Baltimore's New Defense.

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from garytx. Show garytx's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to garytx's comment:

     

      Was one expecting the defense or Brady to pull out this game.  It was going to have to depend on Brady.  It was on him.  Very unfair but Brady failed.  Afterall, if you're not depending on the defense to win the game for you how can you blame them if you lost?  It would be expected.  Why play the game?  Because with Brady we had hope and the Pats had a chance.       

     

     



     

    If you want to blame Brady because...

     

     

    Receivers couldn't hold on to the ball...

     

    7 blockers couldn't contain 4 rushers for more than 4 seconds.

     

    The defense couldn't get a single turnover.

     

    The defense couldn't count how many men they had on the field.

     

    The defense couldn't limit any but a single Giants' drive to less than nearly 4 minutes.

     

    The defense couldn't keep Eli under a 75% completion rate.

     

    The defense couldn't keep Eli under a 100 PR.

     

    The RBs couldn't manage more than 3.6 ypc.

     

    The Gronk was hurt.

     

     

    ..... then be my guest. But it looks like your expectations of him were rather ludicrous.

     



    My expectations were very high but not ludicrous because I believed Brady was capable of it.  There was a lot to over come and I commented on it.    

    We knew going in that Gronk was hurt, the defense was lousy and the running game wasn't anything spectacular.  We knew the Giants DL was playing well.  So a lot on that list we knew going in.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from garytx. Show garytx's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to garytx's comment:

     

    So...how did this thread about Baltimore's defense turn into the running game thing again?  Hasn't this been bantered about in other threads? 

    The big difference from the beginning of the season to now is the improvement of the OL.  These guys are doing a terrific job.  You can't pass or run without these guys and they are at the top of their game right now.  The problem will not be about the offense this year even with Gronk out.

    The question is still about the defense and hope that the special teams snafu last game was just a fluke.

     



    Because I made a comment about the ravens new look defense was going to get man handled by the patriots new look offense. The author of the OP disagreed saying the pats offense isthe same as it has been. I showed him it wasn't as we run more then we have in 8 years and use shotgun less then we had.

     

    I think our versatile offense will keep a very smart defense guessing all game.....something the OB offense never did. I would also add that are o line has never really been an issue. It is a yearly top 5 unit due both to having a great o line coach and the best QB in the game. When you ask them to pass block a 2-1 ratio in the SB when they're going against the best pass rush in the LG well then maybe. But o lines love to run block, and we were second in the LG in that area. 




    Although I respect Z's opinions I think he's wrong here as well.  The offense seems to be working better this year.  The running game seems more effective.  The Pats got off to a rough start and I was questioning the ability of the OL at the time.  They really have come around.  Also, I don't respect the Ravens defense like I once did.  I didn't read all of the posts but I wonder about Baltimore's competition this year.  The way I look at it if the OL can control Ngata and Suggs the Pats should ring up a win.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from garytx. Show garytx's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to garytx's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to garytx's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to garytx's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So...how did this thread about Baltimore's defense turn into the running game thing again?  Hasn't this been bantered about in other threads? 

    The big difference from the beginning of the season to now is the improvement of the OL.  These guys are doing a terrific job.  You can't pass or run without these guys and they are at the top of their game right now.  The problem will not be about the offense this year even with Gronk out.

    The question is still about the defense and hope that the special teams snafu last game was just a fluke.

     




    I'l tell you why:

     

    Bellino is a basher of our D while ignoring Brady's flaws in recent postseasons. So, when I caught him raving about Balt's D ("terriffic" I believe was the word choice), with ours actually being better than theirs now, with his inaccurate statement of Balt's D "better" with Ray Lewis than without, I challenged his disingenuous behind.

    The Balt D has absolutely not been better statistically with Ray Lewis. They allow more yards and have trouble covering over the middle, something that HE and his Washers held our D to the wall for all LAST YEAR and this year as well. Ironic, isn't it? He doesn't even know how badly he slipped up.  It's quite funny, actually.

    Even when I posted sources, including a recent study by the nerds at ESPN Insider, he still tried to deflect by posting Baltimore's record with Ray LEwis back. That's not what he said. We weren't talking "records", the discussion was about how their D fared with or without Ray, statistically.  He lost and refuses to ever, and I mean EVER admit he was incorrect.

