Baltimore's New Defense.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to CaptainZdeno33's comment:

     

     

    Stick to selling insurance over the phone at your CRAPPY 9-5 desk job, Pezzy.

     

    TCal/Mighty probably shops at Walmart for cying out loud. Not hard to be smarter than a moron, especially on the internet.

    lol

    Too easy. Enjoy that commute home! If you are even employed, that is.  The board wonders about you, in particular.

     

     




    You have never bought anything at Walmart junior?

     

     




    Yes, but I hate going in there and sure as hell don't shop their regularly like you and your buddies do.

     

     

     



    Seriously, dude? I didn't realize you were this stuck up. There's nothing wrong with a one-stop shop at good prices.

     




    How is not buying a lot of prepared, processed or packaged groceries being "stuck up"?

     

     

     

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    They sell more than groceries at Walmart junior. Seems I have to take you under my wing and teach you every little thing.

     

     




    Yeah, well I don't like to promote monopolies. I prefer Costco or Target, thanks.

     

     

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    The very existence of Target and Costco belies your claims of monopoly junior.

     

    But yeah, I use whoever gives me the best bang for my buck. Shopping is a science.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

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

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

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

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    New article find, read it and weep.

    1.) I'm ahead of the curve. Drive stats, according to this sports writer, are the only proper way to look at a contest.

    2.) This is basically slam dunk evidence ... the Giants offense quite simply manhandled the Patriots defense. 

    And what games does it use??? The last two games between NE and NY, specifically because the score tells you nothing about how those two offenses actually performed given that the average NFL game includes 12.4 'real' drives. 

    http://m.nbcsports.com/content/opinion-drive-stats-are-future-nfl-analysis

     



    Come on Z get real. WHat does that word say that is at the start of that article link?

     

    How can I take you seriously lately when you are stats stats stats and you are not a dumb guy so we both know stats are BS and you can make them say anything you want them to say depending on what lens you are looking at them through.

     



    Really? Show me how, in per drive stats, NE's defense was "solid" in that game please?

     

     

     



    yes really. ...and nice lawyerly move trying to use the word solid as if you were quoting me somewhere. Just a lil thing so you and anyone else reading knows you are putting words in my mouth as you love to do. I never called them solid, anywhere.

     

     

    Show me in stats where the Patriots D was consistently solid in per drive stats all season long against a similarly capable opposing offense? Is that what would lead you to believe they should be anything more than what they were in the SB game?

    What you are trying to prove is that one units reputation was really a mirage. Well the D was already ranked last or near last.

    Was the Offense's rank and reputation merely a mirage then? Must have been since they need significantly more possesions to outscore the oppoenent you are saying. The Pats had 5 to the giants 4 in the 2nd half with the lead. 5>4 is some more math for you. Since you like math so much. They had more possession than the opposession and still scored fewer. They underachieved.

     

     

     

    Sorry, man, not really meaning for that post to come across as testy. 


    1.) Solid ... wasn't meant to say that is what you said. It was really a general challenge in defense of efficiency statistics. Under no circumstances was that defense efficient. 

    2.) I've never maintained that they had 'illusory' success. Or that they fell apart.

    I've maintained that the Patriots weren't a complete team, and expecting to win three games against three playoff teams is almost herculean. What you need to do is look at NE's record in the regular season, over the past three seasons, agaisnt teams built like NY. That gives you the likelihood of them winning. Everyone before that game was cocky, talking like NE had it in the bag. They didn't. They had already lost to NY (in roughly similar circumstances). 

    3.) When people calculate 'per drive' they usually discard drives that aren't likely to score points. The Giants' kneeling drive, and the <1:00 drive NE had don't adjust the tally because they are not real scoring opportunities. 

    4,) The debate isn't about who underachieved. IF your whole game plan is to rely on one unit the achieve at some basic level, we'll call that an average efficiency level against the NFL gamut in this case, in order to win every single game then it's structurally flawed. 

    You don't blame the guy who shows up for work every day of the week when he gets sick and productivigty plummets, when you have another guy who never shows up. You keep the guy who shows up (now) almost every single day, and replace the guy who never shows up. Then your business is going to work. Until then, even if it works on the back of the guy showing up, it's always going to break down at some point, unless you assume people are robots that repeat the same performance every single time. 

    I don't "maintain" like some others do, that NE will win this way, they will lose this way. At the outset of the playoffs last year I simply said .. 

    1.) Ne loses low scoring games. It's a trend. Moreover, one that stretched into this season. Tony Mazz actually brought up the same stats four weeks ago. I think they've won 2 games in the last three seasons when they scored less than 23. Per Drive stats aside that is alarming. Even some pretty average teams have ~.500 records in these contests. I think NE is something like 2-9, iirc. 

    2.) Thus, you are basically hoping the offense doesn't score less than that. The fact that it happened on 8 drives does make it redeeming for them. If they had scored that on 12+ (and they have before, against Seattle iirc) then it would truly be a bad performance. 

    3.) When it happened ... I wasn't surprised. I didn't think NE had what it takes to win the Superbowl last season. 

    I will say, however, kudos on the "lawlerly move" of calling me "lawyerly". Haha. It's basically as old as Plato, to build up your opponent as a "smooth talker" thus making people think it's likely they are spinning a lie. haha. 

    I will come back later, after this dinner party, and give you *my* thoughts on the subject, because anything Wozzy, TC, or Rusty say I said is most likely an exaggeration or fabrication. I've actually defended the break point of rushing too little (-27%) and discussed the merits of late game rushing this season as a decided advantage over that past team. 

    What I just refuse to maintain is that running the football a few more times would have had an impact on that game. It wouldn't have. Executing better would have though. Either the offense scores one more TD (giving it an all time great level of execution on the game, 3ppd would be higher than any season average ever) or the defense does just a little bit, executing on at least one drive (turnover, 3 and out, etc, preventing score) to prevent from showing up with a last ranked (based on season average) ppd, or by extending the game, and giving NE at least one or two more real drives. 

     




    Did you just reference Tony Mazz as a source to support your argument? Are you so dumb to not realize that we started losing close games post 2005 when Brady shifted to the shotgun base spread more so than during the Weis years?

     

    So, when Brady passes 40+ times, you can't figure out WHY we lose some close games?

    LOL!!!

    Priceless. You just proved how much you don't get it.  They've lost more close games than should have due to a finesse offense and its flaws, not the D.

    What changed in 2005?  The O or the D?  The O!

    Your idiotic refusal of not knowledging how a few more rushes per game wouldn't affect the game when we know 3 rushes and a punt equate to a max of 2:02 of clock. That's a LOT better than INT on 1st down in enemy territory! 

    This fact is a "fabrication"?  How so?  Explain how you PINING for Brady to throw more INTs per game makes sense for any Pats fan. Please explain that. Just think, if Balt hadn't contained Moreno in the game on Saturday, Gomer may have handed it off more and he wouldn't have thrown that INT in OT.

    Holy mackerel are you obtuse on these topics.

     




    Never a more delusional person, ever.

    No one was pining for brady and 3 more runs wouldn't have made a bit of difference.  In fact, wasn't it a negative run that set up the need to pass and the int?

    3 rushes and a punt prevents scoring.  Did they want to score or were they happy with their slight lead?  Nope.

    Who the he11 would be with a D that is allowing 75% scoring in the 2nd half.

    You run with a lead, not a dwindeling one, especially when you only get 4 freaken possessions in an entire half.   Sitting on the ball for 2 minutes would not produce a score and would have entirely wiped out their last 57 second possession ( if you want to call it that)

    Believe me, the gints could have scored quicker.  They were taking their time, on purpose, thus the need to let them score or they would have eaten every last second off the clock.

    Do you think they wanted to score quickly?  NOPE.  Could they have?  YUP  NO problem.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

     

    On average for a 16 game season...


    Team A scores 35 ppg.

    Team B scores 26 ppg

    Team A allows 21 ppg

    team B allows 25 ppg.

    Which team is more likely to score more points while allowing leSS points in a 14 possession game? A 10 possession game? A 4 possession game.

    Hint... Team A is the answer to all 3 questions.? The only factor that changes things is if one half of team A under performs.

    As Bill Belichick just said in Prolates postabove points is the number one determining factor in the outcome of a game.

    Class dismissed, you can go back to cheer leading now. Try not to drop anyone while executing the pyramid Formation.

     

     

     


    Flawed logic.

