138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    All 3 losses were in the final minute.

    All 3 losses we lost T.O.P

    The Giants were one of the worst run defense's in the league this year.

    Offensive play calling is a problem.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    They were one of the worst passing defenses in the league too. Passing the ball was our strength. Running was a weakness.

    Passing (strength) vs Pass Defense (weakness) or
    Running (weakness) vs Run Defense (weakness)

    BJGE and co. weren't going to beat the Giants. We were going to win or lose with Brady
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    All 3 losses featured a D FAIL on final Giants' possessions. There's your key.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from kman2004. Show kman2004's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]They were one of the worst passing defenses in the league too. Passing the ball was our strength. Running was a weakness. Passing (strength) vs Pass Defense (weakness) or Running (weakness) vs Run Defense (weakness) BJGE and co. weren't going to beat the Giants. We were going to win or lose with Brady
    Posted by dapats1281[/QUOTE]

    I think the guys point is the Pats were too 1 dimensional, making it easier to defend. I don't think he's trying to make the point that we should become ground and pound.  I recall thinking during the game after half time, wanting them to run the ball more. 

    If someone can dig it up, I would be interesting to see the each offensive series and see how many run & pass. I think most agree the combination of a fairly weak defense, which the Pats are based on points allowed; and a weak running game keeps the defense on the field longer.
     
    There was plenty of game to go around, but one thing I don't here a lot of talk about is the field position battle. How many times did we start from within the 10 yard line. That is a compliment to the Giants special teams, pinning us deep consistently.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]All 3 losses featured a D FAIL on final Giants' possessions. There's your key.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]
    You called it!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]All 3 losses featured a D FAIL on final Giants' possessions. There's your key.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, but the offense could have locked up the win Sunday nght on that drive before NYG scored. Quit busting on the defense. They didn't commit any turnovers, or drop passes.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]All 3 losses featured a D FAIL on final Giants' possessions. There's your key.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    Giving up 19 points would have been good for top 10 in the league.

    If we know our defense is susceptible in crunch time then why do we pass our way to 22 minutes of possession?

    Why would we give them 15 more minutes of game time?

    Why would we give our lead back who was successful the entire game only 10 carries?

    Just like the 12 carries for 56 yards in November against the Giants wasn't enough to keep the ball away from them the last drive....remember we passed 5 plays in a row inside of 2 minutes?

    Clock management and field position are still 2 crucial aspects of this game. We had neither.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!


    BJGE was not successful the entire game.  This is just wishful thinking.  The second drive in the second half featured BJGE on the first two plays and the drive was a three and out:

    st and 10 at NE 17B.Green-Ellis right end to NE 19 for 2 yards (C.Blackburn). NYG-J.Pierre-Paul was injured during the play. His return is Probable.  
    2nd and 8 at NE 19(Run formation) T.Brady pass incomplete short right to B.Green-Ellis.  
    3rd and 8 at NE 19(Shotgun) T.Brady sacked at NE 15 for -4 yards (J.Tuck).  
    4th and 12 at NE 15Z.Mesko punts 43 yards to NYG 42, Center-D.Aiken. W.Blackmon to NE 48 for 10 yards (M.Slater).

    Then on the crucial second-to-last drive in the fourth quarter, the running backs (Green-Ellis and Woodhead) really didn't produce when used:

    1st and 10 at NE 8(Shotgun) T.Brady pass incomplete short middle to A.Hernandez [L.Joseph].  
    2nd and 10 at NE 8(Shotgun) T.Brady pass short right to W.Welker to NE 13 for 5 yards (J.Williams).  
    3rd and 5 at NE 13(Shotgun) T.Brady pass short right to D.Woodhead to NE 32 for 19 yards (D.Grant).  
    1st and 10 at NE 32B.Green-Ellis left end to NE 35 for 3 yards (J.Pierre-Paul). NYG-A.Rolle was injured during the play. His return is Probable.  
    2nd and 7 at NE 35(Shotgun) W.Welker left end to NE 46 for 11 yards (K.Phillips).  
    1st and 10 at NE 46D.Woodhead left tackle to NE 47 for 1 yard (J.Tuck).  
    2nd and 9 at NE 47(Shotgun) T.Brady pass short right to R.Gronkowski to NYG 47 for 6 yards (P.Amukamara).  
    3rd and 3 at NYG 47(Shotgun) T.Brady pass short left to A.Hernandez to NYG 43 for 4 yards (M.Boley).  
    1st and 10 at NYG 43(Run formation) B.Green-Ellis up the middle to NYG 44 for -1 yards (C.Canty).  
    2nd and 11 at NYG 44(Shotgun) T.Brady pass incomplete deep left to W.Welker.  
    3rd and 11 at NYG 44T.Brady pass incomplete deep middle to D.Branch (C.Webster).  
    4th and 11 at NYG 44Z.Mesko punts 32 yards to NYG 12, Center-D.Aiken, fair catch by W.Blackmon.

