5 Facts About Curtis Granderson

Most people know that Curtis Granderson's 2007 season is one of four seasons to belong to the 20-20-20-20 Club (20 homers, doubles, triples and stolen bases in the same season) along with Frank Schulte's 1911 season, Willie Mays' 1957 season and Jimmy Rollins' 2007 season. They also know that Granderson has a reputation for being an incredibly nice guy. Let's look a little bit further and get five more facts about one of the newest New York Yankees.

1. Granderson's 2007 and 2008 seasons stand out significantly from the rest of his career. His 2009 season opened doubts that Granderson has already peaked, which wouldn't be out of place given that his 2008 season was his age-27 season (typically a player's best season statistically). In 2007 and 2008, Granderson hit .292/.363/.524, for an OPS of .887. In his other seasons (2004-2006 & 2009) he hit .256/.329/.450, for an OPS of .778, or more than a 100 point difference.

2. In 2007, Granderson hit fastballs incredibly well. According to FanGraphs' wFB stat, he was 31.7 runs above average versus fastballs, good for ninth in all of baseball. In 2008, he dropped down to a respectable 14.9, good for 46th place. But last season, he fell all the way to 1.2, or 115th out of 153 qualifying players.

3. Defensively, Granderson is a big upgrade from Melky Cabrera. For his career, Cabrera has a Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR) per 150 games of -2.4, while Granderson's mark is 5.2, almost a full win better. Granderson's +17 mark in center field was the third best in 2009 (Brett Gardner was the best Yankee at +11) and his +26 mark from 2007-2009 ranked seventh among center fielders. Cabrera did not factor in the top 10 of either leaderboard. Also, Granderson finished third in the 2009 Fielding Bible Awards for center field.

4. Among the 132 batters that had at least 150 plate appearances versus left-handed pitching in 2009, Granderson's isolated power (ISO) was the third lowest (only Scott Podsednik and Emilio Bonafacio were lower), his on-base percentage was second lowest (only Stephen Drew was lower) and his slugging percentage was the lowest overall by a wide margin.

5. Granderson is hard to double up. He has never grounded into more than seven double plays in a season, and last season he had the best GIDP% in the Majors, at a minuscule 0.94%. (minimum 50 GIDP opportunities) He grounded into only one double play in 106 opportunities. To put that in context, 132 players had 100 or more GIDP opportunities, and of that group, the next lowest GIDP total was four, by Grady Sizemore and Luke Scott.

Next up in the "5 Facts" series: Javier Vazquez
Next post: My 2009 "Aboveground" & "Underground" Mix CD's explained, coming Wednesday or Thursday

30 Things I Learned Reading the 2010 Bill James Handbook

The Bill James Handbook, published each year by the good folks at Baseball Information Systems (BIS), is filled with endless stats and information. As James states toward the back of the book, it is designed to be a book of facts, a record of the season. The validity of some of the information may be questionable to some, including myself, but the breadth of the information presented is difficult to find anywhere else, and as such it makes the book an incredibly useful, and fun tool.

Below are 30 fun morsels of information I parceled out while reading/skimming the 2010 edition the past week and a half. For most, if not all of these, I looked at the data in-depth. In other words, I tried not to just regurgitate the information presented in the book. I kept it to 30, but there is so much more info in the book that I didn't even examine in-depth, such as the park indices, career register, the instant replay analysis and the manager's record. One could really keep themselves occupied with this book for a long, long time.

1. Eight teams had a winning road record. Six made the playoffs.
2. The NL West was the only division that did not play any games on turf.
3. Six teams beat an opponent 14 or more times: Tampa beat Baltimore 14 times, Detroit beat Cleveland 14 times, Seattle beat Oakland 14 times, the Dodgers beat Colorado 14 times, Philadelphia beat Washington 15 times and Boston beat Baltimore 16 times.
4. Two teams won 21 games in a month - Colorado did it in June and the Yankees did it in August.
5. 10 teams hit more home runs on the road than at home.
6. Seven teams had a team stolen base success rate of 75% or higher.
7. Only three teams grounded into less than 100 double plays - Arizona, Philadelphia and Texas.
8. Seven of the eight playoff teams were in the top 15 in "baserunning net runs gained," a stat that totals the number of runs gained while running the bases during play with the number of runs gained from stolen base attempts.
9. Michael Bourn, Rajai Davis, Ian Kinsler and Chase Utley were the only players that were +15 or greater in both baserunning and stolen base gain.
10. In addition to those four, Jason Bartlett, Brett Gardner, Torii Hunter, Matthew Kemp, Nick Punto, Willy Taveras, Jayson Werth and Randy Winn were all +10 or greater in both categories.
11. The Wests were the best baserunning divisions, the Centrals the worst and the Easts in between. Averaging the net gain on the bases of the teams by division, I find that the AL West had an average net gain of 56.75 runs, with the NL West second at 46.2. Then came the NL East at 28.6 and the AL East at 26.8, and then the AL Central at -2.0, and the NL Central dead last at -3.66.
12. Only eight pitchers had a "leverage index" of greater than or equal to 2.0 - David Aardsma, Heath Bell, Brian Fuentes, Brad Lidge, Jonathan Papelbon, Scot Shields, Joakim Soria and Brian Wilson (minimum two games pitched).
13. Only eight pitchers recorded three or more "tough saves," as defined by BIS - Bell, Ryan Franklin, Mike MacDougal, Papelbon, Chad Qualls, Mariano Rivera, Soria and Wilson.
14. 43 relief pitchers inherited 40 or more runners last season. Of that group, Jason Bergmann was the stingiest, as he allowed just 14% of his inherited runners to score.
15. 16 players had 10 or more pinch hits in 2009.
16. Five players hit three or more pinch hit home runs in 2009.
17. BIS has an unique way of tracking "manufactured runs." According to their totals, the Angels led baseball in this category, as they manufactured 50 more runs than their opponents. The Royals were at the opposite end of the spectrum. They manufactured 63 less runs than their opponents.
18. Nick Markakis had the most at-bats versus left-handed pitching, with 264.
19. Ryan Braun had the most at-bats versus right-handed pitching, with 516.
20. Prince Fielder, Raul Ibanez and Hideki Matsui led MLB with 13 home runs as left-handed batters against left-handed pitching.
21. Mark Reynolds led MLB with 36 homers as a right-handed batter versus right-handed pitching.
22. 23 hitters hit 10 or more home runs versus both left-handed and right-handed pitching. 12 of them were right-handed hitters (Jason Bay, Michael Cuddyer, Mark DeRosa, Aaron Hill, Ian Kinsler, Paul Konerko, Albert Pujols, Juan Rivera, Cody Ross, Troy Tulowitzki, Justin Upton and Werth), 10 were left-handed (Russell Branyan, Robinson Cano, Fielder, Adrian Gonzalez, Ibanez, Matsui, Justin Morneau, Carlos Pena, Luke Scott and Utley) and one was a switch hitter (Victor Martinez).
23. Only Joe Mauer and Kevin Youkilis were top 10 in the AL in on-base percentage versus both left-handed and right-handed pitching. In the NL, only Nick Johnson and Pujols were in the same group.
24. Outlier alert! BIS has a stat called BPS, which is batting average + slugging percentage. On pitches outside of the strike zone, Ben Zobrist had the best BPS score in the AL, with a score of .833. The second highest mark in the ALwas .671, and the highest NL mark was .663.
25. Looking at Bill James' Runs Created stat, we can see that Bay and Youkilis were the only players to rank in the top 10 in the AL in terms of "Runs Created per 27 Outs" against both left-handed and right-handed pitching. In the NL, there were also two who were in this group - Fielder and Pujols.
26. The two worst AL catchers in terms of percentage of runners caught stealing were Red Sox by the end of the season - Jason Varitek and Martinez. Only Yorvit Torrealba saved them from being the two worst in baseball.
27. Among the top seven active leaders in wins, only Pedro Martinez is not also top seven among players in losses.
28. Derek Holland was the one pitcher that had one of the ten best AL Game Scores as well as one of the 10 worst AL Game Scores.
29. During the decade, 17 players had a Win Share mark of 15 or better in five consecutive seasons. 11 players did it in six consecutive seasons, six did it in seven consecutive seasons, five did it in eight consecutive seasons, seven did it in nine consecutive seasons and five did it in every season of the decade. Those five players were Bobby Abreu, Johnny Damon, Derek Jeter, Chipper Jones and Alex Rodriguez.
30. The single-best Win Shares season of the decade, and the only season over 40, was Pujols' mark of 41 in 2003. There were 16 other seasons of 35 or better. Pujols and Rodriguez had four seasons each, with Jason Giambi the only other player to do it more than once. None of the 17 seasons were turned in by pitchers, and 10 were turned in by first basemen.