    The smaller the sample the larger the chance of deviation from the average.

    The Pats' offensive average was a greater difference from the Giants offensive average than the two teams defensive averages were. Therefore the Pats would want more total possessions than normal and the Giants less. The Giants got what they wanted. Just like they did in '07.

     




    and also against the Bills in the "wide right" super bowl!

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     


    Yeah, well I don't like to promote monopolies. I prefer Costco or Target, thanks. And honestly, they don't really sell many other things that I'd ever buy anyway.  Maybe tolietries, that's about it.

    But, you enjoy. 

     




    They sell everything dude. Electronics (bought my TV there for a much better price than Best Buy), tools, auto care stuff, sports equipment, home decor, etc. You name it they most likely have it. I only said you were stuck up because you used shopping at Walmart as an insult for some reason. I've know a few people that act like they're too good to set foot inside a Walmart, more bargains for me I guess. Lol

     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to mgraham's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

     

    On average for a 16 game season...


    Team A scores 35 ppg.

    Team B scores 26 ppg

    Team A allows 21 ppg

    team B allows 25 ppg.

    Which team is more likely to score more points while allowing leSS points in a 14 possession game? A 10 possession game? A 4 possession game.

    Hint... Team A is the answer to all 3 questions.? The only factor that changes things is if one half of team A under performs.

    As Bill Belichick just said in Prolates postabove points is the number one determining factor in the outcome of a game.

    Class dismissed, you can go back to cheer leading now. Try not to drop anyone while executing the pyramid Formation.

     

     

     


    Flawed logic.

    The smaller the sample the larger the chance of deviation from the average.

    The Pats' offensive average was a greater difference from the Giants offensive average than the two teams defensive averages were. Therefore the Pats would want more total possessions than normal and the Giants less. The Giants got what they wanted. Just like they did in '07.

     

     




     

    and also against the Bills in the "wide right" super bowl!




    EXACTLY!  There's no better way to stop a high scoring offense than keeping them off the field. 

    Sincerely,

    Parcells/Coughlin

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

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

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

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

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    New article find, read it and weep.

    1.) I'm ahead of the curve. Drive stats, according to this sports writer, are the only proper way to look at a contest.

    2.) This is basically slam dunk evidence ... the Giants offense quite simply manhandled the Patriots defense. 

    And what games does it use??? The last two games between NE and NY, specifically because the score tells you nothing about how those two offenses actually performed given that the average NFL game includes 12.4 'real' drives. 

    http://m.nbcsports.com/content/opinion-drive-stats-are-future-nfl-analysis

     



    Come on Z get real. WHat does that word say that is at the start of that article link?

     

    How can I take you seriously lately when you are stats stats stats and you are not a dumb guy so we both know stats are BS and you can make them say anything you want them to say depending on what lens you are looking at them through.

     



    Really? Show me how, in per drive stats, NE's defense was "solid" in that game please?

     

     

     



    yes really. ...and nice lawyerly move trying to use the word solid as if you were quoting me somewhere. Just a lil thing so you and anyone else reading knows you are putting words in my mouth as you love to do. I never called them solid, anywhere.

     

     

    Show me in stats where the Patriots D was consistently solid in per drive stats all season long against a similarly capable opposing offense? Is that what would lead you to believe they should be anything more than what they were in the SB game?

    What you are trying to prove is that one units reputation was really a mirage. Well the D was already ranked last or near last.

    Was the Offense's rank and reputation merely a mirage then? Must have been since they need significantly more possesions to outscore the oppoenent you are saying. The Pats had 5 to the giants 4 in the 2nd half with the lead. 5>4 is some more math for you. Since you like math so much. They had more possession than the opposession and still scored fewer. They underachieved.

     

     

     

    Sorry, man, not really meaning for that post to come across as testy. 


    1.) Solid ... wasn't meant to say that is what you said. It was really a general challenge in defense of efficiency statistics. Under no circumstances was that defense efficient. 

    2.) I've never maintained that they had 'illusory' success. Or that they fell apart.

    I've maintained that the Patriots weren't a complete team, and expecting to win three games against three playoff teams is almost herculean. What you need to do is look at NE's record in the regular season, over the past three seasons, agaisnt teams built like NY. That gives you the likelihood of them winning. Everyone before that game was cocky, talking like NE had it in the bag. They didn't. They had already lost to NY (in roughly similar circumstances). 

    3.) When people calculate 'per drive' they usually discard drives that aren't likely to score points. The Giants' kneeling drive, and the <1:00 drive NE had don't adjust the tally because they are not real scoring opportunities. 

    4,) The debate isn't about who underachieved. IF your whole game plan is to rely on one unit the achieve at some basic level, we'll call that an average efficiency level against the NFL gamut in this case, in order to win every single game then it's structurally flawed. 

    You don't blame the guy who shows up for work every day of the week when he gets sick and productivigty plummets, when you have another guy who never shows up. You keep the guy who shows up (now) almost every single day, and replace the guy who never shows up. Then your business is going to work. Until then, even if it works on the back of the guy showing up, it's always going to break down at some point, unless you assume people are robots that repeat the same performance every single time. 

    I don't "maintain" like some others do, that NE will win this way, they will lose this way. At the outset of the playoffs last year I simply said .. 

    1.) Ne loses low scoring games. It's a trend. Moreover, one that stretched into this season. Tony Mazz actually brought up the same stats four weeks ago. I think they've won 2 games in the last three seasons when they scored less than 23. Per Drive stats aside that is alarming. Even some pretty average teams have ~.500 records in these contests. I think NE is something like 2-9, iirc. 

    2.) Thus, you are basically hoping the offense doesn't score less than that. The fact that it happened on 8 drives does make it redeeming for them. If they had scored that on 12+ (and they have before, against Seattle iirc) then it would truly be a bad performance. 

    3.) When it happened ... I wasn't surprised. I didn't think NE had what it takes to win the Superbowl last season. 

    I will say, however, kudos on the "lawlerly move" of calling me "lawyerly". Haha. It's basically as old as Plato, to build up your opponent as a "smooth talker" thus making people think it's likely they are spinning a lie. haha. 

    I will come back later, after this dinner party, and give you *my* thoughts on the subject, because anything Wozzy, TC, or Rusty say I said is most likely an exaggeration or fabrication. I've actually defended the break point of rushing too little (-27%) and discussed the merits of late game rushing this season as a decided advantage over that past team. 

    What I just refuse to maintain is that running the football a few more times would have had an impact on that game. It wouldn't have. Executing better would have though. Either the offense scores one more TD (giving it an all time great level of execution on the game, 3ppd would be higher than any season average ever) or the defense does just a little bit, executing on at least one drive (turnover, 3 and out, etc, preventing score) to prevent from showing up with a last ranked (based on season average) ppd, or by extending the game, and giving NE at least one or two more real drives. 

     




    Did you just reference Tony Mazz as a source to support your argument? Are you so dumb to not realize that we started losing close games post 2005 when Brady shifted to the shotgun base spread more so than during the Weis years?

     

    So, when Brady passes 40+ times, you can't figure out WHY we lose some close games?

    LOL!!!

    Priceless. You just proved how much you don't get it.  They've lost more close games than should have due to a finesse offense and its flaws, not the D.

    What changed in 2005?  The O or the D?  The O!

    Your idiotic refusal of not knowledging how a few more rushes per game wouldn't affect the game when we know 3 rushes and a punt equate to a max of 2:02 of clock. That's a LOT better than INT on 1st down in enemy territory! 

    This fact is a "fabrication"?  How so?  Explain how you PINING for Brady to throw more INTs per game makes sense for any Pats fan. Please explain that. Just think, if Balt hadn't contained Moreno in the game on Saturday, Gomer may have handed it off more and he wouldn't have thrown that INT in OT.

    Holy mackerel are you obtuse on these topics.

     

     




    Never a more delusional person, ever.

     

    No one was pining for brady and 3 more runs wouldn't have made a bit of difference.  In fact, wasn't it a negative run that set up the need to pass and the int?

    3 rushes and a punt prevents scoring.  Did they want to score or were they happy with their slight lead?  Nope.

    Who the he11 would be with a D that is allowing 75% scoring in the 2nd half.

    You run with a lead, not a dwindeling one, especially when you only get 4 freaken possessions in an entire half.   Sitting on the ball for 2 minutes would not produce a score and would have entirely wiped out their last 57 second possession ( if you want to call it that)

    Believe me, the gints could have scored quicker.  They were taking their time, on purpose, thus the need to let them score or they would have eaten every last second off the clock.