    Prolate does this, Babe is insane, and all the other Washers do it as well. If you have man lust for Brady, apparently can't see straight or feature an IQ over 100.

    I bludgeoned Phat Rex here so many times in our "debates" because I saw how disingenuous the premise was and knew the agenda.

    If I see phony behavior or inaccurate comments here, I will call that person out. 

    In summary, that's how this thread got derailed. A normal human would say "You know, I didn't realize Balt's D was statistically worse with Ray. I just looked at their record as a team and figured it was."

    But, nope. Not Bellino. Not any of em.

     

    I don't believe Baltimore's D to be better this year or at least I don't fear it like I did in the past.  I expect the Pats to win.  Maybe not easily but win.  I don't know if you can call the Pats D better however.  It really didn't show any promise until Talib showed up and the pieces fell into place.  At least it looks that way.  The main thing to me is if the Pats can control Ngata and Suggs.  If they do it's a win.

    Z is a pretty intelligent fellow.  I wouldn't brush him off so casually.  The problem is that you're so hell bent on defending the defense like Babe is Brady.  Some where in the middle lies the truth.  The problem with the Pats defense is that they couldn't do a 3 and out to save their lives.  It was hard to score a TD on them but precious time gets taken off the clock and usually means that the offense has the whole field to cover.  On the other hand the Pats could only go as far as Brady could carry it.  The win was entirely on his shoulders.  A heavy burden.  Even the greats of the past have folded.  Truth be known it takes a complete team to win a SB.  You go in depending on one side of the ball and your chances are not good.






    How about just be fair?!!! I am not hellbent on overly-praising our own D whatsoever.  Their little group gives our D absolutely no credit whatsoever, EVER!

     

    IN fact, Z mocked the 28 points they allowed but ignored how the STs plays by Houston and a totally ridiculous allowed time out for a FG before half, really means the D held to under 20 points of their own doing.

    Also, the Mayo strip on Foster that was magically called "forward progress" as Mayo was trying to finish his tackle, would have limited more points.

    Finally, no one claimed the Pats D last year was a strenght, but in the game itself, the D held to SIX POINTS, dude, in the second half! How is it a "heavy burden" when they held them to 2 FGs with our own offense not getting ONE FG off of 4 drives in the 4th qtr?

    Really? We couldn't even get a FG to help out our own D!  I would argue a heavy burden is playing D in an offensive era and then expecting that D to be otherworldy in a dome.

    You do realize that our SB D in 2001 and 2003 was also GASSED in domes, blowing a lead in the those SBs, too, right?

    These guys are humans, they're not robots.  All Brady had to do WAS NOT throw an INT or miss his own wide open chances.

    He failed.

    Worst 4th qtr in any SB he's played in. Bar none.

     

    You kinda missed my point in all of this.  I, for the most point agreed with you when all this stuff broke out about Brady and defense.  I agreed with you that the defense for what it was and that wasn't much gave the Pats the opportunity to win and that Brady let us down not so much that his performance was poor or anything like that but the game was dependant on him, not the defense.  Nobody, at least me, was expecting this defense to do 3 and outs.  Yards were going to be given up and hopefully little points.  Point wise they succeeded.  However, due to the limited time and length of field that the offense was going to be given, Brady had to be damned near perfect to get a win out of this.  He was less than perfect and the Pats lost.  

    This Brady versus defense thing has really been over blown.  I chose to not enter the fray.  My arguement is this.  Was one expecting the defense or Brady to pull out this game.  It was going to have to depend on Brady.  It was on him.  Very unfair but Brady failed.  Afterall, if you're not depending on the defense to win the game for you how can you blame them if you lost?  It would be expected.  Why play the game?  Because with Brady we had hope and the Pats had a chance.       

     




    Which side played higher to their ceiling?  The defense! 

     

    There is no way on earth a team is winning a SB with 14 or 17 points unless you're the Giants and you lob a ball off a WR's helmet out of sheer luck. Guess who that came against? Us!  Our QB? Tom Brady.