5 Facts About Jeremy Hermida

1. Jeremy Hermida's career year in 2007 was a pretty big aberration thus far. That season, he ranked 95th in VORP and 48th in EqA (minimum 300 plate appearances). In the other three years he saw regular playing time (2006, 2008 and 2009), he never ranked higher than 236 in VORP or 156th in EqA (again, minimum 300 PA).

2. Among NL right fielders over the last three years, Hermida is tied for eighth in Fielding Runs +/-.

3. Hermida has been essentially league average throughout his career. His career batting average is .265, compared to the "league batting average" of .268. His on-base percentage is .344, compared to a "league OBP" of .339. His slugging percentage is .425, compared to a "league SLG" of .429. Finally, his career EqA is .268, just slightly over the league average EqA of .260.

4. Though he has only hit 57 career homers, he has homered in 20 different ballparks, including every NL ballpark except Milwaukee. He has even thrown in both Shea Stadium and Citi Field for good measure.

5. Though Hermida has struggled mightily against left-handed pitching, both last year (.189/.289/.311 in 121 PA) and his career in general (.237/.321/.376 in 471 PA), he has been more than serviceable versus right-handed pitching. Last season, his .283 AVG vs. righties ranked 88th, and his .370 OBP ranked 60th (minimum 300 PA), and for his career his OPS against righties is almost 100 points higher than it is against lefties.

Bonus Observation - Hermida's comparables could lead him in a number of directions. Looking at his baseball-reference (similar batters through age 25) and Baseball Prospectus comps, there are players who washed out quickly after age 25, such as Leron Lee and Phil Kokos, players that continued to be role players such as Ed Kirkpatrick and Rick Reichardt, players that went on to be full-time regulars such as Mel Hall and Jose Guillen, and finally players who did better than that, such as Andy Van Slyke, George Kendrick, Dale Murphy and Adrian Gonzalez. But one name that is common to both lists, and should be of interest to Sox fans, is Dwight Evans. Through age 25, Evans hit .261/.337/.438 for a .775 OPS, with 65 homers and 851 total bases in 617 games and 2,212 plate appearances. Hermida, by comparison, has hit .265/.344/.425 for a .769 OPS, with 57 homers and 726 total bases in 516 games and 1,929 plate appearances. Of course, unlike Hermida, Evans also had a Gold Glove under his belt and had hit .292/.393/.542 in the '75 World Series by the time he finished his age 25 season. In any event, it is interesting to see how many different directions his comp list suggests.

Next Up: Curtis Granderson

Addendum to 5 Facts About Marco Scutaro

After my post, I was a little disappointed that I didn't have the Fielding Runs Saved and +/- on Marco Scutaro, so while at Barnes & Noble, I bought the 2010 Bill James Handbook. In it, I found that Scutaro scores much better in both categories. In Fielding Runs Saved, he ranked fifth among shortstops in 2009, and sixth from 2007-2009. In Plus/Minus, he ranked fourth in 2009 among shortstops, and seventh from 2007-2009. So that's good news.

Up next: Jeremy Hermida

5 Facts About Marco Scutaro

1. Marco Scutaro was signed for his defense, and while he wasn't bad last season, he certainly wasn't spectacular. He ranked only 87th overall in RZR in 2009, and just 17th among shortstops. Among UZR, he ranked only 66th, and just 14th among shortstops. He ranked just 14th in UZR/150 games among shortstops. Among shortstops, he was just 11th in Range Factor per nine innings and 10th in Range Factor per game. He ranked 15th among shortstops in double play runs above average. In terms of FRAA1 however, Scutaro scored fourth among shortstops and 28th overall. Finally, Scutaro fared better in 2008, at least in terms of FRAA1, as he was +11 in 2009 and +30 in 2008.

2. Last year, Scutaro's best overall season, he ranked 32nd overall in WARP1, with a total of 5.92. The only Red Sox player ranked higher was Jon Lester, at 28th with a WARP1 of 6.3.

3. For his career, Scutaro has hit righties better than lefties, a rarity for right-handed batters. However, much of that is owed to trouble against lefties earlier in his career. From 2002-2005, he hit only .221 against lefties, though with just 249 at-bats across four years, it wasn't a very large sample. In the past four seasons, he nearly doubled that total, as he amassed 446 at-bats against lefties and did much better, making himself about equal against lefties and righties:

..vs. LHP.. ...vs. RHP...
Years AB AVG AB AVG
'02-'05 249 .221 698 .268
'06-'09 446 .267 1348 .272

4. The Rogers Centre was not kind to Scutaro. His past two seasons in Toronto, he hit .242/.342/.370 at home, giving him a .712 home OPS, and .307/.381/.398 on the road, giving him a .779 road OPS.

5. Scutaro makes hard contact in the air more than most shortstops. In the past two seasons, 12 shortstops had 500 plate appearances or more in both seasons - Yuniesky Betancourt, Orlando Cabrera, Stephen Drew, Yunel Escobar, Christian Guzman, Derek Jeter, Hanley Ramirez, Edgar Renteria, Jimmy Rollins, Scutaro, Miguel Tejada and Ryan Theriot. Of the 12, Scutaro ranked second in both fly ball percentage and line drive percentage, and he ranked 11th in ground ball percentage. He also hit into the fifth fewest pop-ups. 52.15% of Scutaro's batted balls the past two seasons were either fly balls or line drives, which also ranks second among the 12 shortstops, behind only Stephen Drew. So if Scutaro can learn to pull the ball more frequently (he has only pulled the ball in 25% of his overall career plate appearances) he could really rack up the doubles at Fenway Park.

Five Facts about John Lackey

I liked coming up with five facts about Mike Cameron so much, that I thought I'd do the same thing about John Lackey as well.

1. Lackey is 31st among active pitchers in strikeouts per nine innings, but look a little further and it becomes even better. Four of the pitchers that are ahead of Lackey are relievers - Trevor Hoffman, Arthur Rhodes, Mariano Rivera and Tom Gordon. There are also three pitchers who have been starters in their career, but will not be starters in the 2010 season - Kerry Wood, Kelvim Escobar and Chan Ho Park. Five more pitchers are Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, Jason Schmidt and Matt Clement, who may be considered either only semi-active or not active at all. Clement for instance has not pitched since 2006. Finally, there is Oliver Perez, who posted a 6.82 ERA last year and whose role with the Mets going forward is less than clear. Take out those pitchers and you are left with Lackey as 18th among active pitchers in strikeouts per nine innings.