    Do you think they wanted to score quickly?  NOPE.  Could they have?  YUP  NO problem.

     



    I was speaking to you, you pathetic human.  Yes, 3 runs and a punt for 2:02 of clock on the Brady INT would have won NE the game.

     

    Only YOU would make the claim that the Giants hade more opp to use clock as a good thing as we serve it up on a platter via Tom Brady's horrendous decisions.

    LMAO

    You have no idea how dumb you look.




    NOPE! sitting on the ball for 2 minutes would have totally wiped out their last drive and killed an opportunity to score.   You don't want less opportunities to score, you want more.

    That would have killed 2 drives,  the one they sat on (wasted) and the last one.  Brilliant!

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

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

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

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

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    New article find, read it and weep.

    1.) I'm ahead of the curve. Drive stats, according to this sports writer, are the only proper way to look at a contest.

    2.) This is basically slam dunk evidence ... the Giants offense quite simply manhandled the Patriots defense. 

    And what games does it use??? The last two games between NE and NY, specifically because the score tells you nothing about how those two offenses actually performed given that the average NFL game includes 12.4 'real' drives. 

    http://m.nbcsports.com/content/opinion-drive-stats-are-future-nfl-analysis

     



    Come on Z get real. WHat does that word say that is at the start of that article link?

     

    How can I take you seriously lately when you are stats stats stats and you are not a dumb guy so we both know stats are BS and you can make them say anything you want them to say depending on what lens you are looking at them through.

     



    Really? Show me how, in per drive stats, NE's defense was "solid" in that game please?

     

     

     



    yes really. ...and nice lawyerly move trying to use the word solid as if you were quoting me somewhere. Just a lil thing so you and anyone else reading knows you are putting words in my mouth as you love to do. I never called them solid, anywhere.

     

     

    Show me in stats where the Patriots D was consistently solid in per drive stats all season long against a similarly capable opposing offense? Is that what would lead you to believe they should be anything more than what they were in the SB game?

    What you are trying to prove is that one units reputation was really a mirage. Well the D was already ranked last or near last.

    Was the Offense's rank and reputation merely a mirage then? Must have been since they need significantly more possesions to outscore the oppoenent you are saying. The Pats had 5 to the giants 4 in the 2nd half with the lead. 5>4 is some more math for you. Since you like math so much. They had more possession than the opposession and still scored fewer. They underachieved.

     

     

     

    Sorry, man, not really meaning for that post to come across as testy. 


    1.) Solid ... wasn't meant to say that is what you said. It was really a general challenge in defense of efficiency statistics. Under no circumstances was that defense efficient. 

    2.) I've never maintained that they had 'illusory' success. Or that they fell apart.

    I've maintained that the Patriots weren't a complete team, and expecting to win three games against three playoff teams is almost herculean. What you need to do is look at NE's record in the regular season, over the past three seasons, agaisnt teams built like NY. That gives you the likelihood of them winning. Everyone before that game was cocky, talking like NE had it in the bag. They didn't. They had already lost to NY (in roughly similar circumstances). 

    3.) When people calculate 'per drive' they usually discard drives that aren't likely to score points. The Giants' kneeling drive, and the <1:00 drive NE had don't adjust the tally because they are not real scoring opportunities. 

    4,) The debate isn't about who underachieved. IF your whole game plan is to rely on one unit the achieve at some basic level, we'll call that an average efficiency level against the NFL gamut in this case, in order to win every single game then it's structurally flawed. 

    You don't blame the guy who shows up for work every day of the week when he gets sick and productivigty plummets, when you have another guy who never shows up. You keep the guy who shows up (now) almost every single day, and replace the guy who never shows up. Then your business is going to work. Until then, even if it works on the back of the guy showing up, it's always going to break down at some point, unless you assume people are robots that repeat the same performance every single time. 

    I don't "maintain" like some others do, that NE will win this way, they will lose this way. At the outset of the playoffs last year I simply said .. 

    1.) Ne loses low scoring games. It's a trend. Moreover, one that stretched into this season. Tony Mazz actually brought up the same stats four weeks ago. I think they've won 2 games in the last three seasons when they scored less than 23. Per Drive stats aside that is alarming. Even some pretty average teams have ~.500 records in these contests. I think NE is something like 2-9, iirc. 

    2.) Thus, you are basically hoping the offense doesn't score less than that. The fact that it happened on 8 drives does make it redeeming for them. If they had scored that on 12+ (and they have before, against Seattle iirc) then it would truly be a bad performance. 

    3.) When it happened ... I wasn't surprised. I didn't think NE had what it takes to win the Superbowl last season. 

    I will say, however, kudos on the "lawlerly move" of calling me "lawyerly". Haha. It's basically as old as Plato, to build up your opponent as a "smooth talker" thus making people think it's likely they are spinning a lie. haha. 

    I will come back later, after this dinner party, and give you *my* thoughts on the subject, because anything Wozzy, TC, or Rusty say I said is most likely an exaggeration or fabrication. I've actually defended the break point of rushing too little (-27%) and discussed the merits of late game rushing this season as a decided advantage over that past team. 

    What I just refuse to maintain is that running the football a few more times would have had an impact on that game. It wouldn't have. Executing better would have though. Either the offense scores one more TD (giving it an all time great level of execution on the game, 3ppd would be higher than any season average ever) or the defense does just a little bit, executing on at least one drive (turnover, 3 and out, etc, preventing score) to prevent from showing up with a last ranked (based on season average) ppd, or by extending the game, and giving NE at least one or two more real drives. 

     




    Did you just reference Tony Mazz as a source to support your argument? Are you so dumb to not realize that we started losing close games post 2005 when Brady shifted to the shotgun base spread more so than during the Weis years?

     

    So, when Brady passes 40+ times, you can't figure out WHY we lose some close games?

    LOL!!!

    Priceless. You just proved how much you don't get it.  They've lost more close games than should have due to a finesse offense and its flaws, not the D.

    What changed in 2005?  The O or the D?  The O!

    Your idiotic refusal of not knowledging how a few more rushes per game wouldn't affect the game when we know 3 rushes and a punt equate to a max of 2:02 of clock. That's a LOT better than INT on 1st down in enemy territory! 

    This fact is a "fabrication"?  How so?  Explain how you PINING for Brady to throw more INTs per game makes sense for any Pats fan. Please explain that. Just think, if Balt hadn't contained Moreno in the game on Saturday, Gomer may have handed it off more and he wouldn't have thrown that INT in OT.

    Holy mackerel are you obtuse on these topics.

     

     




    Never a more delusional person, ever.

     

    No one was pining for brady and 3 more runs wouldn't have made a bit of difference.  In fact, wasn't it a negative run that set up the need to pass and the int?

    3 rushes and a punt prevents scoring.  Did they want to score or were they happy with their slight lead?  Nope.

    Who the he11 would be with a D that is allowing 75% scoring in the 2nd half.

    You run with a lead, not a dwindeling one, especially when you only get 4 freaken possessions in an entire half.   Sitting on the ball for 2 minutes would not produce a score and would have entirely wiped out their last 57 second possession ( if you want to call it that)

    Believe me, the gints could have scored quicker.  They were taking their time, on purpose, thus the need to let them score or they would have eaten every last second off the clock.

    Do you think they wanted to score quickly?  NOPE.  Could they have?  YUP  NO problem.

     



    I was speaking to you, you pathetic human.  Yes, 3 runs and a punt for 2:02 of clock on the Brady INT would have won NE the game.

     

    Only YOU would make the claim that the Giants hade more opp to use clock as a good thing as we serve it up on a platter via Tom Brady's horrendous decisions.

    LMAO

    You have no idea how dumb you look.

     




    NOPE! sitting on the ball for 2 minutes would have totally wiped out their last drive and killed an opportunity to score.   You don't want less opportunities to score, you want more.

     

    That would have killed 2 drives,  the one they sat on (wasted) and the last one.  Brilliant!

     




    Actually, I'd prefer to win the game than throw it away due bad execution by my 20 mil per year future HOF QB.

     

    How many times per day do you think you rub one out to Brady?  4? 5?




    Funny, I'd rather not lose due to the ineptitude of the $50 mm, defense, that never gave the $20m, QB enough opportunity to score points.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to mgraham's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

     

    On average for a 16 game season...