    There's no way around it. It's what happened. We can't have a top flight performing offense flat out disappearing whent the chips are on the table. It's in 2 SBs where he's passed mostly in the shotgun 45+ times and that's on him. No one else. Him. It's not "unfair" at all. He's our best player, he prefers the shotgun.  Period.

    If you had told anyone here allowing 13 points into the 4th qtr last February, with Brady having 4 drives to work with and a 2 pt lead, who wouldn't have liked our chances?



    I was happy with the point total out of that defense.  They lacked in other key areas though.  They had no turnovers and left a large field to start from which hurt.  It should be no secret that the Pats OL doesn't match up well with the Giants DL.  The Pats have a lot of company there.  

    In the end I did agree with you.  The defense did do better than expected holding down the point total.  That's about all you could ask for from that defense.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to garytx's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    In response to garytx's comment:

     

    So...how did this thread about Baltimore's defense turn into the running game thing again?  Hasn't this been bantered about in other threads? 

    The big difference from the beginning of the season to now is the improvement of the OL.  These guys are doing a terrific job.  You can't pass or run without these guys and they are at the top of their game right now.  The problem will not be about the offense this year even with Gronk out.

    The question is still about the defense and hope that the special teams snafu last game was just a fluke.

     



    Because I made a comment about the ravens new look defense was going to get man handled by the patriots new look offense. The author of the OP disagreed saying the pats offense isthe same as it has been. I showed him it wasn't as we run more then we have in 8 years and use shotgun less then we had.

     

    I think our versatile offense will keep a very smart defense guessing all game.....something the OB offense never did. I would also add that are o line has never really been an issue. It is a yearly top 5 unit due both to having a great o line coach and the best QB in the game. When you ask them to pass block a 2-1 ratio in the SB when they're going against the best pass rush in the LG well then maybe. But o lines love to run block, and we were second in the LG in that area. 

     




     

    Although I respect Z's opinions I think he's wrong here as well.  The offense seems to be working better this year.  The running game seems more effective.  The Pats got off to a rough start and I was questioning the ability of the OL at the time.  They really have come around.  Also, I don't respect the Ravens defense like I once did.  I didn't read all of the posts but I wonder about Baltimore's competition this year.  The way I look at it if the OL can control Ngata and Suggs the Pats should ring up a win.



    I agree that the Ravens D had a down year. Upshaw and a few others have been slow to develop. I agree with Z that they are playing better lately and are no doubt on an emotional high with the Reverend Ray Lewis farewell tour.....but this defense lacks play makers. They are very disciplined and know us well, but again i agree with Madden, Gannon, Kirwan and many others that this "new look Pats offense" that is committed to running the football will be too much for this old defense. In the past they knew our tendencies...no longer.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from hang3xc. Show hang3xc's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    Yes, the defense played average, in fact right at their season average, but received no help from their offense ...

    Offense has to score points, defense has to stop them....



    Defense ALSO has to give the offense more than 20 minutes possession. The defense was on the field just under minutes. Not a single 3 & out, not a single turnover. Amazing the offense couldn't find it's rythym. It's amazing Brady & co scored what they did actually

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from hang3xc. Show hang3xc's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    The Balt D has absolutely not been better statistically with Ray Lewis. They allow more yards and have trouble covering over the middle, blah blah blah

    Yet they WIN 85% of the time WITH Ray and 50 % WITHOUT him. WINS... the one statistic that matters

    [QUOTE]

     

    Finally, no one claimed the Pats D last year was a strenght

    [/QUOTE]

    Uhhh, you PRAISED them ALL year long

    [QUOTE]

     

    but in the game (SB) itself, the D held to SIX POINTS, dude, in the second half! How is it a "heavy burden" when they held them to 2 FGs with our own offense not getting ONE FG off of 4 drives in the 4th qtr?

    [/QUOTE]

     

    The problem was the atrocious D lingered on the field for nearly FORTY MINUTES. They stopped NOTHING. Everyone knows the BEST way to beat Brady is to KEEP HIM OFF THE FIELD... and the Giants were masterful at that. Amazingly Brady and co could've STILL pulled it off if the D held up just that one time when it REALLY counted (Yes, Brady threw the ball behind/above Welker and yes he didn't manage to haul it in to ice the game but can't the D make a single critical stop???