2. Last season, Lackey ranked 26th in the Majors in terms of FIP, with a mark of 3.73, .10 better than his real ERA of 3.83. He played behind a slightly below average defense last year in Anaheim according to Baseball Prospectus' defensive efficiency, which accounts for why his FIP is only slightly lower than his real ERA. Expect that to change in 2009 with the Sox, as the defense behind Lackey should be better than it was last year at the key spots where Anaheim struggled. Gary Matthews, who played 91 games last season, had an FRAA of -16 last year. Jeremy Hermida, who is likely going to be in the same role as Matthews was last year - at least in terms of playing time - had a +3 FRAA last year in a bigger outfield in Florida. As for the other Sox outfielders? J.D. Drew and Mike Cameron scored +4, and while Jacoby Ellsbury was a -11, he a) should only get better as he gets more playing time and b) may have seen a one-year blip in his mark, as he was +16 in 2008. Another major difference should be at shortstop. Last year, Erick Aybar had a -2 FRAA, and Maicer Izturis a -8. Marco Scutaro on the other hand, had a FRAA of +8, more than one-win difference.

3. One potential problem for Lackey could be home runs. For his career, 35% of his balls in play have been fly balls, but his career HR/fly ball percentage is a small 9.3, not surprising since he played in a large park in Anaheim, and routinely got to pitch in the caverns that are Safeco Field and whatever it is they're calling Oakland's ballpark these days. That could change in Fenway. While it's difficult to take his Fenway starts too seriously, since he was playing good Red Sox teams, but he has allowed eight home runs in 51.2 career innings at Fenway, good for 1.4 HR/9 innings, or 0.5 higher than his career mark.

4. Of the other five current Red Sox starters - Josh Beckett, Clay Buchholz, Jon Lester, Daisuke Matsuzaka and Tim Wakefield - Lackey throws his fastball (62.2% of the time) only less frequently than Beckett (65.9%), but also at a slower velocity (91.1 MPH) than everyone except for Wakefield (74.5). Lackey also throws his curve ball more frequently than any other current Sox starter - 23% of the time. Beckett, Buchholz and Lester's curve balls range from 16.1-20.8%, while Matsuzaka and Wakefield are in the 4.2-5.2% range.

5. For his career, Lackey shows virtually no second-half split - 3.83 ERA in the first half compared with 3.79 in the second. However, looking just at the past four seasons, he has been a much better first half pitcher, with a 3.18 ERA in the first-half compared with 3.83 in the second half, and that is taking into account how much trouble he had last year, when he struggled when he came back from his injury when he came back in mid-May. From 2006 to 2008, he posted first-half ERAs of 2.88, 2.91 and 2.46. Unfortunately, in those years he also posted second-half ERAs of 4.41, 3.14 and 4.99.

Next up: Marco Scutaro

Avatar

Tonight, I went to the midnight showing of Avatar with a friend, sparing my wife, who I have dragged to many midnight showings, none of which she ever wanted to attend, but did because she's the best. But I digress. In the first sentence.

I was blown away by Avatar. The world of Pandora, its inhabitants and their modes of communication, are stunning. I say "modes of communication" rather than "language" because the Na'vi people communicate with the planet and its animals as well as they do with each other.

But I was more blown away when I got home. I generally don't like to read movie reviews of a movie I am highly anticipating before I head to the multiplex, and this case was no different. However, I did happen to read the title of David Chen's review on SlashFilm - "Epic Filmmaking, Epically Bad Dialogue" - inadvertently as I was scrolling through the site last week. So I took that observation with me into the film. Upon my return tonight, or this morning, whichever you prefer, I revisited and read that review, along with Russ Fischer's, Owen Gleiberman's and Peter Travers'. They all reference the same thing as Chen - bad dialogue. And this is why movie critics are generally ignored by the public.

The problem with complaining about dialogue is that these - and most other reviewers - fail to see the elemental issue. This is how normal people talk. These reviews complain about dialogue such as "fight terror with terror," and call it "stilted." Stephen Lang, who plays Colonel Miles Quartich, is described as having "bitter intensity," as a "vicious military roughneck," and possibly the "most intense villain of the year." Forgive me if I think a character described as such isn't about to deliver a Shakespearean soliloquy. "Fight terror with terror" is exactly how this man would talk.

Which leads us back to the critics, who for the most part have two fundamental problems. First, they spend so much time watching "films" that are so disconnected from reality that they have a hard time appreciating it. Now, I have never met any of these reviewers, nor the people I grew up reading in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, or read later in the Boston Globe and Denver Post. But I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that their jobs preclude them from interacting too much with military personnel. Now, that's not to say that I have a wealth of first-hand experience myself, but from the little I have seen, Avatar's "stilted" dialogue actually rang very true. The second problem is that critics are paid to be critical. No one wants to be the critic who says a movie is perfect, and so when presented with a visual masterwork like Avatar, the easy money is to rip apart the story and its dialogue. Was the story of Avatar perfect? No, but it also didn't spend a lot of time holding your hand either. You learn that the military presence is not actually the US military, but rather contracted forces, in one line. If you missed that line, tough. I love that. But two of the reviews I read complain that the story was rushed. You simply can't win with critics.

In the end, Avatar isn't perfect. It could have easily been longer, but I read somewhere that IMAX movies set a time limit, necessitating the two hours, forty minute total run time. I hope that a Director's Cut does emerge, a longer cut of the movie that does build on the story more. But to say it was rushed, or that the dialogue is awful, is taking things too far, and is one of the reasons why average moviegoers have, and will likely continue, to ignore movie critics.

5 More Things About Mike Cameron

The Boston Globe ran a piece this morning entitled "Five Things About Mike Cameron." Here's five more:

1. The Sox will be Cameron's seventh Major League team and 2010 his 16th Major League season. The Sox will be his first American League team since 2003, when he finished a four-year stint with the Seattle Mariners. Aside from Jason Varitek, Cameron is now the Red Sox's oldest player as of today.

2. Cameron is remarkably consistent offensively. His EqA has been between .270 and .293 in each of the past 11 seasons.

3. August has generally been his best month, but September has been his worst. Looking at his OPS by month, we can see that he starts off medium in March/April, with a .771 OPS. From May-July, his OPS is about the same each month - .799 in May, .787 in June and .796 in July. In August however, it shoots up to .840 before shooting down to .724. The September swoon has been a particular issue recently for Cameron. Since Cameron became a regular in '97, he has played in 12 September's, missing only 2005 after his frightful collision with Carlos Beltran. Breaking up those 12 years into six-year blocks, we can see the following negative trend about his September performance:

Years Sept OPS
1997-2002: .815
2003-2009: .657

A .657 OPS is unlikely to cut during the pennant race that the Sox figure to be in next season, but keep in mind Cameron has played 92% of his career in center field and all but 10 of the remaining 149 games in right field. It is unlikely he will be asked to do that for the Sox, and it is also unlikely that he will play every day.

4. The Globe alluded to the fact that Cameron is productive despite not hitting for a high average. One of the reasons he does not hit for a high average is his strikeout totals. Cameron is 11th all-time in strikeouts, and second among active players to Jim Thome, and Thome may retire this offseason. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. The next four names behind him on the active player leader board are Ken Griffey, Jr., Manny Ramirez, Carlos Delgado and Alex Rodriguez. While Cameron doesn't have their offensive pedigree, he is no scrub. He is currently 33rd all-time in home runs, with 265.

5. While their actual dollar values should be taken with a grain of salt, Fan Graphs had Cameron ranked as the 40th most valuable position player in the Majors last year, and 57th overall. On the Red Sox, only Josh Beckett, Jon Lester, Kevin Youkilis, Dustin Pedroia, Victor Martinez and J.D. Drew ranked higher.

Is Tom Brady Over The Hill?

Last night's New England at New Orleans game was an out-an-out drubbing. And while Drew Brees and his merry band of men were outstanding last night, part of the reason is the incredibly poor play from Tom Brady. It was a rare game where Brady was bad both visually and statistically. He was perpetually throwing off his back foot, and once the Saints took the lead, the play-calling was woefully predictable. When a street free agent like Mike McKenzie can consistently jump routes, it's a sign that either the play-calling is predictable or the quarterback is telegraphing his throws. Neither of those options are good.