    Team A scores 35 ppg.

    Team B scores 26 ppg

    Team A allows 21 ppg

    team B allows 25 ppg.

    Which team is more likely to score more points while allowing leSS points in a 14 possession game? A 10 possession game? A 4 possession game.

    Hint... Team A is the answer to all 3 questions.? The only factor that changes things is if one half of team A under performs.

    As Bill Belichick just said in Prolates postabove points is the number one determining factor in the outcome of a game.

    Class dismissed, you can go back to cheer leading now. Try not to drop anyone while executing the pyramid Formation.

     

     

     


    Flawed logic.

    The smaller the sample the larger the chance of deviation from the average.

    The Pats' offensive average was a greater difference from the Giants offensive average than the two teams defensive averages were. Therefore the Pats would want more total possessions than normal and the Giants less. The Giants got what they wanted. Just like they did in '07.

     

     




     

    and also against the Bills in the "wide right" super bowl!

     




    EXACTLY!  There's no better way to stop a high scoring offense than keeping them off the field. 

     

    Sincerely,

    Parcells/Coughlin



    There's also no better way to stop an average scoring offense against a terrible defense then to keep them both off the field with your highpowered offense controlling tempo and maintaining posessions.

    If you don't have a balanced team then you use your stronger unit to protect your weaker unit as best you can. The Pats have been woefully lopsided in their construction in recent years and thats been a necessity and when they can't they lose.

    If your stronger unit has an off day or does play to what your expectations are then you are screwed. As a coach, trust me, you will have experienced this certain feeling at some point.

    There is nothing worse then going into a game with an evenly matched opponent or one slightly better and know exactly what needs to happen or not happen with your best players or unit/s to be successful and watch it not go that way and know your day is not going to end well before the final outcome happens.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

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

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

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

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    New article find, read it and weep.

    1.) I'm ahead of the curve. Drive stats, according to this sports writer, are the only proper way to look at a contest.

    2.) This is basically slam dunk evidence ... the Giants offense quite simply manhandled the Patriots defense. 

    And what games does it use??? The last two games between NE and NY, specifically because the score tells you nothing about how those two offenses actually performed given that the average NFL game includes 12.4 'real' drives. 

    http://m.nbcsports.com/content/opinion-drive-stats-are-future-nfl-analysis

     



    Come on Z get real. WHat does that word say that is at the start of that article link?

     

    How can I take you seriously lately when you are stats stats stats and you are not a dumb guy so we both know stats are BS and you can make them say anything you want them to say depending on what lens you are looking at them through.

     



    Really? Show me how, in per drive stats, NE's defense was "solid" in that game please?

     

     

     



    yes really. ...and nice lawyerly move trying to use the word solid as if you were quoting me somewhere. Just a lil thing so you and anyone else reading knows you are putting words in my mouth as you love to do. I never called them solid, anywhere.

     

     

    Show me in stats where the Patriots D was consistently solid in per drive stats all season long against a similarly capable opposing offense? Is that what would lead you to believe they should be anything more than what they were in the SB game?

    What you are trying to prove is that one units reputation was really a mirage. Well the D was already ranked last or near last.

    Was the Offense's rank and reputation merely a mirage then? Must have been since they need significantly more possesions to outscore the oppoenent you are saying. The Pats had 5 to the giants 4 in the 2nd half with the lead. 5>4 is some more math for you. Since you like math so much. They had more possession than the opposession and still scored fewer. They underachieved.

     

     

     

    Sorry, man, not really meaning for that post to come across as testy. 


    1.) Solid ... wasn't meant to say that is what you said. It was really a general challenge in defense of efficiency statistics. Under no circumstances was that defense efficient. 

    2.) I've never maintained that they had 'illusory' success. Or that they fell apart.

    I've maintained that the Patriots weren't a complete team, and expecting to win three games against three playoff teams is almost herculean. What you need to do is look at NE's record in the regular season, over the past three seasons, agaisnt teams built like NY. That gives you the likelihood of them winning. Everyone before that game was cocky, talking like NE had it in the bag. They didn't. They had already lost to NY (in roughly similar circumstances). 

    3.) When people calculate 'per drive' they usually discard drives that aren't likely to score points. The Giants' kneeling drive, and the <1:00 drive NE had don't adjust the tally because they are not real scoring opportunities. 

    4,) The debate isn't about who underachieved. IF your whole game plan is to rely on one unit the achieve at some basic level, we'll call that an average efficiency level against the NFL gamut in this case, in order to win every single game then it's structurally flawed. 

    You don't blame the guy who shows up for work every day of the week when he gets sick and productivigty plummets, when you have another guy who never shows up. You keep the guy who shows up (now) almost every single day, and replace the guy who never shows up. Then your business is going to work. Until then, even if it works on the back of the guy showing up, it's always going to break down at some point, unless you assume people are robots that repeat the same performance every single time. 

    I don't "maintain" like some others do, that NE will win this way, they will lose this way. At the outset of the playoffs last year I simply said .. 

    1.) Ne loses low scoring games. It's a trend. Moreover, one that stretched into this season. Tony Mazz actually brought up the same stats four weeks ago. I think they've won 2 games in the last three seasons when they scored less than 23. Per Drive stats aside that is alarming. Even some pretty average teams have ~.500 records in these contests. I think NE is something like 2-9, iirc. 

    2.) Thus, you are basically hoping the offense doesn't score less than that. The fact that it happened on 8 drives does make it redeeming for them. If they had scored that on 12+ (and they have before, against Seattle iirc) then it would truly be a bad performance. 

    3.) When it happened ... I wasn't surprised. I didn't think NE had what it takes to win the Superbowl last season. 

    I will say, however, kudos on the "lawlerly move" of calling me "lawyerly". Haha. It's basically as old as Plato, to build up your opponent as a "smooth talker" thus making people think it's likely they are spinning a lie. haha. 

    I will come back later, after this dinner party, and give you *my* thoughts on the subject, because anything Wozzy, TC, or Rusty say I said is most likely an exaggeration or fabrication. I've actually defended the break point of rushing too little (-27%) and discussed the merits of late game rushing this season as a decided advantage over that past team. 

    What I just refuse to maintain is that running the football a few more times would have had an impact on that game. It wouldn't have. Executing better would have though. Either the offense scores one more TD (giving it an all time great level of execution on the game, 3ppd would be higher than any season average ever) or the defense does just a little bit, executing on at least one drive (turnover, 3 and out, etc, preventing score) to prevent from showing up with a last ranked (based on season average) ppd, or by extending the game, and giving NE at least one or two more real drives. 

     



    I cerainly agree with you on that AND probably some other things in your post as well but I have to be honest and have not read it all yet. (update... read it. and as suspected I do agree with much of it because you are getting my point I guess)

     

    The team IS (or was - remains to be seen) flawed and reliant on one superior unit to the other. The achievment view is the only one you can really take as the team as most resently been constructed in my opinion and the only hope is to game plan accordingly.

    I also said it, same as you mentioned above, on this forum somewhere that if the O puts up another low scoring day like the SB's past that they will lose.

    I'm just not a general stats guy for the most part. There is never enough "sports" context to most of them.

    I do not personally care how much the Pats run. I care when they run. I also care about how often they have Brady under center when they have proven to be running well in a particular game or point in time of a particular game. ....instead of in the shotgun. Again not in general but situationally.

    I Frankly do not believe they have "consitently" done the "best" job ot taking advantage of the great game leads they have continually put themselves in. Especially in the past when the defense was NOT as reliable and could have used some complimentary help in keeping them off the field more.

    Just not sure how anyone can get all enamored with stats in making football decisions or reasoning. How ridiculous was it that one BCS computer still had Notre Dame ranked #1 even after getting their butts whooped in the title game. Heck even I beat accuscore in total wins vs losses this past regular season in my first try without much effort.

    You can't go look at a box score and get any real football flow to a game. You need to comb through the play by play if you didn't watch the game and even that is not so great. What qtr was it, what was the score at the time, what was the down and distance, what had been the momentum or ebb and flow of the game at the time, was there a turnover, a punt, an injury timeout, etc etc.  So many possible things effect a drive and decisions made within a given drive for any point in time within a game of decisions . You have to have "total/complete" point in time context. You are most certainly not getting that by looking at points per drive stats for instance.  