    [QUOTE]

    You do realize that our SB D in 2001 and 2003 was also GASSED in domes, blowing a lead in the those SBs, too, right?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, and the offense STEPPED UP and bailed them out. The D had been pretty spectacular and when they came up short in the end, Brady & co MADE THE PLAYS NEEDED TO WIN THE GAME... unlike last years D 

    [QUOTE]

    These guys are humans, they're not robots.  All Brady had to do WAS NOT throw an INT or miss his own wide open chances. He failed.

    [/QUOTE]

    Funny, many feel EXACTLY the same way in reverse. Brady & co are human, not robots. All the D had to do was make ONE critical stop to end the game. They failed

     

    a

     

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to garytx's comment:

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    In response to garytx's comment:

     

    So...how did this thread about Baltimore's defense turn into the running game thing again?  Hasn't this been bantered about in other threads? 

    The big difference from the beginning of the season to now is the improvement of the OL.  These guys are doing a terrific job.  You can't pass or run without these guys and they are at the top of their game right now.  The problem will not be about the offense this year even with Gronk out.

    The question is still about the defense and hope that the special teams snafu last game was just a fluke.

     



    Because I made a comment about the ravens new look defense was going to get man handled by the patriots new look offense. The author of the OP disagreed saying the pats offense isthe same as it has been. I showed him it wasn't as we run more then we have in 8 years and use shotgun less then we had.

     

    I think our versatile offense will keep a very smart defense guessing all game.....something the OB offense never did. I would also add that are o line has never really been an issue. It is a yearly top 5 unit due both to having a great o line coach and the best QB in the game. When you ask them to pass block a 2-1 ratio in the SB when they're going against the best pass rush in the LG well then maybe. But o lines love to run block, and we were second in the LG in that area. 

     




     

    Although I respect Z's opinions I think he's wrong here as well.  The offense seems to be working better this year.  The running game seems more effective.  The Pats got off to a rough start and I was questioning the ability of the OL at the time.  They really have come around.  Also, I don't respect the Ravens defense like I once did.  I didn't read all of the posts but I wonder about Baltimore's competition this year.  The way I look at it if the OL can control Ngata and Suggs the Pats should ring up a win.

     



    I agree that the Ravens D had a down year. Upshaw and a few others have been slow to develop. I agree with Z that they are playing better lately and are no doubt on an emotional high with the Reverend Ray Lewis farewell tour.....but this defense lacks play makers. They are very disciplined and know us well, but again i agree with Madden, Gannon, Kirwan and many others that this "new look Pats offense" that is committed to running the football will be too much for this old defense. In the past they knew our tendencies...no longer.

     




    What were the Pats tendacies sunday?  41/23.  looks a LOT like the SB except that the D was on the field for only 31 minutes and 12 possessions.  7 less minutes for the D means 7 more minutes for the O.   That's how that works?   Imagine that!

    There were a few more runs than in the SB but there were also a few more plays, so basically a wash. 

    It's amazing what 4 more possessions can do to help scoring.

    SB = 8 possessions = 17 pts  2 TD's, 1 Fg

    Division = 12 possessions=41 pts   5 TD's and 2 FG's

    Yup it's truly amazing what happens when the D can produce T/O's and 3 and outs and gets the ball back to the O.  AMAZING!

    Let's hope it's not a 8 possession game Sunday, cuz if it is, it means the D is not getting off the field.  Those WERE their tendacies.  Hopefully never again!

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    "If you had told anyone here allowing 13 points into the 4th qtr last February, with Brady having 4 drives to work with and a 2 pt lead, who wouldn't have liked our chances?"

    Yawwwwn. Tired argument much? 

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    Oh, BTW crusty.

    * The Ray Lewis effect: Ray Lewis leads the Ravens with 30 tackles this postseason. The Ravens have allowed opponents to complete only 49 percent of their passes when sending five or more pass-rushers with Lewis this season.

    Without Lewis, Ravens opponents are completing 65 percent of their passes against such pressure.

    I would say they're better with him.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:

    "If you had told anyone here allowing 13 points into the 4th qtr last February, with Brady having 4 drives to work with and a 2 pt lead, who wouldn't have liked our chances?"