Looking for solace, I turned to Brady's pro-football-reference.com game log to see if this was Brady's worst regular season game. I ended up feeling even more depressed. Using QB rating as the judge, last night's game was Brady's tenth worst game overall, but since one of those was his pro debut, when he went one-for-three as a backup in 2000 against Detroit. Another one was the final game of the 2005 season, when the Pats had already clinched a playoff berth, and Brady started the game against the Dolphins but gave way to Matt Cassel after eight passing attempts, so we won't count that game either. So we can safely say that last night was Brady's eighth worst regular season performance ever. So while it is troubling in and of itself that Brady had seven worse regular season starts, the distribution of these abysmal starts is perhaps even more troubling. Breaking these into two season chunks of Brady's career, we can see the following negative trend:

Games 2-32: Three of the worst games
Games 33-64: Zero
Games 65-96: Two
Games 97-124: Three

To recap, five of Brady's worst eight starts have come in the second half of his career. Brady is now 32 years old. How many QB's can be consistent week in and week out when they're 32, when they've started 120+ games in the NFL. A lot was made of the fact that Brady passed Bledsoe in passing yards last night, and that he did it in the same number of games as did Bledsoe. What was left unsaid in that statement was how Bledsoe's career tailed off after he left the Pats. He was good that first year in Buffalo, posting a QB rating of 86.0, with a completion percentage of 61.5% and 24 TDs against 15 INTs for an 8-8 Buffalo squad. In the four years after 2002, Bledsoe had an average QB rating of 75.6, and never completed better than 60.1% of his passes.

Now, am I saying that Tom Brady is washed up right this second? Of course not, he just had four straight weeks of 300+ yards passing. But his body type is very similar to Drew Bledsoe's, and his lack of mobility was one of the reasons why he was a sixth round draft pick in the first place. There have been two teams that have blitzed the Pats successfully this year - the Jets and the Saints. In both games, Brady repeatedly threw off his back foot or threw to his first read. In the Jets game, the generally accepted notion (I am guilty here as well) was that Tom Terrific was shaking off the rust. But the same Brady that was seen in the Jets game - which not coincidentally was his seventh worst regular season start - was seen last night. I think it is now fair game to question whether or not Brady is over the hill. I'm not saying definitively that he is, but last night's game certainly wasn't encouraging.

Anatomy of a Four-and-Out

With a 31-14 lead 42 seconds into the fourth quarter, this post shouldn't have been necessary. But Peyton Manning's skills are set to All-Madden these days, and the New England defense, though their time is coming, they are still a bit young and without Ty Warren and Jarvis Green, the defensive line was thin last night. That's not an excuse for blowing a 17-point lead, but even with these facts, they almost held on. But there was that four-and-out, conceivably the four most critical regular season plays of the entire decade. Let's go through it play-by-play.

First down and 10, ball on NE 20, 2:23 left. NE has two time outs, IND has three.
Here's the first red flag - the Pats called time out before the play. Now, no matter the reason, there is no excuse for calling a time out on first down when you've had 1:49 of game time plus commercials to develop a strategy. Bill O'Brien, Bill Belichick and Tom Brady (and Brian Hoyer) had plenty of time to call, not just one, but two or three plays. What made the decision to call the time out even more egregious was the fact that they ran the same predictable play they had been running all game. When you are in the middle of the field and mixing run and pass, it's a good call. When you're trying to run out the clock and only have a minimum of blockers, the shotgun draw is not a good call, or even a defensible call.

Second down and 10, ball on NE 20, 2:18 left. NE one time out, IND two.
This is more like it. A quick, eight-yard pass to Welker. Indy wrapped him up quick, stopping him just short of the first down, which set up the drama.

Third down and two, ball on NE 28, 2:11 left. Each team has one time out.
This was the worst call. If you are determined to get the first down at all costs, then you should be running for the first down at all costs. And if they didn't know if they would go for it on fourth down before this play was ran, then that's an even worse mistake. Either way, you HAVE to be running on this play. You HAVE to make Indy use their last time out. Finally, the play they ran was incredibly risky. Yes, you want to get the ball in Welker's hands, but not on a route that far to the sideline. There is always a risk of getting that picked off, and Jerraud Powers had played the receivers tough all game, and most of Welker's catches (both last night and in his entire Pats tenure) were made when he was wide open. Welker needs certain plays run for him to succeed, and that play was not it. The ball should have been going to Moss or Faulk, each of whom are well versed in catching the ball in traffic.

Fourth down and two, ball on NE 28, 2:08 left. NE is out of time outs, IND has one time out.
I have thought about this a lot overnight, and I haven't looked at any "analysis" of the game that would color my opinion. I like the decision to go for it. While Manning could have thrown his third pick of the night, he had also marched the Colts 79 yards in five plays and 2:04, as well as 79 yards in six plays in 1:49, in the fourth quarter already, both times without the benefit of a time out. Now you were going to give him a time out to play with, and at best, 70-75 yards to go. Hanson was averaging 44 yards a punt with a long of 55, and Indy had not returned a punt all game. Let's be conservative and say that the punt has a net of 45 yards. That puts the ball on the Indy 27, with two minutes to go and a time out in his pocket. Okay, well that's basically the scenario Manning had already pulled off twice in the quarter already. Not to mention the defense was more tired than they were for those two drives. Either way, the Colts have to score seven, but in the other scenario, the defense only has to cover 30 yards. For a gassed defense, that could be viewed as a positive.

On the other hand, you could make the case that the Colts didn't score until they almost used the whole clock to do so. True, but they ran off a lot of time after Addai's two runs that they wouldn't have wasted had they needed to get down the field. And they still had their time out in their pocket when they scored.

As for the call to throw the pass in the flat to Faulk, I have no problem with that call on fourth down. It's a play that Brady and Faulk have been executing for a decade, and I had confidence it would work. In those situations, you have to go with your bread and butter. Now, maybe that was the problem, maybe the Colts sniffed it out. Maybe the throw was off the mark, or maybe Faulk just juggled it, or maybe...maybe doesn't matter. The Pats didn't get it done there, but I applaud the call. In hindsight, you could say that they should have been looking for Moss, or maybe running the old direct snap where Faulk steps in front of Brady and Brady pretends the ball was snapped over his head, which is another classic Patriots short yardage play. But they should have never been in this situation, and may not have been had they run on third down. That is the play to question.

In the end, the game was crushing for the Pats, but the young'ns need to be punched in the mouth a few times. The second year guys have the Jets OT loss, and everyone has the Broncos OT loss and this game. It will make the defense stronger, and it gives Belichick some coaching to do. But I find the media amusing. I did see one headline. My home page is espn.com, and their headline when I logged on this morning was "Bill Gambles...Colts Win." Had the Patriots succeeded there, we would have been treated to a week of "Belichick Knows All" stories. Bottom line - The call to go for it on fourth down was not the wrong call, the decision to call a time out before first down and the decision to throw on third down were the mistakes.

Ty Warren Inactive Instant Reaction

Ty Warren is an inactive tonight against Indy. My first reaction to this was 'crap, we're screwed.' Then I calmed down and thought about it. Ty Warren's main impact this year has been on rushing downs, as he only has one sack so far on the season, and only has three sacks since the start of 2008. But will the Pats run D really miss Warren against Indy? Yes, it certainly means playing rookies like Myron Pryor and Ron Brace more, but let's look at Indy's rushing offense.

Entering today's games, Indy was 28th in rushing yards per game at 85.4, 27th in yards per carry at 3.7 and 29th in total rushing yards. Maybe Indy will use this personnel change to focus on the run game, but perhaps it won't matter.

In any case, I will still ride the Patriots 27-Colts 20 prediction.

My Top 100 Movies, Ver. 3.0

My top 100 movies is an idea I like to have fun with more than anything. It's completely unscientific, and it's certainly not an AFI ranking of the "best" movies ever. It's just the movies that I enjoy the most. This is my third go round, I do one per year. Usually I do it in the summer, but this summer I never really got around to it. For the first two runs, check here and here. This year, not as many films broke through to the top 100, though the ones that did I think were well deserved, and I think I cut out some good fat from the previous year's list. Let's start there.