    Take the last superbowl. If the Pats defense goes out and makes a first possession of the game stop like they did and gets the ball back to the offense but the offense goes out and in one play, ZERO TOP, takes a intentional grounding safety in the end zone and puts the defense back on the field and the other team scores on it's ensuing possession, it will hurt the defense in that ppd stat right? ...but just maybe, if the defense has a moment to catch it's breath AND more importantly have time to get the photo print outs of what the other teams offense was trying to do, time to actually look at them, AND make some adjustments, then maybe they don't give up that next scoring drive. None of that however is going to be accounted for or show up in those stats.

    Looking at the box score for instance and arguing the Pats should not have run more because the end result was 3.3 yards per carry for the game is foolish if at a given point in time they might have been leading, had the opposing defense on the ropes, and just ripped off two or thre consecutive runs of 5+ yards each. ...Then unexplicably gone shotgun for 5 straight attempts and punt after three incompletes. Yes the Pats do this at times. I'm not suggesting that going to some passes and mixing it up is a problem or bad but why switch to shotgun when you're at a point of having some run success? ...why not under center and keep the opposition guessing? ...Why go exclusively pass all of a sudden?

    The same can be said of  those  arguing we pass to much based on attempts as well. If The Pats O are going up and down the field passing who cares, I'm all for it, unless its in suituations you would be better off mixing it up for specific reasons. If you are behind or in a close game its one thing. If you have a three possession lead and you're so effeciant that your O is scorring in two minutes then you are killing your own defense continually having them on the field all day and prolonging the game as well leaving tons of time on the clock for the opposing offense. The Pats defensive scheme does not generate tons of three and outs. I don't ever recall it being that way, maybe it was. If its bend don't break and you are putting the ball back in the other teams QB's hands so quickly every time your offense touches the ball, even if they score, it's not great situational football any longer when you have a very large lead. IMO.

    As far as the running onece or twice more a posession not mattering it depends on the game, the score, and drives in the 2nd half especially. If you are trying to tell me two possesions of three straight incompletes with zero TOP and punts vs two possessions of say 1 incomplete and two runs and a punt would not shorten a game and be better for your team success we certainly disagree. Neither of the scenarios generate a first down or keep your defense on the bench very long but one of the scenarios potentially wipes out like 4 minutes of game clock. Game time is finite. Now I am sure NE never goes into a possession and says we are going three incomplete passes and out. It is possible however and in the end of such a result there is absolutely nothing positive to come of it. The other scenario however at least net's you a potential shorter game. Potentially depending on timeouts available to the other team to stop the clock. However that is a positive in itself in forcing them to burn them. So one scenario has the possibility of gaining a 1st down and nothing else. The other has the potential for a first down, time off the clock(shortening the game), and the forcing of your opposition to burn its time outs.

    Anyway I think we are more closely on the same page than not and just happy to move on.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

     

    A few points to clarify what I said earlier:

    • Because (non-OT) games are fixed at 60 minutes, longer drives inevitably mean fewer drives. This is a mathematical necessity.
    • Since drives alternate (except in rare cases), teams generally either have the same number of drives or one team has one extra drive
    • Because drives alternate and the game is a fixed length, if you have longer drives you reduce the number of drives for both your own team and your opponent.
    • This means longer drives reduce scoring opportunities for both your team and your opponent. Longer drives = fewer drives = fewer scoring chances for both teams
    • Generally, a team with a higher scoring offense benefits from both team's having more scoring chances. Therefore, high scoring offenses want to score fast and increase the number of drives. 
    • Similarly, a team with a defense that gives up lots of points, benefits from both teams having fewer scoring chances. Therefore, teams with poor defenses want to lengthen drives and therefore decrease the number of drives.
    • Last year, the Pats had a higher scoring offense than the Giants and a similar (or slightly better by points given up) defense. This combination would suggest that the Pats would be helped by more drives rather than fewer, and the Giants helped by fewer drives.
    • Ball control offense was therefore not the right strategy for the Pats in the Super Bowl. Scoring fast and frequently made more sense.
    • For the Giants, lengthening drive times and reducing drives was a better strategy. 
    • The Giants executed better (on both sides of the ball) than the Patriots did and therefore were able to force a low possession game which favored them
    • The low possessions by themselves didn't result in a win for the Giants, but they put the Giants in a better position to win
    • Once a high scoring team has a substantial lead and the game is close to ending, lengthening drives and therefore reducing the number of remaining drives can make strategic sense for the high scoring team, but only if drives can be lengthened and reduced to the point where the opposing team does not have enough opportunities to catch up even if they score on all their remaining drives and the leading team fails to score again.

    Maybe the following passage from a Belichick interview after the Denver game this season will help claify:

     

    Q: Is sometimes the best defense against Peyton Manning to just keep the ball out of his hands? A lot of the scoring drives you had were long drives that ate up some clock. 

    BB: Yeah, but they get the ball back after those scores, so you’ve still got to go out there and stop them. 

    Q: But if you eat up more time, that’s in theory less time for him to work with. 

    BB: Right, but teams get the same number of possessions. I mean, every time we get the ball, they get the ball. Every time they get the ball, we get the ball. You’ve got to go out there and stop them. We’ve seen – I mean, Peyton had one game – who was it against? They had like 15 minutes time of possession – Jacksonville or somebody a couple years ago – they had 15 minutes of time of possession and still won. So, you’ve got to stop them. It’s great to have the ball on offense, it’s great to have a long drive, but you still have to go out there and play defense. 

     
  15. 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:

     

     

    A few points to clarify what I said earlier:

    • Because (non-OT) games are fixed at 60 minutes, longer drives inevitably mean fewer drives. This is a mathematical necessity.
    • Since drives alternate (except in rare cases), teams generally either have the same number of drives or one team has one extra drive
    • Because drives alternate and the game is a fixed length, if you have longer drives you reduce the number of drives for both your own team and your opponent.
    • This means longer drives reduce scoring opportunities for both your team and your opponent. Longer drives = fewer drives = fewer scoring chances for both teams
    • Generally, a team with a higher scoring offense benefits from both team's having more scoring chances. Therefore, high scoring offenses want to score fast and increase the number of drives. 
    • Similarly, a team with a defense that gives up lots of points, benefits from both teams having fewer scoring chances. Therefore, teams with poor defenses want to lengthen drives and therefore decrease the number of drives.
    • Last year, the Pats had a higher scoring offense than the Giants and a similar (or slightly better by points given up) defense. This combination would suggest that the Pats would be helped by more drives rather than fewer, and the Giants helped by fewer drives.
    • Ball control offense was therefore not the right strategy for the Pats in the Super Bowl. Scoring fast and frequently made more sense.
    • For the Giants, lengthening drive times and reducing drives was a better strategy. 
    • The Giants executed better (on both sides of the ball) than the Patriots did and therefore were able to force a low possession game which favored them
    • The low possessions by themselves didn't result in a win for the Giants, but they put the Giants in a better position to win
    • Once a high scoring team has a substantial lead and the game is close to ending, lengthening drives and therefore reducing the number of remaining drives can make strategic sense for the high scoring team, but only if drives can be lengthened and reduced to the point where the opposing team does not have enough opportunities to catch up even if they score on all their remaining drives and the leading team fails to score again.

    Maybe the following passage from a Belichick interview after the Denver game this season will help claify:

     

    Q: Is sometimes the best defense against Peyton Manning to just keep the ball out of his hands? A lot of the scoring drives you had were long drives that ate up some clock. 

    BB: Yeah, but they get the ball back after those scores, so you’ve still got to go out there and stop them. 

    Q: But if you eat up more time, that’s in theory less time for him to work with. 

    BB: Right, but teams get the same number of possessions. I mean, every time we get the ball, they get the ball. Every time they get the ball, we get the ball. You’ve got to go out there and stop them. We’ve seen – I mean, Peyton had one game – who was it against? They had like 15 minutes time of possession – Jacksonville or somebody a couple years ago – they had 15 minutes of time of possession and still won. So, you’ve got to stop them. It’s great to have the ball on offense, it’s great to have a long drive, but you still have to go out there and play defense. 

     



     

    He's just down playing it for the media.

    All he is saying is that eventually you run out of realestate even in a ball posession offense you eventually have to score or punt and your defense does end up on the field.

    Sure there are times when the team has very little time of possession and still wins because the other team is painfully bad on defense. That is still the best approach to take.