    Yawwwwn. Tired argument much? 




    Not only tired, it's a total and blatent fabrication. 

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     


    Numbers per drive is complete horsesh-t!  

     



    It's really not.  If it wasn't what would be the point of trying to beat great offenses by holding the ball.  It's to give them less opportunities to score because most people realize that how many times you score is related to how many opportunities you get.  Think about it.  If your opponent scored a TD every time they had the ball it wouldn't matter how long you held it.  It is the fact that they don't and you think you can stop them a few times that makes holding the ball valuable.  It isn't the whole story, but to pretend it is irrelevant completely flies in the face of the logic behind why you think we should run the ball.

     



    Yeah it really is, in the context of one game if the Patriots and Giants had the same amount of possessions, then whatever they've done until that point in the season doesn't matter.  This year's offense really didn't turn a corner until the final game against the Dolphins, when they proved they could run the clock out when the opposing team knew they would attempt to do so and were still successful at it. Should the offense be judged on how they played in week three?

    Funny how every week including this past one, the Patriot's and Belichick preach that whatever happened in the previous game against the Texans has no bearing on the game coming up.  It's true of every game, previous stats mean nothing.  The only thing that matters is the game coming up, living in the moment and executing.  But fine if you want to focus on averages...

    In 2011 the Patriot's offense averaged 32 points per game, in the Super Bowl they scored 15; substantially below average, less than half in fact...

    In 2011 the Patriots defense allowed 21 points per game, exactly what they allowed in the Super Bowl; average.

    Who sucked again?  Yeah the defense didn't cause any turnovers but the offense turned it over twice, once for a 2 point loss. If they'd only broken even and turned one of those precious possessions into points we wouldn't even be having this conversation but they didn't. They had the Super Bowl's only turnovers, two of them...

    These points per drive averages are garbage, junk science.  Points scored, points against and turnovers are what matters.  All other stats tell a story of what happened but the three stats above are the only ones that matter when it comes to winning and losing.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    I'd love to see you guys roll out your intricate, elaborate stats and explain to Belichick why his offense only scored 15 points, I can a terse look on his face as he tells you "stats are for losers."

    They keep score with points, until they start keeping a tally of good intentions you can take your QBR's, DBR's, and PBR's roll them up and smoke them... although I think you've been smoking enough so I don't want to encourage you.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to garytx's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to garytx's comment:

     

      Was one expecting the defense or Brady to pull out this game.  It was going to have to depend on Brady.  It was on him.  Very unfair but Brady failed.  Afterall, if you're not depending on the defense to win the game for you how can you blame them if you lost?  It would be expected.  Why play the game?  Because with Brady we had hope and the Pats had a chance.       

     

     



     

    If you want to blame Brady because...

     

     

    Receivers couldn't hold on to the ball...

     

    7 blockers couldn't contain 4 rushers for more than 4 seconds.

     

    The defense couldn't get a single turnover.

     

    The defense couldn't count how many men they had on the field.

     

    The defense couldn't limit any but a single Giants' drive to less than nearly 4 minutes.

     

    The defense couldn't keep Eli under a 75% completion rate.

     

    The defense couldn't keep Eli under a 100 PR.

     

    The RBs couldn't manage more than 3.6 ypc.

     

    The Gronk was hurt.

     

     

    ..... then be my guest. But it looks like your expectations of him were rather ludicrous.

     

     



    My expectations were very high but not ludicrous because I believed Brady was capable of it.  There was a lot to over come and I commented on it.    

     

     




    You were expecting 30 points with Gronk hobbled and only 8 possessions?

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    I'd love to see you guys roll out your intricate, elaborate stats and explain to Belichick why his offense only scored 15 points, I can a terse look on his face as he tells you "stats are for losers."

    They keep score with points, until they start keeping a tally of good intentions you can take your QBR's, DBR's, and PBR's roll them up and smoke them... although I think you've been smoking enough so I don't want to encourage you.

     

    You think noting the severely reduced number of possessions in the game is: " intricate, elaborate stats"? Actually, it's just a pretty basic standard football strategy called "ball control" which allowed the Giants to keep our high powered O off the field as much as possible. And the inferior nature of our D allowed them to do just that.