Movies That Fell Out of My Top 100 (Previous Year's Rank)
- i Robot (54)
- Star Wars, Episode II: Attack of the Clones (58)
- Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (66)
- National Treasure (74)
- XXX (the one with Vin Diesel) (78)
- Ocean's Eleven (new) (83)
- The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (92)
- The Burbs (93)
- Knocked Up (98)

Looking back, the first three on this list were just not well acted. I had forgiven this point because the action is really first rate, and I enjoyed the plots, even if they are a bit far fetched. But there was no longer room for them, enjoy them though I do. National Treasure and XXX suffer from the same problem, with National Treasure losing points also for plot ridiculousness and for its putrid sequel. Is it fair to tie movies to their sequels? No, not really, but only in rare exceptions (like say taking 20+ years to make three prequels) do you get to separate them in my opinion. The final four on this list simply got bumped for better movies.

Movies That Jumped Into My Top 100
93. Se7en - For some reason, this movie had always evaded me. I finally saw it this year after my boss' fervent and frequent recommendation, and it didn't disappoint. It kept me on my toes the entire time, and if anything, I wish it had been a little longer, that we had more time to flesh out the back and forth between Kevin Spacey and Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt.

92. Inglourious Basterds - Quentin Tarantino at his seat squirmingly finest. As it so often does in a Tarantino film, everything came together beautifully at the end. I was sort of hoping that the three daughters of the Frenchman in the opening scene would be some sort of expert killing team and would murder all of the Germans out in the car while Col. Landa was inside, chatting and drinking milk with the father. Brad Pitt was great in his role, and the only thing likely to keep from an Oscar win is the fact that he really wasn't on screen all that much throughout the movie.

91. Fletch - Another movie that had slipped through the cracks. I feel like if I have a hard time grasping how funny Chevy Chase really was in the '80's, and I at least have seen (and own) Caddyshack and Spies Like Us, then how will today's kids know? It's not going to be from his role in Community, as he is sort of one-dimensional on that show. But Fletch was teriffic, the way he always was flying by the seat of his pants yet seemed perfectly in control at the same time. If only he had been a Clippers fan instead of a Lakers fan. Oh well.

84. Zombieland - This movie is just too much fun. It may not have the most original plot (zombies want to eat us, kill them first) but it does have some great acting - in addition to the always solid Jesse Eisenberg and Woddy Harrelson, I am a big Emma Stone fan. With Superbad, The House Bunny, The Rocker and now Zombieland, she has put together a pretty solid comedy resume, and is pretty easy on the eyes to boot. Paired with the great acting was some great action, and a narrative plot device that was forgivable for its humor. And it had a great Bill Murray cameo. This is a movie I can easily see myself watching over and over.

81. Lethal Weapon - The first of the four part saga had somehow evaded my rankings. While I don't enjoy it as much as I enjoyed Part II, this is a fantastic action movie and I had to get it into the ranking, bumping it just ahead of Lethal Weapon IV.

64. Star Trek (new) - You couldn't ask for a better reboot to the once proud franchise, unless of course you are a hardcore Trekkie, and then nothing was going to satisfy you. But I think hardcore Trekkies had sort of lost the right to complain about the direction of their favorite franchise. Prior movies like Insurrection and Nemesis had been completely forgettable footnotes in the Star Trek catalogue, and it was time for some new blood. And while I have heard that some things were changed - for better or worse is debatable I suppose - I have been going back and rewatching the original movies, and I have found that some things weren't changed. For instance, the scene in the reboot where Kirk defeats/cheats the Kobayashi Maru test is just the same as Kirk describes how he beat it in The Wrath of Khan. In all, for someone like me who remembers the existence of the glory days of the shows/movies if not the details, it was a job well done by J.J. Abrams and Co.

42. Slumdog Millionaire - I am happy to say that I was in on the greatness of this movie early. I read a lot about it before it was released, and scored tickets to see a screening of it before it was released as well. Unfortunately my wife was unable to attend that screening with me, so I ended up seeing it twice in the theatre. I enjoyed it so much that I even bought the soundtrack. It is just a fantastic romantic adventure, the likes of which are rarely seen in today's Hollywood. If you don't melt when Jamal kisses Latika's scar at the end of the movie, then you must be a cyborg, because you clearly have no heart.

34. Up - This wasn't a romantic adventure the same way Slumdog was, but it was a true adventure of fulfilling one's dreams, even if it came 40-50 years later than planned. It's the kind of movie that makes you cling to hope, and as we all know, hope is a good thing. I furiously debated whether or not to bump this ahead of Wall-E and crown it my favorite Pixar movie ever, but I just couldn't do it, slotting it in just one behind the lovable robot. Maybe next year after I have had a chance to watch Up over and over on DVD, but for right now, no.

28. The Hangover - This one loses points for sheer ridiculousness - as Bill Simmons points out in the Book of Basketball, it takes a pretty big leap of faith to think they did all those things during 10 hours. And it takes a smaller leap of faith to believe they could keep a tiger concealed in their room and then their car without anyone finding out about it. I'm also getting a tiny bit tired of Ken Jeong's shtick, but it was still pretty funny. But other than that, this movie was absolutely hilarious. The Rain Man parody, the scenes with the baby, getting the wrong Doug, talking the cops out of being arrested, having the tux guy throw tuxes to them while driving, the re-tard, the wolf pack, Mike Tyson. Classic.

Biggest Movers (movies that were already in the Top 100, but moved around in it)
88 to 63 - Forgetting Sarah Marshall - This movie is permanently house on my DVR. You can pretty much pick it up at any point in the movie and get a good laugh. It keeps moving up the list (and may very well move up more next year) because even the sad, depressing parts are still a little funny. It doesn't bring you way down the way Knocked Up does.

35 to 65 - Transformers: The Movie - Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was so bad that it knocked this movie down significantly. While the original is still pretty fun and still has Megan Fox leaning over a hood, the sequel was so god-awful that I can't imagine wanting to pop in the original as frequently anymore.

67 to 100 - Spider-Man 2 - The same thing has happened with Spidey. I just don't pop this one in anymore, and it's at least partially due to how bad part three was. I'm starting to see all kinds of stories about part four, but they are going to have to do a damn good job to take the bad taste of three out of my mouth. Spider-Man was one of my favorite comics as a kid, so that stayed the execution of part two from the list for one more year, but it may be a slow death in the end.

So that's it. A solid but unspectacular year at the movies. Nothing changed in my top 25, and only nine movies pushed their way in, as opposed to 11 the year before. Below is the full list, with the previous two year's rank in parentheses. Movies that I'm looking forward to seeing that may end up on the list next year include upcoming releases like Avatar, The Men Who Stare At Goats, Up In The Air, A Couple of Dicks, The Losers, Kick-Ass, Iron Man 2, The Expendables, as well as movies in my Netflix queue that I haven't seen, such as Sugar, Gran Torino, the Alien(s) trilogy, Hoosiers and Spirited Away.