    Time is finite and he knows it. Its hard to tell completely looking at the play by play real quick but besides the fact that Dever fumbled three times all of the NE scoring drives except the one where they recovered a fumbled already in the Denver redzone were long methodical drives. Including 18 rushing first downs. That is not coincidence. I did not see a couple of those typical Patriots 80 yards in three plays 2 minutes type drives.

    He knows he's darn well better off using his offense to keep both Peyton and his weak defense off the field more than on it no matter what he says or he would not go for it on 4th and 2 in his own end. Who's he think he's kidding.

    ...but if he did believe that then the whole number of possesions thing would be less important because he would simply say well if they score we get the ball back, we both get the ball. That argument goes back to score TD's vs score FG's  since "stop them" is vague. Stop them could mean 3 and out, turn over, make them punt after a short drive, or simply tighten up after a long drive and make them kick a FG. One could consider all of those options stopping them.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

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

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

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

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    New article find, read it and weep.

    1.) I'm ahead of the curve. Drive stats, according to this sports writer, are the only proper way to look at a contest.

    2.) This is basically slam dunk evidence ... the Giants offense quite simply manhandled the Patriots defense. 

    And what games does it use??? The last two games between NE and NY, specifically because the score tells you nothing about how those two offenses actually performed given that the average NFL game includes 12.4 'real' drives. 

    http://m.nbcsports.com/content/opinion-drive-stats-are-future-nfl-analysis

     



    Come on Z get real. WHat does that word say that is at the start of that article link?

     

    How can I take you seriously lately when you are stats stats stats and you are not a dumb guy so we both know stats are BS and you can make them say anything you want them to say depending on what lens you are looking at them through.

     



    Really? Show me how, in per drive stats, NE's defense was "solid" in that game please?

     

     

     



    yes really. ...and nice lawyerly move trying to use the word solid as if you were quoting me somewhere. Just a lil thing so you and anyone else reading knows you are putting words in my mouth as you love to do. I never called them solid, anywhere.

     

     

    Show me in stats where the Patriots D was consistently solid in per drive stats all season long against a similarly capable opposing offense? Is that what would lead you to believe they should be anything more than what they were in the SB game?

    What you are trying to prove is that one units reputation was really a mirage. Well the D was already ranked last or near last.

    Was the Offense's rank and reputation merely a mirage then? Must have been since they need significantly more possesions to outscore the oppoenent you are saying. The Pats had 5 to the giants 4 in the 2nd half with the lead. 5>4 is some more math for you. Since you like math so much. They had more possession than the opposession and still scored fewer. They underachieved.

     

     

     

    Sorry, man, not really meaning for that post to come across as testy. 


    1.) Solid ... wasn't meant to say that is what you said. It was really a general challenge in defense of efficiency statistics. Under no circumstances was that defense efficient. 

    2.) I've never maintained that they had 'illusory' success. Or that they fell apart.

    I've maintained that the Patriots weren't a complete team, and expecting to win three games against three playoff teams is almost herculean. What you need to do is look at NE's record in the regular season, over the past three seasons, agaisnt teams built like NY. That gives you the likelihood of them winning. Everyone before that game was cocky, talking like NE had it in the bag. They didn't. They had already lost to NY (in roughly similar circumstances). 

    3.) When people calculate 'per drive' they usually discard drives that aren't likely to score points. The Giants' kneeling drive, and the <1:00 drive NE had don't adjust the tally because they are not real scoring opportunities. 

    4,) The debate isn't about who underachieved. IF your whole game plan is to rely on one unit the achieve at some basic level, we'll call that an average efficiency level against the NFL gamut in this case, in order to win every single game then it's structurally flawed. 

    You don't blame the guy who shows up for work every day of the week when he gets sick and productivigty plummets, when you have another guy who never shows up. You keep the guy who shows up (now) almost every single day, and replace the guy who never shows up. Then your business is going to work. Until then, even if it works on the back of the guy showing up, it's always going to break down at some point, unless you assume people are robots that repeat the same performance every single time. 

    I don't "maintain" like some others do, that NE will win this way, they will lose this way. At the outset of the playoffs last year I simply said .. 

    1.) Ne loses low scoring games. It's a trend. Moreover, one that stretched into this season. Tony Mazz actually brought up the same stats four weeks ago. I think they've won 2 games in the last three seasons when they scored less than 23. Per Drive stats aside that is alarming. Even some pretty average teams have ~.500 records in these contests. I think NE is something like 2-9, iirc. 

    2.) Thus, you are basically hoping the offense doesn't score less than that. The fact that it happened on 8 drives does make it redeeming for them. If they had scored that on 12+ (and they have before, against Seattle iirc) then it would truly be a bad performance. 

    3.) When it happened ... I wasn't surprised. I didn't think NE had what it takes to win the Superbowl last season. 

    I will say, however, kudos on the "lawlerly move" of calling me "lawyerly". Haha. It's basically as old as Plato, to build up your opponent as a "smooth talker" thus making people think it's likely they are spinning a lie. haha. 

    I will come back later, after this dinner party, and give you *my* thoughts on the subject, because anything Wozzy, TC, or Rusty say I said is most likely an exaggeration or fabrication. I've actually defended the break point of rushing too little (-27%) and discussed the merits of late game rushing this season as a decided advantage over that past team. 

    What I just refuse to maintain is that running the football a few more times would have had an impact on that game. It wouldn't have. Executing better would have though. Either the offense scores one more TD (giving it an all time great level of execution on the game, 3ppd would be higher than any season average ever) or the defense does just a little bit, executing on at least one drive (turnover, 3 and out, etc, preventing score) to prevent from showing up with a last ranked (based on season average) ppd, or by extending the game, and giving NE at least one or two more real drives. 

     




    Did you just reference Tony Mazz as a source to support your argument? Are you so dumb to not realize that we started losing close games post 2005 when Brady shifted to the shotgun base spread more so than during the Weis years?

     

    So, when Brady passes 40+ times, you can't figure out WHY we lose some close games?

    LOL!!!

    Priceless. You just proved how much you don't get it.  They've lost more close games than should have due to a finesse offense and its flaws, not the D.

    What changed in 2005?  The O or the D?  The O!

    Your idiotic refusal of not knowledging how a few more rushes per game wouldn't affect the game when we know 3 rushes and a punt equate to a max of 2:02 of clock. That's a LOT better than INT on 1st down in enemy territory! 

    This fact is a "fabrication"?  How so?  Explain how you PINING for Brady to throw more INTs per game makes sense for any Pats fan. Please explain that. Just think, if Balt hadn't contained Moreno in the game on Saturday, Gomer may have handed it off more and he wouldn't have thrown that INT in OT.

    Holy mackerel are you obtuse on these topics.

     

     




    Never a more delusional person, ever.

     

    No one was pining for brady and 3 more runs wouldn't have made a bit of difference.  In fact, wasn't it a negative run that set up the need to pass and the int?

    3 rushes and a punt prevents scoring.  Did they want to score or were they happy with their slight lead?  Nope.

    Who the he11 would be with a D that is allowing 75% scoring in the 2nd half.

    You run with a lead, not a dwindeling one, especially when you only get 4 freaken possessions in an entire half.   Sitting on the ball for 2 minutes would not produce a score and would have entirely wiped out their last 57 second possession ( if you want to call it that)

    Believe me, the gints could have scored quicker.  They were taking their time, on purpose, thus the need to let them score or they would have eaten every last second off the clock.

    Do you think they wanted to score quickly?  NOPE.  Could they have?  YUP  NO problem.

     



    I was speaking to you, you pathetic human.  Yes, 3 runs and a punt for 2:02 of clock on the Brady INT would have won NE the game.

     

    Only YOU would make the claim that the Giants hade more opp to use clock as a good thing as we serve it up on a platter via Tom Brady's horrendous decisions.

    LMAO

    You have no idea how dumb you look.

     




    NOPE! sitting on the ball for 2 minutes would have totally wiped out their last drive and killed an opportunity to score.   You don't want less opportunities to score, you want more.

     

    That would have killed 2 drives,  the one they sat on (wasted) and the last one.  Brilliant!

     




    Actually, I'd prefer to win the game than throw it away due bad execution by my 20 mil per year future HOF QB.

     

    How many times per day do you think you rub one out to Brady?  4? 5?

     




    Funny, I'd rather not lose due to the ineptitude of the $50 mm, defense, that never gave the $20m, QB enough opportunity to score points.