    First, his offense scored 17 points, not 15.

    Second, I'm quite sure BB is well aware his D couldn't get off the field and that greatly reduced the number of possessions for the offense. Just like he noticed his mickey mouse D fold yet again to lose another Lombardi. Do you think he's stupid and didn't notice these things?

    And his dramatic drafting for D following that fiasco clearly shows his level of concern.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     


    Numbers per drive is complete horsesh-t!  

     



    It's really not.  If it wasn't what would be the point of trying to beat great offenses by holding the ball.  It's to give them less opportunities to score because most people realize that how many times you score is related to how many opportunities you get.  Think about it.  If your opponent scored a TD every time they had the ball it wouldn't matter how long you held it.  It is the fact that they don't and you think you can stop them a few times that makes holding the ball valuable.  It isn't the whole story, but to pretend it is irrelevant completely flies in the face of the logic behind why you think we should run the ball.

     



    Exactly. Wozzy doesn't seem to get that the argument he made repeatedly last year about the need to hold the ball longer is exactly the same argument that the number of drives matters, just in different words. Given that the game length is fixed at 60 minutes, longer drives mean fewer drives which means fewer scoring chances for your opponent.  

     

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    I'd love to see you guys roll out your intricate, elaborate stats and explain to Belichick why his offense only scored 15 points, I can a terse look on his face as he tells you "stats are for losers."

    They keep score with points, until they start keeping a tally of good intentions you can take your QBR's, DBR's, and PBR's roll them up and smoke them... although I think you've been smoking enough so I don't want to encourage you.

    What BB actually said:

    BB: No, I think there’s some relevance to some statistics. I don’t think they’re irrelevant but you have to be careful about putting too much on them but there’s some relevance to them. I’d rather be obviously high in wins, low in points, low third-down conversion percentage, low red-area percentage, low goal-line percentage, low yards-per-rush, low yards-per-attempt, low penalties. You want to be low in every category. The most important one is wins, the next most important one is points and there are a lot of other things that go along with that. Sure, you want to be better in everything that you’re doing. There is some relevance to that, some of it is circumstantial, some of it isn’t after 16 games and over 1,000 snaps – they mean something but I think you still have to go beyond the actual numbers to try to see what you’re really dealing with, especially if you want to try to change it or improve it, try to figure out exactly what it is that’s right or wrong. 

    And if BB "went beyond the actual numbers" to see what went wrong, I bet execution would be his number one focus:

    "We played 16 games, they [the Texans] played 17. You are what you are at this point.  It comes down not to plays, but to execution--how well you block, tackle, throw, catch, kick, run, and so forth. That's the big part of the game.  And that's why the teams playing at this time of the year are playing at this time of year: because they do those things pretty well.  I don't think it's a big X and O thing. I think it's more that the teams that play well, the players that perform well, those are the teams that will go on."

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    I had worried some about Upshaw earlier his year.  Didn't want to play him twice a season but not so much this year, Suggs is still hurt, Ngata it walking wounded, our O line is playing goodKi think we crush them and make a statement 

    if they don't get up on us big early  by let's say a pick or a ST play they won't keep up with us. BB has the D playing good. I feel we have a better chance this year then last year. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     


    Numbers per drive is complete horsesh-t!  

     



    It's really not.  If it wasn't what would be the point of trying to beat great offenses by holding the ball.  It's to give them less opportunities to score because most people realize that how many times you score is related to how many opportunities you get.  Think about it.  If your opponent scored a TD every time they had the ball it wouldn't matter how long you held it.  It is the fact that they don't and you think you can stop them a few times that makes holding the ball valuable.  It isn't the whole story, but to pretend it is irrelevant completely flies in the face of the logic behind why you think we should run the ball.

     

     



    Exactly. Wozzy doesn't seem to get that the argument he made repeatedly last year about the need to hold the ball longer is exactly the same argument that the number of drives matters, just in different words. Given that the game length is fixed at 60 minutes, longer drives mean fewer drives which means fewer scoring chances for your opponent.  

     

     



    Wrong! It is not the "exact" same thing.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    I'd love to see you guys roll out your intricate, elaborate stats and explain to Belichick why his offense only scored 15 points, I can a terse look on his face as he tells you "stats are for losers."

