4th round pick, now a top reserve with the Chiefs)

2013 - Jordan Hill and Jesse Williams (Hill is the top reserve defensive tackle on their roster and Williams should be a starting defensive tackle for them in the next year or two).

I count seven starters (Thomas, Thurmond, Chancellor, Wright, Sherman, Irvin, Wagner) since Carroll has been named head coach on the defensive side of the ball and this doesn't include their other draft picks who are starting as well or are viewed as bright and promising prospects (i.e. Russell Wilson, Golden Tate, James Carpenter, Robert Turbin, Christian Michael, Anthony McCoy, and Kris Durham (now with Detroit and looks like a #2 wide receiver).

Including Wilson and Tate, the Seahawks have drafted 9 of their 22 starters since 2010 with seven of them on the defensive side of the ball.

The Seahawks have clearly drafted well and their defense was built based on Carroll's drafts and not because they had "chips" to start with.

 

[JDM]

Draft chips. The Seahawks started with much more draft value to work with.

 

[Bruschi_Warrior]

Draft chips. The Seahawks started with much more draft value to work with.

Do you really have any idea what you are talking about because you have not shown once how the Seahawks had less "draft value" than the Patriots.

Half of the Seahawks defensive personnel were drafted after the 3rd round.

 

[JDM]

I said they started with more, not less. Their starting draft picks were higher. That really isn't complicated. Based on their starting draft position and the typical scoring chart, they should have got 1.5+ times the value New England did. Did they get more, less than that? It's debatable. Can any other team even be in the discussion with New England for actual contributions from their draft straight up, let alone with New England drafting at the bottom of the round each year? Not really.

Seattle has drafted well, certainly. They had much more to work with, though. Their 6th overall pick and their starting picks in that draft, from the typical value chart, were more than twice as much to work with as New England started with the same year. That's the biggest discrepancy, sure, but they have had a higher draft position every year since, as well.

 

[Bruschi_Warrior]

I said they started with more, not less. Their starting draft picks were higher. That really isn't complicated. Based on their starting draft position and the typical scoring chart, they should have got 1.5+ times the value New England did. Did they get more, less than that? It's debatable. Can any other team even be in the discussion with New England for actual contributions from their draft straight up, let alone with New England drafting at the bottom of the round each year? Not really.

Seattle has drafted well, certainly. They had much more to work with, though. Their 6th overall pick and their starting picks in that draft, from the typical value chart, were more than twice as much to work with as New England started with the same year. That's the biggest discrepancy, sure, but they have had a higher draft position every year since, as well.

Draft value, whether they had more or less, is irrelevant when you look at who was drafted since 2010 and are either starting or playing a considerable role.

The Patriots had equal opportunity to draft a number of the guys that are starting for the Seahawks. The only players that the Patriots could not draft was Thomas and Irvin.

 

[JDM]

Your premise is laughable. No team has every pick work out. Higher draft picks to work with allow you more chances at better guys. The draft is a crapshoot, and higher picks means, on average, consistently and significantly better results.

 

[Bruschi_Warrior]

Your premise is laughable. No team has every pick work out. Higher draft picks to work with allow you more chances at better guys. The draft is a crapshoot, and higher picks means, on average, consistently and significantly better results.

As is yours Mr. Know It All.

 

[JDM]

Higher draft picks = better results is laughable?

You're going to need to be more creative than that if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Bruschi_Warrior]

Higher draft picks = better results is laughable?

You're going to need to be more creative than that if you want to be taken seriously.

Yes - higher draft picks equating to better results is absolutely laughable.

 

[Bruschi_Warrior]

And there you have it.

YDF

 

[JDM]

Yes - higher draft picks equating to better results is absolutely laughable.

Arguing straight up facts is the best you can do?

If you give the same GM even a 5 spot move up across the draft, they will have demonstrably more success. This is not an opinion. This is not debatable. This is straight up, 100% undeniable fact.

 

[TKO]

This is just another post in a nauseating and continual attempt to prove Seattle is better at drafting. It is a tired, overdone, overblown, and silly argument but even attempting to argue the point will result in trouble.

Drafting is a team process and the better you are the more difficult it is to acquire talent in the draft or even in free agency. The only thing that counts is team record and the Pats win that hands down. I do love the talent on Seattle's defense but how long can they keep it together and besides Seattle has a pass rush problem since they are behind Pats in sacks and since Pats have a pass rush problem according to TKO the Seahawks must have a pass rush problem.

My little personal troll...