Top 100 Movies (Ver 2.0 rank, Ver 1.0 rank)
100. Spider-Man 2 (67, 67)
99. Miracle (100, 95)
98. Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle (94, 73)
97. Superbad (99, -)
96. The Girl Next Door (97, 74)
95. Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark (96, -)
94. Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels (95, 93)
93. Se7en (-, -)
92. Inglourious Basterds (-, -)
91. Fletch (-, -)
90. Star Wars, Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (86, 81)
89. Mallrats (89, -)
88. Slap Shot (91, 84)
87. Ferris Bueller's Day Off (89, -)
86. The Bourne Supremacy (85, 88)
85. The Silence of the Lambs (84, 80)
84. Zombieland (-, -)
83. Blue Brothers (87, 97)
82. Lethal Weapon IV (82, 76)
81. Lethal Weapon (-, -)
80. 48 Hours (81, 75)
79. Saving Silverman (80, 68)
78. Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade (79, 72)
77. Running Scared (75, 56)
76. Die Hard With a Vengeance (76, 69)
75. Back To The Future 2 (62, 65)
74. Mean Girls (77, 70)
73. Monsters, Inc. (73, -)
72. Ratatouille (72, -)
71. Rounders (71, 64)
70. Thank You For Smoking (70, -)
69. Wedding Crashers (69, 58)
68. Godfather II (65, -)
67. Rocky II (64, 63)
66. Rocky (63, 62)
65. Transformers: The Movie (35, 22)
64. Star Trek (new) (-, -)
63. Forgetting Sarah Marshall (88, -)
62. Aladdin (68, 98)
61. Chronicles of Riddick: Pitch Black (61, 60)
60. Bad Boys (60, 59)
59. Lethal Weapon II (59, 57)
58. The Bourne Identity (57, 53)
57. Menace II Society (56, 52)
56. Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story (55, 48)
55. Super Troopers (53, -)
54. The Departed (52, 51)
53. Back To The Future (51, 50)
52. Total Recall (50, 49)
51. The Fugitive (49, 47
50. Coming To America (48, 46)
49. Independence Day (47, 44)
48. Toy Story (46, -)
47. Goldeneye (44, 42)
46. The Rock (43, 23)
45. Beverly Hills Cop (45, 43)
44. Stripes (42, 40)
43. Enemy of the State (41, 38)
42. Slumdog Millionaire (-, -)
41. Batman Begins (31, 14)
40. The Program (40, 37)
39. True Lies (39, 36)
38. Spaceballs (38, 35)
37. Happy Gilmore (33, 33)
36. The Incredibles (37, 41)
35. Live Free or Die Hard (32, 27)
34. Up (-, -)
33. Wall-E (34, -)
32. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (26, 25)
31. Ghostbusters (30, 31)
30. The Godfather (36, 34)
29. The Terminator (28, 29)
28. The Hangover (-, -)
27. Trading Places (29, 30)
26. Top Gun (27, 26)
25. Ironman (25, -)
24. Goodfellas (24, 24)
23. The Princess Bride (23, 28)
22. Billy Madison (22, 45)
21. Casino (21, 18)
20. V for Vendetta (20, 21)
19. Die Hard (19, 20)
18. Animal House (18, 19)
17. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, Extended Version (17, 16)
16. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Extended Version (16, 15)
15. Office Space (15, 13)
14. The Simpsons Movie (14, 6)
13. Scarface (13, 11)
12. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (12, 17)
11. Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (11, 12)
10. Major League (10, 10)
9. Friday (9, 9)
8. The Dark Knight (8, -)
7. Gladiator (7, 8)
6. Old School (6, 7)
5. The Shawshank Redemption (5, 5)
4. Braveheart (4, 4)
3. Star Wars, Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (3, 3)
2. Star Wars, Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (2, 2)
1. Star Wars, Episode IV: A New Hope (1, 1)

Notes:
Nine Best Picture winners in Top 100:
- Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
- The Departed (2006)
- LOTR: Return of the King (2003)
- Gladiator (2000)
- Braveheart (1995)
- The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
- Rocky (1976)
- The Godfather, Part II (1974)
- The Godfather (1972)

22 Movies in the Top 100 of All-Time World Box Office in Top 100:
- LOTR: Return of the King (#2)
- The Dark Knight (4)
- LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring (18)
- Star Wars, Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (19)
- Independence Day (21)
- Star Wars, Episode IV: A New Hope (23)
- Spider-Man 2 (26)
- Transformers: The Movie (33)
- Up (36)
- The Incredibles (40)
- Ratatouille (43)
- Star Wars, Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (52)
- Iron Man (53)
- Star Wars, Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (60)
- Wall-E (61)
- Monsters, Inc. (62)
- The Simpsons Movie (64)
- Terminator 2: Judgment Day (66)
- Aladdin (67)
- Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (68)
- The Hangover (77)
- Gladiator (81)

The New England Patriots New Foundation

The New England Patriots have quietly re-established the talent base on the defensive side of the football. During the past two seasons, the Pats have drafted 11 players on defense. Many have complained that the Pats have missed a lot of impact players in the draft. However, looking at the composition of the defense this year, that's not the case at all. Last year saw three solid contributors added to the squad. One of course is stud linebacker Jerod Mayo. Second is cornerback Jonathan Wilhite, taken in the fourth round. Wilhite has played in 22 of the 23 games since being drafted, and has been a solid contributor and at times a starter. And while that may not be good enough for some fans of the team, it is instructive to look at two other Belichick cornerbacks - Asante Samuel and Ellis Hobbs:

Rookie Year Stats
- Samuel, 2003: 16 G, 1 GS, 29 tackles, 5 assists, 2 INT, 9 passes defensed
- Hobbs, 2005: 16 G, 8 GS, 35 tackles, 9 assists, 3 INT, 12 passes defensed
- Wilhite, 2008: 16 G, 4 GS, 20 tackles, 4 assists, 1 INT, 2 passes defensed

Wilhite's stats aren't completely on the same level, but they're not incredibly different either. What's most important for me is that like Samuel and Hobbs, Wilhite played in all 16 games as a rookie, something that Belichick doesn't always allow. However, while they played a lot as rookies, Samuel and Hobbs didn't become 16-game starters until their third season. Right now, Wilhite is on track to become as solid of a contributor.

Third is a guy that wasn't actually taken in the draft, but Gary Guyton was part of the 2008 rookie class as an undrafted free agent. When Mayo went down earlier this season, Guyton stepped in at middle linebacker, and the team hardly skipped a beat. Now that Mayo is back, the Mayo-Guyton combo has solved the linebacker issues of last season.

The 2009 draft has borne just as much fruit. The Pats first pick in the draft, safety Patrick Chung, has been seeing more and more playing time as the weeks have progressed, and recently intercepted his first pass. Another second round pick, cornerback Darius Butler, is already a starter. Sixth round pick Myron Pryor has started subbing in on the defensive line, and has already forced his first fumble. This week, he was praised by Belichick in the Boston Globe. Since Belichick rarely praises anyone, take that as a strong endorsement.

The question was put to me to answer were the Patriots truly struggling early on or were they purposefully baptizing these new players so that they could wreck shop in the second half. My answer is neither, but the Pats should be back to their powerhouse ways after the bye week. In Vince Wilfork, Mayo and Meriweather the Pats have their new version of Seymour, Bruschi and Harrison - a trio that will dominate each area of the defense, but this trio could be even better, because of the differences between Seymour and Wilfork. The key to being a great defense in football (and in baseball actually) is to be great from the middle out. While he spent some time in the middle, Seymour was mostly an edge rusher, while Wilfork is planted firmly in the middle. In Ty Warren, Wilfork, Meriweather, Mayo and Guyton, the Pats have five players that they either drafted or signed as undrafted free agents starting on defense, with the potential to have as many as nine with Tully Bunta-Cain, Wilhite, Butler and James Sanders/Chung. That is simply unheard of in today's NFL. And with Jarvis Green, Pryor, 2005 undrafted free agent Mike Wright and Pierre Woods as backups, the Pats D is largely homegrown at this point. Take a look at the defensive snaps played this past week, courtesy of the incomparable Mike Reiss:

ILB Jerod Mayo -- 56 of 61........................2008 draft pick
S Brandon Meriweather -- 56 of 61............2007 draft pick
S Brandon McGowan -- 56 of 61................free agent
DE/OLB Derrick Burgess -- 53 of 61...........trade
CB Leigh Bodden -- 53 of 61.......................free agent
DE/OLB Tully Banta-Cain -- 50 of 61..........2003 draft pick
CB Darius Butler -- 49 of 61........................2009 draft pick
ILB Gary Guyton -- 47 of 61.......................2008 undrafted free agent
CB Jonathan Wilhite -- 47 of 61..................2008 draft pick
S Pat Chung -- 36 of 61................................2009 draft pick
DE Ty Warren -- 27 of 61............................2003 draft pick
DL Myron Pryor -- 26 of 61........................2009 draft pick
DT Vince Wilfork -- 24 of 61.......................2004 draft pick
DL Jarvis Green -- 23 of 61........................2002 draft pick
OLB Adalius Thomas -- 18 of 61.................free agent
ILB Junior Seau -- 16 of 61.........................free agent
DL Mike Wright -- 15 of 61.........................2005 undrafted free agent
S James Sanders -- 12 of 61........................2005 draft pick
S Bret Lockett -- 5 of 61..............................waivers
CB Shawn Springs -- 2 of 61........................free agent

In summary, 13 of 20 guys who played last week were homegrown by the Pats, and they played 70% of the plays.