     

     




    Funny, more money is invested in the offense and it underperformed as compared to the D, where less money was invested during this explosive offensive era we're in.

     

    Yet, YOU still hold the D more accountable than the O. That doesn't make much sense to people who graduated from college, which speaks volumes as to why you don't get it.




    The reason there is less money invested in the D is because BB had to turn it over (several times) over the past few years.  Other than Fork and Mayo, there are a bunch of players either in their rookie contract or some over achieving FA's.

    That does not dismiss them from being able to produce a single 3 & out or a T/O.

    If I remember correctly, they seemed to be able to do those things during the RS.  I even believe they did those things when they played the jints previously although that was still a low possession game, so was the steeler game..

    They are a young D, yes.  That still doesn't dismiss them from doing their jobs.

    That doesn't mean you can't expect them to hold at least a little weight.  One 3 & out or one t/o is not a lot to ask, even for the worst D.  Yet they failed to deliver.

    I hold them more accountable for the loss because they were.  They didn't even play to their poor regular season, low, standards.   How pathetic is that.

    Yet, you expect the O to play above their excellent high standards in order to win because that's EXACTLY what it would have taken to compensate for the lack of production from the D.  This is exactly why no offense has ever won a SB with a  defense that sports a dpr of over 85.  There's no way they can out play the other team (who is the best of the best) AND make up for the poor D.

    NO WAY!

    Adding another TD, which is what it would have taken to win is, (as Z pointed out)  far exceding their regular season average for PPP.   All we needed the D to do is MAINTAIN their  poor regular season average for PPP.  They couldn't even do that.

    All they needed to do was NOT have their worst production of the year!!!

    There's no excuse for that.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to mgraham's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

     

    On average for a 16 game season...


    Team A scores 35 ppg.

    Team B scores 26 ppg

    Team A allows 21 ppg

    team B allows 25 ppg.

    Which team is more likely to score more points while allowing leSS points in a 14 possession game? A 10 possession game? A 4 possession game.

    Hint... Team A is the answer to all 3 questions.? The only factor that changes things is if one half of team A under performs.

    As Bill Belichick just said in Prolates postabove points is the number one determining factor in the outcome of a game.

    Class dismissed, you can go back to cheer leading now. Try not to drop anyone while executing the pyramid Formation.

     

     

     


    Flawed logic.

    The smaller the sample the larger the chance of deviation from the average.

    The Pats' offensive average was a greater difference from the Giants offensive average than the two teams defensive averages were. Therefore the Pats would want more total possessions than normal and the Giants less. The Giants got what they wanted. Just like they did in '07.

     

     




     

    and also against the Bills in the "wide right" super bowl!

     




    EXACTLY!  There's no better way to stop a high scoring offense than keeping them off the field. 

     

    Sincerely,

    Parcells/Coughlin



    I guess O'brien didn't know what Coughlin knew.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

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

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

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

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

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

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    New article find, read it and weep.

    1.) I'm ahead of the curve. Drive stats, according to this sports writer, are the only proper way to look at a contest.

    2.) This is basically slam dunk evidence ... the Giants offense quite simply manhandled the Patriots defense. 

    And what games does it use??? The last two games between NE and NY, specifically because the score tells you nothing about how those two offenses actually performed given that the average NFL game includes 12.4 'real' drives. 

    http://m.nbcsports.com/content/opinion-drive-stats-are-future-nfl-analysis

     



    Come on Z get real. WHat does that word say that is at the start of that article link?

     

    How can I take you seriously lately when you are stats stats stats and you are not a dumb guy so we both know stats are BS and you can make them say anything you want them to say depending on what lens you are looking at them through.

     



    Really? Show me how, in per drive stats, NE's defense was "solid" in that game please?

     

     

     



    yes really. ...and nice lawyerly move trying to use the word solid as if you were quoting me somewhere. Just a lil thing so you and anyone else reading knows you are putting words in my mouth as you love to do. I never called them solid, anywhere.

     

     

    Show me in stats where the Patriots D was consistently solid in per drive stats all season long against a similarly capable opposing offense? Is that what would lead you to believe they should be anything more than what they were in the SB game?

    What you are trying to prove is that one units reputation was really a mirage. Well the D was already ranked last or near last.

    Was the Offense's rank and reputation merely a mirage then? Must have been since they need significantly more possesions to outscore the oppoenent you are saying. The Pats had 5 to the giants 4 in the 2nd half with the lead. 5>4 is some more math for you. Since you like math so much. They had more possession than the opposession and still scored fewer. They underachieved.

     

     

     

    Sorry, man, not really meaning for that post to come across as testy. 


    1.) Solid ... wasn't meant to say that is what you said. It was really a general challenge in defense of efficiency statistics. Under no circumstances was that defense efficient. 

    2.) I've never maintained that they had 'illusory' success. Or that they fell apart.

    I've maintained that the Patriots weren't a complete team, and expecting to win three games against three playoff teams is almost herculean. What you need to do is look at NE's record in the regular season, over the past three seasons, agaisnt teams built like NY. That gives you the likelihood of them winning. Everyone before that game was cocky, talking like NE had it in the bag. They didn't. They had already lost to NY (in roughly similar circumstances). 

    3.) When people calculate 'per drive' they usually discard drives that aren't likely to score points. The Giants' kneeling drive, and the <1:00 drive NE had don't adjust the tally because they are not real scoring opportunities. 

    4,) The debate isn't about who underachieved. IF your whole game plan is to rely on one unit the achieve at some basic level, we'll call that an average efficiency level against the NFL gamut in this case, in order to win every single game then it's structurally flawed. 

    You don't blame the guy who shows up for work every day of the week when he gets sick and productivigty plummets, when you have another guy who never shows up. You keep the guy who shows up (now) almost every single day, and replace the guy who never shows up. Then your business is going to work. Until then, even if it works on the back of the guy showing up, it's always going to break down at some point, unless you assume people are robots that repeat the same performance every single time. 

    I don't "maintain" like some others do, that NE will win this way, they will lose this way. At the outset of the playoffs last year I simply said .. 

    1.) Ne loses low scoring games. It's a trend. Moreover, one that stretched into this season. Tony Mazz actually brought up the same stats four weeks ago. I think they've won 2 games in the last three seasons when they scored less than 23. Per Drive stats aside that is alarming. Even some pretty average teams have ~.500 records in these contests. I think NE is something like 2-9, iirc. 

    2.) Thus, you are basically hoping the offense doesn't score less than that. The fact that it happened on 8 drives does make it redeeming for them. If they had scored that on 12+ (and they have before, against Seattle iirc) then it would truly be a bad performance. 

    3.) When it happened ... I wasn't surprised. I didn't think NE had what it takes to win the Superbowl last season. 

    I will say, however, kudos on the "lawlerly move" of calling me "lawyerly". Haha. It's basically as old as Plato, to build up your opponent as a "smooth talker" thus making people think it's likely they are spinning a lie. haha. 

    I will come back later, after this dinner party, and give you *my* thoughts on the subject, because anything Wozzy, TC, or Rusty say I said is most likely an exaggeration or fabrication. I've actually defended the break point of rushing too little (-27%) and discussed the merits of late game rushing this season as a decided advantage over that past team. 

    What I just refuse to maintain is that running the football a few more times would have had an impact on that game. It wouldn't have. Executing better would have though. Either the offense scores one more TD (giving it an all time great level of execution on the game, 3ppd would be higher than any season average ever) or the defense does just a little bit, executing on at least one drive (turnover, 3 and out, etc, preventing score) to prevent from showing up with a last ranked (based on season average) ppd, or by extending the game, and giving NE at least one or two more real drives. 

     



    I cerainly agree with you on that AND probably some other things in your post as well but I have to be honest and have not read it all yet. (update... read it. and as suspected I do agree with much of it because you are getting my point I guess)

     

    The team IS (or was - remains to be seen) flawed and reliant on one superior unit to the other. The achievment view is the only one you can really take as the team as most resently been constructed in my opinion and the only hope is to game plan accordingly.

    I also said it, same as you mentioned above, on this forum somewhere that if the O puts up another low scoring day like the SB's past that they will lose.

    I'm just not a general stats guy for the most part. There is never enough "sports" context to most of them.

    I do not personally care how much the Pats run. I care when they run. I also care about how often they have Brady under center when they have proven to be running well in a particular game or point in time of a particular game. ....instead of in the shotgun. Again not in general but situationally.

