This post has been removed.
Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.
Am I the only one?
Re: Am I the only one?
posted at 6/26/2013 4:39 PM EDT
In response to zbellino's comment:
In response to teegee's comment:
In response to Muzwell's comment:
In response to rkarp's comment:
31. 28. 21. 24. 26. 31. 24. 41.
8 games last year the Pats allowed the opponant to score more then 20 points. I dont care if Ned Braden, Buncker Sprinkles and Rusty Griswold line at at WR for the Pats, if the defense can keep the team in games.
24, 30, 29, 43, 23, 31, 34, 23, 35, 31
What's this? It's the ten times the Ravens gave up more than 20 pts in 2012 (the last two were in the postseason). Kind of a random stat, wouldn't you say?
Muzwell, you're the best!
Kind of a disengenuous retort.
No one would class the Ravens, who are a perrenial top 5 defense, with NE.
They were missing megastars on defense for huge portions of last season. The Ray Lewis differntial alone was huge. With him they gave up about 18 ppg and took just one loss in 10 games. Without him they gave up 21 ppg and were 5-5. Never mind missing time from Reed, Suggs and a couple of other guys.
And by the time the playoffs rolled around they held the #4, #2 and #1 offenses in the AFC to 9, 13, and 21 (over six quarters) points forcing 8 turnovers in the process.
Without the outburst in the 4th quarter by the 49ers, which was itself fueled by some turnovers and kick returns giving SF some really short fields, it was pretty much a flawless defensive performance down the stretch.
Put in any meaningful context, the Ravens were what they always are: a great defensive ballclub. NE was what it has been the last few seasons: a sometimes mediocre to sometimes poor defensive ballclub that waits for its offense to build massive leads before it can get anything done.
Criminy, NE has only forced something like 3 turnovers in the last five years in the post-season, forget about the 10 the Ravens created in this one post-season.
To compare the Ravens defense to the Patriots defense that came out and gave up 56 points in two games and caused just one turnover with a 24-13 lead, none in the decisive game, is really an act of contortionism.
Disingenuous? Really? In essence, the OP posited that the Pats O must be always at the top of their game in order to make up for the lagging defense, and he used eight games in which they allowed more than 20 points as the proof of his position. How is it possibly disingenuous to point out that the Super Bowl champions also allowed more than 20 points on an equal number of occasions?
If you're going to point out a meaningless, basically random stat like that, don't be surprised if someone points out an equally random stat in retort. I didn't compare anything, I simply pointed out the silliness (IMO) of that particular argument.
Also, the Ravens ranked 17th last year (based on yardage allowed) which in a 32 team league is decidely average. Injuries, shminjuries, everybody has injuries. Name a defense that wasn't impacted by one or more injuries to key players. Sure they played great in the postseason, kudos to them.
The Ravens won the title, basically they did what they had to do. They got into the playoffs (barely) and they got hot. I don't care what anybody says, who wins the Super Bowl is almost entirely random from year to year. You don't have to be a great football team to win a title, you don't have to be the best team. You have to get lucky, take advantage of that luck and you have to get hot. Baltimore did that, the Pats didn't. You want to proclaim them as the model franchise, be my guest. If so though, where have they been since 2000?
Personally, I think they had a horseshoe up their collective butts.