Supplementing them are the hallmark of a Bill Belichick team - low cost free agents. Brandon McGowan will make less than $1.3 million in base salary the next two seasons for the Pats - yet he is leading the team in tackles and his emergence has given the Patriots perhaps the deepest safety corps in the league. Shawn Springs and Leigh Bodden - each under $3 million in total salary - have played well, but are starting to be phased out for the younger crew. Derrick Burgess (who was actually acquire in a trade), Junior Seau and Rob Ninkovich provide depth for the front seven. The only real black mark on the record has been Adalius Thomas, who has not played poorly (he has averaged almost six sacks in his first two years despite missing seven games to injury last season), but has also not lived up to lofty expectations. But this is why the Pats generally eschew big ticket free agents. It is hard for big ticket players to come in and meet expectations. This is why Bill Belichick builds from within, and focuses on the forgotten players in free agency.

And though this shouldn't be a surprise to Pats watchers, somehow it sneaks up on them. Instead of focusing on the positives, we New Englander's are inherently negative and skeptical. How will we replace Asante Samuel? Why did we trade Ellis Hobbs? Why did we draft such a little guy in Terrence Wheatley? Why the hell did we spend so much on Thomas? Why are we signing geriatrics to play linebacker? The results show that the Pats are doing just fine. In the five other games Baltimore has played this year, they are averaging 29.6 points. They only got 21 off the Pats. The Pats held Atlanta to a season low 10 points, but otherwise the Falcons are averaging 26.8 points a game. Even in a loss, the Pats kept the Broncos under their season average in points. Ditto with the Jets, who have scored 24 or more in four games, but only mustered 16 against the Pats. Have the last two weeks padded the Pats defensive stats? Absolutely. But the Titans put up 31 points in Week 2, and the Bucs put up 20 points on three different occasions, so it's not like they're Oakland, who has scored 20 points only once this season, and has only 26 points in their last five games.

Looking back at last year, we can see how much the defense has changed in such a short time. In 2008, the Pats were 10th in total yards allowed and eighth in points allowed, but that was mitigated by two factors - their incredibly easy schedule and the fact that they had so many aging veterans on the roster. The foundation trio of Mayo, Meriweather and Wilfork led the team in tackles, but down the list you saw Mike Vrabel (age 33, 5th in tackles), Tedy Bruschi (35, 7th), Richard Seymour (29, 8th), Deltha O'Neal (31, 10th), Rodney Harrison (36, 11th) and Thomas (31, 12th). This year, all but Thomas are gone, and Thomas has been moved from starring role to part-time player. This season, the only player over 30 in the top 10 in tackles is Springs, and as mentioned, he is already being pushed out in favor of the young guns. Before the Tampa game, Reiss tweeted that Springs was serving as the eighth defensive back.

So maybe you are having a hard time matching numbers to names in the first part of this Patriots season. But at the end of the season, the Pats will have Pro Bowlers at each level of the D with the trilogy of Wilfork up front, Mayo in the middle and Meriweather in the back. By January, guys like Butler and Guyton will be household names in New England, and Ty Warren will still be holding it down. The Pats have laid the foundation for their second dynasty with their home grown and built on the cheap defense. This time around, the Pats have spread the draft picks across 2008 and 2009, but the general theme is the same. It smells a lot like 2003 in Foxboro.

Pats Three Questions - Weeks 3/4

Before we get going, apologies for skipping last week. I spent most of the week at the ballpark watching the Rox sweep the Brewers. My bad. I'll skip the highlights and lowlights of Week 3, but I'll do the Week 3 question of the week.

Highlights - Firstly, executing in the red zone and getting touchdowns. I like me some touchdowns! Second, Proving that the Ravens offense isn't the tilt-a-whirl that people had been starting to believe that they were. Yes, they put up 103 points in the first three weeks of the season, but it was against Kansas City, San Diego and Cleveland, three of the worst defenses in the NFL. Yesterday, the Pats held them to 14 points. And while Ray Rice did break off a 50-yard run, the Pats otherwise held them to 4.1 yards a carry. And Flacco and his 5.6 yards per pass average wasn't much better, especially when compared to Brady's robust 8.1 yards per pass. In addition, the Pats forced the Ravens to do things they didn't want to do. They consistently pressured Flacco, sacking him twice and registering 10 QB hits. Another highlight was the secondary play. The Bears have to be kicking themselves for letting Brandon McGowan get away for nothing, and Brandon Meriweather turned in another Pro Bowl effort. And Gary Guyton continues to be a monster. More on him later. Injury-wise, it was good to see that big Vince Wilfork didn't miss any time leaving early last week, and it was even better to get Wes Welker back in the fold. Finally, it was good to knock two firsts off the board - Randy Moss' first touchdown catch, and the team's first interception: registered by Leigh Bodden.

Lowlights - The pass coverage from the linebackers. Pierre Woods, in particular, was burned badly on the touchdown to McGahee. In general however, the Patriots seemed to recognize that this has been a weakness, and tried to de-emphasize it by playing more defensive backs. There seemed to be several plays with Meriweather, McGowan and James Sanders in the game at the same time. Another weakness was the rushing attack in early downs. Once again, the Pats were able to convert the crucial third/fourth and shorts, but they were unable to get any consistent rhythm rushing the ball. The silver lining was that they stuck with the run, and therefore didn't exhaust Brady or show their hand heading into every play the way they had the first two weeks. Finally, as great as the forced fumble on the kickoff was, special teams was overall below average this week. Laurence Maroney dances far too much to be an effective kick returner, and Chris Hanson was awful. Two of his punts went for touch backs, and the one that landed "inside the 20" actually landed on the 16 and was a net yardage of 36 yards.

Week 3 Question of the Week: Can the Patriots develop a good running game? It sure looked promising after the Falcons game, but perhaps the Falcons just have a really poor run defense. Outside of the Falcons game, the Patriots "high" rusher has compiled 32, 46 and 25 yards. Outsider of the Atlanta game, the Pats are averaging 3.3 yards per rush. That is not the hallmark of a good running game. The Pats will certainly maintain enough of a ground threat to be a viable change of pace, but if they are going to develop a ground game that is an actual strength, they will need to get Maroney going again. The key to that will likely be playing him in the second half of games, something that has not happened for two weeks. When the Pats came out of halftime this week, they had a 10 point lead at 17-7. They had a serious chance to put the game out of reach when they got the ball to start the half. But after starting by alternating pass-run-pass-run, the Pats called six straight passes. The drive stalled at the Baltimore 45, and the Pats were forced to punt. These are the situations where the run would have taken over in years past. This year, the Pats seem to have very little confidence in the running game. I'm not willing to bury the running game yet, as Baltimore does have a very good run defense, but the Pats simply have to get Maroney going, as the other backs can only be effective in spurts.