    They keep score with points, until they start keeping a tally of good intentions you can take your QBR's, DBR's, and PBR's roll them up and smoke them... although I think you've been smoking enough so I don't want to encourage you.




    No need to tell BB, He already knows.

    That's why he always preaches, according to Bru, G.T.F.B.B.

    Yup, the initials GTFBB are everywhere, and he uses them all the time when talking to the D.

    Get The F'n Ball Back!

    Yup, possessions are important in a timed game, because time determines how many you get.  You don't want your D using it.  If your D is using it, that means your O cant.

    Nothing complicated about it.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

     

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

    Oh, yes. Thanks D for giving up 33% more first downs than the average NFL D, and letting Eli make you look like fools at the end to lose another SB for us. You definitely did "what you could".

     

     

    How about you address the lack of scoring instead of blaming the defense for what the offense didn't do.  Both teams had the ball 9 times, actually the Pats had it one more possession than the Giant's with an Eli kneel down before the half... but again, instead of trying to deflect, deal with the facts.

    The offense didn't score enough... period.

     




     

     

    It had nothing to do with our lack of running game due to our best back riding the bench in the doghouse allowing the Giants Front 4 to Tee off on Brady from beginning to end of the game and this guy still managed to complete 16 straight passes and only struggled when he re-injured his Shoulder after the Tuck hit but STILL put his team in position to win BUT there 3 DROPS on that potential game winning drive. Yea all those things arent important to point out...Carry on Wozzy!  My question is why are you trying so hard to make the stats work for YOU. I will ask the same thing I did last week to our newest Brady basher. DID you Expect him to be perfect??? Do you realize Tom Brady is a human being???

     



    You are making his point for him.

     

    IF, as you correctly suggest, you can not expect Brady(GOAT) to be perfect then you absolutely should help him out and help protect him with NOT putting the whole thing on his arm.

     




    Or... have a defense that hangs in there in the tough games and gets a stop at the end when given a lead.

     

     



    Like EVERYONE doesn't already know this Babe?

     

    The D was what EVERYONE knew them to be and was the same in that game (weak, poor, avg at best, pick your adjectives). The offense underachieved. It was what it was. It happens. We have to deal with it.

    The Pats were stuck with the D going into the game. Not like you can change the personel with trades or high profile Free agents the 2 weeks leading to the superbowl. It was what it was and what they used all season to get them to the big game.

    However the things they could control were 1) How they called the game. 2) Eliminate mental mistakes. 

    They did not do either all that well.

    I know this will get your knickers in a twist, and I am not wishing it to, but everyone is always speaking about FACTS and possessions here. Fact: Brady(GOAT), and best player on the team,  gave away two possessions and spotted the opposition 2 points with two costly mental mistakes(poor decisions). The intentional grounding and the very ill adviced and uneccessary, at that situational point in time, long bomb INT to gimpy Gronk.

    I hated to write that because it sounds like I am blaming or picking on Brady and I assure you I am not and place no blame on the best player and chance the Patriots have of winning another SB but those were just a couple of FACTS as everyone wants to always say they are pointing out.

    As you have said many times and I agree. Noone will fully understand or appreciate just how great Brady has been for us fans here in NE until he has retired.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    What BB actually said:

    BB: No, I think there’s some relevance to some statistics. I don’t think they’re irrelevant but you have to be careful about putting too much on them but there’s some relevance to them. I’d rather be obviously high in wins, low in points, low third-down conversion percentage, low red-area percentage, low goal-line percentage, low yards-per-rush, low yards-per-attempt, low penalties. You want to be low in every category. The most important one is wins, the next most important one is points and there are a lot of other things that go along with that. Sure, you want to be better in everything that you’re doing. There is some relevance to that, some of it is circumstantial, some of it isn’t after 16 games and over 1,000 snaps – they mean something but I think you still have to go beyond the actual numbers to try to see what you’re really dealing with, especially if you want to try to change it or improve it, try to figure out exactly what it is that’s right or wrong. 

    i.e., get the ball back to your offense, i.e., increase the offenses's number of possessions.  How any one could argue that is irrelevant in a game is incomprehensible.  