    More runs for minimal gains would not have helped our TOP.  BJGE had two or three good runs in the game, but he also didn't produce in several key situations.  He's just not that good.  It's easy to say that handing the ball to him more often would have helped, but there's no more proof of that than there is of a claim that throwing to Ocho or Edelman 10 more times would have helped.  I have a feeling if any of those "solutions" would really have worked, BB would have tried them.  I'm convinced BB isn't an idiot.  Apparently, though, a lot of others think otherwise.  




     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    If we know our defense is susceptible in crunch time then why do we pass our way to 22 minutes of possession?

    Why would we give them 15 more minutes of game time?

    The O did not give them 15 extra minutes, the D did.

    Pats average time of possession for 8.4 possessions = 2.5 minutes. (~22 minutes total)
    The average possession =2.5 minutes for all teams possessions.  (12 possessions per game.)

    The giants average possession for 8.5 possessions was 4.5 minutes (~38 minutes total.)
    This is 2 minutes more for every possession.
    2 extra minutes per possession x ~8 possessions = 16 minutes which is exactly the TOP difference in the game.
    The Pats had to abandon the run because of the TOP constraints, they could not afford to take more time off the clock when their possessions were already severely depleted.
    Make sense?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from FrnkBnhm. Show FrnkBnhm's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]All 3 losses were in the final minute. All 3 losses we lost T.O.P The Giants were one of the worst run defense's in the league this year. Offensive play calling is a problem.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    The fact they the Pats let the Giants control the game by eating up clock and yardage every time the touched is what lost them the game. The Giants kept the game moving at the tempo the wanted. Patriots offense is built on rhythm and keeping the game moving at a quick pace.

    Don't get fooled by the final score. This game was not low scoring because the Patriots offense played poorly and their defense played well. It was low scoring because the Giants wanted a low scoring game and the Patriots allowed them to do it.

    Ultimately, the Patriots were outcoached in this game. The Giants used the same basic stragety to beat the Patriots for the third time in three games.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]If we know our defense is susceptible in crunch time then why do we pass our way to 22 minutes of possession? Why would we give them 15 more minutes of game time? The O did not give them 15 extra minutes, the D did. Pats average time of possession for 8.4 possessions = 2.5 minutes. (~22 minutes total) The average possession =2.5 minutes for all teams possessions.  (12 possessions per game.) The giants average possession for 8.5 possessions was 4.5 minutes (~38 minutes total. This is 2 minutes more for every possession. 2 extra minutes per possession x ~8 possessions = 16 minutes which is exactly the TOP difference in the game. The Pats had to abandon the run because of the TOP constraints, they could not afford to take more time off the clock when their possessions were already severely depleted. Make sense?
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    it's an 8+ possession game, not a 12 possession game. why are benchmarking to a 12 possession game? to inflate the discrepancy?

    22/8.4 = 2.6

    fair share on an evenly match top is 30/8.4 = 3.6

    that's a difference of 1 minute ~ so a difference or 2, maybe three plays. big deal.

    plus you are attributing all of the top gap on the d? the o could not stay on the field.

    in particular the pats were already at a 10 minute top disadantage right at the start of the game due to the safety (i.e., pats got ZERO seconds off the clock) on their first possession (not to mention a 2 pt deficit).
    they also had a 1:18 possession on tb's int.
    a 0:31 possession in the second half




     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from FrnkBnhm. Show FrnkBnhm's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?! : it's an 8+ possession game, not a 12 possession game. why are benchmarking to a 12 possession game?
    Posted by seattlepat70[/QUOTE]

    Thank you! That is the key to the whole game and all the stats offense and defense. The Giants wanted to shorten the game in term of possessions and the Patriots let them. The defense did not have a good game. The Giants only had eight possessions because that is how they want the game to go. They still scored 50% of the times the touched the ball!
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    defense bailed out the pats against the ravens, they didnt do it against the giants so all the blame goes to the defense...when in reality, scoring 17 points isnt going to win you that many games regardless of how good your defense is
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Salcon. Show Salcon's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?! : it's an 8+ possession game, not a 12 possession game. why are benchmarking to a 12 possession game? to inflate the discrepancy? 22/8.4 = 2.6 fair share on an evenly match top is 30/8.4 = 3.6 that's a difference of 1 minute ~ so a difference or 2, maybe three plays. big deal. plus you are attributing all of the top gap on the d? the o could not stay on the field. in particular the pats were already at a 10 minute top disadantage right at the start of the game due to the safety (i.e., pats got ZERO seconds off the clock) on their first possession (not to mention a 2 pt deficit). they also had a 1:18 possession on tb's int. a 0:31 possession in the second half
    Posted by seattlepat70[/QUOTE]
    The Giants offense was on the field for 12 minutes of the first quarter alone due to the IG/Safety.