Week 4 Question of the Week: What will the defense look when Jerod Mayo comes back? In a word, fierce. Gary Guyton has established himself as a viable middle linebacker, capable of playing every down, as he has the past two weeks, when the Pats defense has held their opponents to 10 and 14 points on defense. But he is still keeping the seat warm for Mayo. The main benefit the Pats will derive from getting Mayo back is that they will be able to rotate into any defense they want. Do you want to play 4-3 with one of Mayo/Guyton and the edge rusher combo of Bunta-Cain/Thomas/Burgess? Sure, let's do it. Do you want to play a 3-4, with Guyton and Mayo making a fearsome middle of the defense. Yes, please! And with McGowan stepping up as an able hybrid safety/linebacker, the Pats could run schemes where they play six defensive backs in Meriweather, McGowan, Sanders, Bodden, Shawn Springs, Cornerback X, Guyton and Mayo, and a three man rush, thereby blanketing the field in coverage and waiting for pressure to break through and force a sack or a bad throw. Without Mayo, the Pats D has been solid. Bodden and Springs have been great pickups, Darius Butler is showing promise in limited action, Jonathan Wilhite is holding his own, and Mike Wright is developing into the team's best pass rusher. And that is one more element Mayo's return will bring to the D - the pass rush. We saw this week that when the Pats blitzed they left themselves vulnerable to passes over the middle. Woods wasn't up to snuff. But with Mayo back, the Pats will have the freedom to blitz Guyton or Mayo from the middle, knowing that the other will be there to cover any tight ends or backs effectively over the middle. It's going to be a beautiful thing.

Pats Three Questions - Week 2

Highlights - Yes, there were some. For starters, Mike Wright's strip sack on the first play from scrimmage. Secondly, despite the problems that the Pats had with the Jets pass rush, the Pats had the ball for an equal amount of time and gained more yards than did the Jets. Another highlight, sort of like a back-handed compliment I suppose, was how Randy Moss pursued Darrelle Revis after the interception. He didn't let up, and tackled Revis before he was able to get any kind of return going. Finally, the Pats were able to effectively stop the run. Yes, the Jets gained 117 yards on the ground, but at only a 3.8 clip.

Lowlights - The number one reverse highlight has to be how the Pats responded to the Jets taking the lead. Given 9:43 at the end of the game, the Patriots of old would have easily tied the game. Instead the Pats gained 49 yards on three drives and failed to get even into Jets territory. Outside of that, Tom Brady played like the offensive line in front of him was the London Sillynannies. And unfortunately, that wasn't that far off. Also, the play-calling was once again horrendous. The Jets talked all week about bringing pressure, and then did exactly that, but somehow the Pats were unprepared. They consistently failed to disguise what they were doing on offense (or defense for that matter) and were unable to deal protect Brady, who became so skittish that he was throwing off his back foot even when he wasn't in danger of being hit.

Question of the Week - How do the Pats right the ship? Fortunately, the answers are within reach. 1) Improve the play-calling. 2) Converting in the red zone. 3) Get the secondary involved.

1) I realize that the goal of the shotgun offense is to give Brady more time to survey the field, but the downside is that everyone knows what you're going to do. The Patriots need to run a little more from under center, and they need to run a little more two tight end offense. The wide receiver depth on the team is down, especially with Welker's balky knee, so to spread the field with four receivers so frequently is not even playing to the team's strengths. Furthermore, with the defense searching for an identity, it would behoove the offense to try and play a little more ball control. Secondly, it is important not to overreact. As mentioned, the Pats had the ball longer than the Jets, and had more total yards than the Jets.

2) The main problem in the Pats first two games has not been gaining yards, but rather executing in the red zone. Stephen Gostkowski kicked two field goals from closer than 30 yards in in each game. That needs to change. It CAN change.

3) Get the secondary involved. The Pats have managed to sack the quarterback six times in the first two games, so there has been a pass rush. But it has all come from the front seven. The Pats need to be able to drop linebackers into coverage and blitz with members of the secondary. One of the hallmarks of the Rodney Harrison Pats was his ability to come with a perfectly timed blitz at just the right time. The Pats are lacking that element of surprise right now. Brandon Meriweather is performing well, and James Sanders has been trusted in the past. Leigh Bodden and Shawn Springs have made their bones as man-to-man defenders, and the fact that Darius Butler has been on the field in the fourth quarter during each of the first two games is an encouraging sign for his development. Jonathan Wilhite has shown flashes as well, though he and Brandon McGowan did get their wires crossed on the Jets touchdown yesterday. But the bottom line is that the Pats have become far too predictable on defense. In order to get feisty, to get a little unpredictable, they will need to trust the secondary a little more and get them more involved in the team defense.

Pats Three Questions - Week 1

Welcome to a new feature at Faster than a Speeding Homer. Each week, I will put up a quick post on that week's Patriots game in three parts: 1) highlights, 2) lowlights and 3) a question chosen by a friend of mine, to be determined at random each week. Keep in mind that these are thoughts mainly off the top of my head that were/will be recorded the night of or morning after the game each week.

1) Highlights - My number one highlight was the last TD throw by Brady. It was down the middle, a 20+ yard throw, and had to be in a specific location to be caught, specifically Ben Watson's back shoulder. It was a great throw that Pats fans are used to seeing Tom Brady make, but had been missing for most of the game. My number two highlight was the fumble cause by Pierre Woods (and Brandon Meriweather) and recovered by Stephen Gostkowski. Kickoff returns happen very fast, and to have so many guys come together so quickly and make that play happen speaks well of the special teams this season. In addition, it's so rare that you see a kick returner hit squarely the way Meriweather hit him. Usually, players get tripped, or pushed in the side, etc.

Other highlights include: the pass rush in the second half, Darius Butler’s play in the fourth quarter, the game opening kick return by Laurence Maroney, and the running game (minus draw plays from shotgun) on first and second down.

2) Lowlights - The number one lowlight pass coverage of the running backs and tight ends. Both of Buffalo's offensive TD's were to this group. I understand that Belichick's game plan was to take away Lee Evans and Terrell Owens, and that that game plan mostly worked. But given the relative inexperience of some of the Pats' cornerbacks, this won't be the last wide receivers on whom the Pats need to roll coverage. So it is imperative that the linebackers get better in coverage. With Jerod Mayo out for awhile, this issue will be exacerbated.

My number two lowlight was the play-calling in the running game and in short yardage situations. Far, far, far too many shotgun draws were called. Two to three years ago, these fooled people. They also fool people when you are mixing and matching your running plays and your formations. But too frequently, the Pats just lined up in the shotgun, and the running plays were predictable. Furthermore, the play-calling in short yardage was far too passive. Specifically, the first fourth and inches when Maroney got stuffed behind the line. In years past, that was a Brady QB sneak every single time. And I think fans will rightly have fears about his knee until he can get back to running QB sneaks.

Other lowlights include Gostkowski's rare missed field goal, the decision to kick the field goal when down 17-10, and the two missed two-point conversions at the end of the game. Oh, and Matt Light's continued impersonation of a matador in the first half. Thankfully, Matt (not Todd Light, Mr. Gruden) remembered he was playing football in the second half.

3) Question of the Week - What calls do you feel the refs blew? The two roughing the passer calls were tremendously poor calls that swung the game significantly in Buffalo's favor. One turned a second-and-20 on the Bills 11-yard line to a first-and-10 on the 26. They got a 15-yard pass to Jackson on the next play and they were rolling. The second call turned what would have been a second-and-20 on the Bills 36 - which would have knocked them out of field goal range - into a first-and-10 on the cusp of the red zone. The Bills scored a touchdown five plays later, when they may have done no better than a field goal. And not only were the penalties extremely meaningful in the game, they were also the wrong call. So many people have already commented on this, so there isn't much need to go into detail, but the two calls mixed unnecessary rules with poor interpretation of said rules. It was very frustrating to watch.

There it is, down and dirty. Check back in for more each week!