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     


    Numbers per drive is complete horsesh-t!  

     



    It's really not.  If it wasn't what would be the point of trying to beat great offenses by holding the ball.  It's to give them less opportunities to score because most people realize that how many times you score is related to how many opportunities you get.  Think about it.  If your opponent scored a TD every time they had the ball it wouldn't matter how long you held it.  It is the fact that they don't and you think you can stop them a few times that makes holding the ball valuable.  It isn't the whole story, but to pretend it is irrelevant completely flies in the face of the logic behind why you think we should run the ball.

     

     



    Exactly. Wozzy doesn't seem to get that the argument he made repeatedly last year about the need to hold the ball longer is exactly the same argument that the number of drives matters, just in different words. Given that the game length is fixed at 60 minutes, longer drives mean fewer drives which means fewer scoring chances for your opponent.  

      Wrong! It is not the "exact" same thing.


    Actually it pretty much is

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to themightypatriots' comment:

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     


    Numbers per drive is complete horsesh-t!  

     



    It's really not.  If it wasn't what would be the point of trying to beat great offenses by holding the ball.  It's to give them less opportunities to score because most people realize that how many times you score is related to how many opportunities you get.  Think about it.  If your opponent scored a TD every time they had the ball it wouldn't matter how long you held it.  It is the fact that they don't and you think you can stop them a few times that makes holding the ball valuable.  It isn't the whole story, but to pretend it is irrelevant completely flies in the face of the logic behind why you think we should run the ball.

     

     



    Exactly. Wozzy doesn't seem to get that the argument he made repeatedly last year about the need to hold the ball longer is exactly the same argument that the number of drives matters, just in different words. Given that the game length is fixed at 60 minutes, longer drives mean fewer drives which means fewer scoring chances for your opponent.  

      Wrong! It is not the "exact" same thing.

     

     


    Actually it pretty much is



    no it's not.

     

    having a single possession drive that lasts 7 or 8 minutes or 4 possessions that in total combined lasts 7-8 minutes are not the same thing as it relates to the argument of "possessions". 

    4 possessions does not necessarily give you more time of possession but it does potentially put your defense back on the field alot more.

    That is why it is not the "Exact" same thing.

     

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    In response to themightypatriots' comment:

     

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     


    Numbers per drive is complete horsesh-t!  

     



    It's really not.  If it wasn't what would be the point of trying to beat great offenses by holding the ball.  It's to give them less opportunities to score because most people realize that how many times you score is related to how many opportunities you get.  Think about it.  If your opponent scored a TD every time they had the ball it wouldn't matter how long you held it.  It is the fact that they don't and you think you can stop them a few times that makes holding the ball valuable.  It isn't the whole story, but to pretend it is irrelevant completely flies in the face of the logic behind why you think we should run the ball.

     

     



    Exactly. Wozzy doesn't seem to get that the argument he made repeatedly last year about the need to hold the ball longer is exactly the same argument that the number of drives matters, just in different words. Given that the game length is fixed at 60 minutes, longer drives mean fewer drives which means fewer scoring chances for your opponent.  

      Wrong! It is not the "exact" same thing.

     

     


    Actually it pretty much is

     



    no it's not.

     

     

    having a single possession drive that lasts 7 or 8 minutes or 4 possessions that in total combined lasts 7-8 minutes are not the same thing as it relates to the argument of "possessions". 

    4 possessions does not necessarily give you more time of possession but it does potentially put your defense back on the field alot more.

    That is why it is not the "Exact" same thing.

     




    Yes it is.  Time relates to possessions.  The amount of possessions are dictated by the time it takes to complete them.

    1 drive of 8 minutes decreases possessions as 4 drives totaling 8 minutes increases possessions.

    1 drive of 8 minutes means an ineffecient defense while 4 drives totaling 8 minutes indicates an ieffecient D.   They would be on the field more times but are spending no more time than  they would be for the one, 8 minute possession. (assuming those possessions are not quick strike scores for the other team)

    Holding the ball ='s time lost='s possessions lost.

    The only time a defense holding the ball would be a good thing (prevent) is at the end of the game, with a substantial lead.  Then you are using time to kill possessions for the other team.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share