    It seemed like it was 9-0 in the blink of an eye.







    It seemed like it 9-0 in the blink of an eye.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?! : it's an 8+ possession game, not a 12 possession game. why are benchmarking to a 12 possession game? to inflate the discrepancy? 22/8.4 = 2.6 fair share on an evenly match top is 30/8.4 = 3.6 that's a difference of 1 minute ~ so a difference or 2, maybe three plays. big deal. plus you are attributing all of the top gap on the d? the o could not stay on the field. in particular the pats were already at a 10 minute top disadantage right at the start of the game due to the safety (i.e., pats got ZERO seconds off the clock) on their first possession (not to mention a 2 pt deficit). they also had a 1:18 possession on tb's int. a 0:31 possession in the second half
    Posted by seattlepat70[/QUOTE]

    What are the average number of possessions an NFL ...

    askville.amazon.com/average-number-possessions-NFL-team-... - Similarto What are the average number of possessions an NFL ...

    Similar questions: average number possessions NFL team expect ... stat is an average of 12 possessions per team per game, so one quarter

    Not that it matters but even if you use 8 possessions per game ( which this game was) the fact remains that the Jints TOP was approximately 4.5 and the Pats Top was 2.5, those are the facts.  The Jints time of possession has nothing to do with the Pats O and everything to do with the Pats D.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?! : why is it only u and a small handfull of others can see this babe? it's so obvious it escapes them I guess, especially Queenie the Genius...we may butt heads sometimes babe but ur one of the most rational and knowledgable fans about football on here
    Posted by JintsFan[/QUOTE]

    please dont tell me you honestly believe the defense is to blame for losing super bowls when the offense scores 14 and 17 points....that is an absolute joke. hats off to the giants defense for steeping up in the late part of the game, but the offense choked when it mattered and the defense was gassed, they gave all they could all game and the offense let them down.
     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?! : Thank you! That is the key to the whole game and all the stats offense and defense. The Giants wanted to shorten the game in term of possessions and the Patriots let them. The defense did not have a good game. The Giants only had eight possessions because that is how they want the game to go. They still scored 50% of the times the touched the ball!
    Posted by FrnkBnhm[/QUOTE]

    all season we talked about pts being more important than any other metric -- i.e., yards, top, etc.

    d allowed less pts than nyg's norm
    o scored 17 pts below their norm

    if you credit the 17 pt drop in o production to nyg d, then you have to credit pats d for keeping their offense from achieving their normal production

    the alternative conclusion would be to say that both offenses sucked, the pats o just sucked much more

    in other words if you use consistent logic, the conlusion would either be that the o sucked or the d did well.

    otherwise you are just using a double standard to suit the conclusion you want.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?! : well at the end of the day you guys won 3 sb and we won 2 sb with defense-either stopping a high-powered offense or making a last stand when it counted...things tend to tighten up in the playoffs and sbs as you are playing better teams with better players...Rams offense was record-breaking in 1999 but won with only 23 pts. Its harder to score in the big games against the best and u have to have the d to get it done...pats high-flying off of 07 and 11 were held down by defense, as was 01 Rams
    Posted by JintsFan[/QUOTE]

    that is fair, but all im saying is, if the ball is caught by white wes, the defense would most likely be applauded for their effort, now people want to blame them. they played about as well as we could have expected against an offense like the giants'....they did a good job limiting cruz for the most part and were doing very good against manningham until that 38 yard sideline catch, but that was just a perfect pass and catch.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?! : at the end of all this you could say the Giants can win "ugly" easier than the Pats do...thats really what most of the past 3 match-ups boil down to
    Posted by JintsFan[/QUOTE]

    yea the pats werent built for winning ugly lol
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?! : at the end of all this you could say the Giants can win "ugly" easier than the Pats do...thats really what most of the past 3 match-ups boil down to
    Posted by JintsFan[/QUOTE]

    the weird thing is that nyg did 4.1 ypc on the ground while the pats did 4.4.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Faucetman. Show Faucetman's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    Anyone for Arian Foster for our pick #31?  He's restricted so it would cost us one of our first rounders but not a bad price to pay for truly one of the best RBs in the league.  Houston is in cap hell so they can only afford to restrict him, not tag him and I doubt they could match a decent contract if we offered him one.  I don't think another team would do it, but since we have two first rounders, why the hell not?

    Worst case Houston matches.  We lose nothing and we saddle an AFC play-off team with more cap trouble meaning they have no chance of keeping Mario Williams or signing anyone else in free agency.

    278/1,224/4.4/10 in 2011 and of course led the NFL in rushing with 1,616 the year before.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share