    I Frankly do not believe they have "consitently" done the "best" job ot taking advantage of the great game leads they have continually put themselves in. Especially in the past when the defense was NOT as reliable and could have used some complimentary help in keeping them off the field more.

    Just not sure how anyone can get all enamored with stats in making football decisions or reasoning. How ridiculous was it that one BCS computer still had Notre Dame ranked #1 even after getting their butts whooped in the title game. Heck even I beat accuscore in total wins vs losses this past regular season in my first try without much effort.

    You can't go look at a box score and get any real football flow to a game. You need to comb through the play by play if you didn't watch the game and even that is not so great. What qtr was it, what was the score at the time, what was the down and distance, what had been the momentum or ebb and flow of the game at the time, was there a turnover, a punt, an injury timeout, etc etc.  So many possible things effect a drive and decisions made within a given drive for any point in time within a game of decisions . You have to have "total/complete" point in time context. You are most certainly not getting that by looking at points per drive stats for instance.  

    Take the last superbowl. If the Pats defense goes out and makes a first possession of the game stop like they did and gets the ball back to the offense but the offense goes out and in one play, ZERO TOP, takes a intentional grounding safety in the end zone and puts the defense back on the field and the other team scores on it's ensuing possession, it will hurt the defense in that ppd stat right? ...but just maybe, if the defense has a moment to catch it's breath AND more importantly have time to get the photo print outs of what the other teams offense was trying to do, time to actually look at them, AND make some adjustments, then maybe they don't give up that next scoring drive. None of that however is going to be accounted for or show up in those stats.

    Looking at the box score for instance and arguing the Pats should not have run more because the end result was 3.3 yards per carry for the game is foolish if at a given point in time they might have been leading, had the opposing defense on the ropes, and just ripped off two or thre consecutive runs of 5+ yards each. ...Then unexplicably gone shotgun for 5 straight attempts and punt after three incompletes. Yes the Pats do this at times. I'm not suggesting that going to some passes and mixing it up is a problem or bad but why switch to shotgun when you're at a point of having some run success? ...why not under center and keep the opposition guessing? ...Why go exclusively pass all of a sudden?

    The same can be said of  those  arguing we pass to much based on attempts as well. If The Pats O are going up and down the field passing who cares, I'm all for it, unless its in suituations you would be better off mixing it up for specific reasons. If you are behind or in a close game its one thing. If you have a three possession lead and you're so effeciant that your O is scorring in two minutes then you are killing your own defense continually having them on the field all day and prolonging the game as well leaving tons of time on the clock for the opposing offense. The Pats defensive scheme does not generate tons of three and outs. I don't ever recall it being that way, maybe it was. If its bend don't break and you are putting the ball back in the other teams QB's hands so quickly every time your offense touches the ball, even if they score, it's not great situational football any longer when you have a very large lead. IMO.

    As far as the running onece or twice more a posession not mattering it depends on the game, the score, and drives in the 2nd half especially. If you are trying to tell me two possesions of three straight incompletes with zero TOP and punts vs two possessions of say 1 incomplete and two runs and a punt would not shorten a game and be better for your team success we certainly disagree. Neither of the scenarios generate a first down or keep your defense on the bench very long but one of the scenarios potentially wipes out like 4 minutes of game clock. Game time is finite. Now I am sure NE never goes into a possession and says we are going three incomplete passes and out. It is possible however and in the end of such a result there is absolutely nothing positive to come of it. The other scenario however at least net's you a potential shorter game. Potentially depending on timeouts available to the other team to stop the clock. However that is a positive in itself in forcing them to burn them. So one scenario has the possibility of gaining a 1st down and nothing else. The other has the potential for a first down, time off the clock(shortening the game), and the forcing of your opposition to burn its time outs.

    Anyway I think we are more closely on the same page than not and just happy to move on.



    Low - FB - IQ,

    That was a perfect response. I agree with everything you just said. Highlighted some key points. z has disagreed with me on these subjects often. I will let him respond and perhaps I have not been nearly as clear as you just were and it is my fault he has disagreed with me? Anyway great breakdown!

     
  19. 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 pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to mgraham's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

     

    On average for a 16 game season...


    Team A scores 35 ppg.

    Team B scores 26 ppg

    Team A allows 21 ppg

    team B allows 25 ppg.

    Which team is more likely to score more points while allowing leSS points in a 14 possession game? A 10 possession game? A 4 possession game.

    Hint... Team A is the answer to all 3 questions.? The only factor that changes things is if one half of team A under performs.

    As Bill Belichick just said in Prolates postabove points is the number one determining factor in the outcome of a game.

    Class dismissed, you can go back to cheer leading now. Try not to drop anyone while executing the pyramid Formation.

     

     

     


    Flawed logic.

    The smaller the sample the larger the chance of deviation from the average.

    The Pats' offensive average was a greater difference from the Giants offensive average than the two teams defensive averages were. Therefore the Pats would want more total possessions than normal and the Giants less. The Giants got what they wanted. Just like they did in '07.

     

     




     

    and also against the Bills in the "wide right" super bowl!

     




    EXACTLY!  There's no better way to stop a high scoring offense than keeping them off the field. 

     

    Sincerely,

    Parcells/Coughlin

     



    I guess O'brien didn't know what Coughlin knew.

     




    Oh, he knew alright and so did BB.  The problem is they couldn't get the D off the field.

    The O and the D, both, can't have 5 minute possessions unless you want a 6 possession game which is exactly the opposite of what they wanted.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to mgraham's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

     

    On average for a 16 game season...


    Team A scores 35 ppg.

    Team B scores 26 ppg

    Team A allows 21 ppg

    team B allows 25 ppg.

    Which team is more likely to score more points while allowing leSS points in a 14 possession game? A 10 possession game? A 4 possession game.

    Hint... Team A is the answer to all 3 questions.? The only factor that changes things is if one half of team A under performs.

    As Bill Belichick just said in Prolates postabove points is the number one determining factor in the outcome of a game.

    Class dismissed, you can go back to cheer leading now. Try not to drop anyone while executing the pyramid Formation.

     

     

     


    Flawed logic.

    The smaller the sample the larger the chance of deviation from the average.

    The Pats' offensive average was a greater difference from the Giants offensive average than the two teams defensive averages were. Therefore the Pats would want more total possessions than normal and the Giants less. The Giants got what they wanted. Just like they did in '07.

     

     




     

    and also against the Bills in the "wide right" super bowl!

     




    EXACTLY!  There's no better way to stop a high scoring offense than keeping them off the field. 

     

    Sincerely,

    Parcells/Coughlin

     



    I guess O'brien didn't know what Coughlin knew.

     

     




    Oh, he knew alright and so did BB.  The problem is they couldn't get the D off the field.

     

    The O and the D, both, can't have 5 minute possessions unless you want a 6 possession game which is exactly the opposite of what they wanted.



    So coughlins gameplan forced BB into a reactionary decision? Or was it BBs plan to not use as much clock on offense? Please tell me which one, I'm dying to know.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    One side wants a longer game because they think it plays to the offense's strength and in the long run it increases the Pats chances to win. The other side wants to shorten the game by running more which will allow the defense to get more rest. Thinking perhaps the defense's performance will improve meaning the offense will not have to score so much. I guess we know Belichik's and O'Brien's opinion based on last years stats. It seems to me that Belichik and McDaniels still want to maximize their posessions but are doing it more efficiently by running the ball more while in the hurry up. The first 3 quarters of the Broncos game was the best offense I recall seeing this year and a ton of it was running it while the Broncos were playing small ball. I even recall Jim Nantz saying the Pats were sending a message to the entire league. Unfortunately, in that game, the offense and defense got sloppy late, making an absolute blow out into a game that became a little too close for comfort. In a way I think you are both right, for this season at least. The numbers may not show a big increase on running the ball but it does seem to me they are definately trying harder to establish the run more often. In some games like the first Texan game and the first Raven game they clearly felt that passing the ball was more important. In the first Texan game they really did not try to establish the run until they had a huge lead. I don't know if the reason is Ridley or McDaniels or a little bit of both (I suspect it's more Belichik than either) but I do think they want to run it more this year and I believe they are more effective at it. I believe personally that you beat the Ravens by throwing it and wearing them out. I think an allready tired and relatively old Ravens team can be worn out rather quickly if the Patriots can execute their no huddle like they did for most of the first game. They should then win going away because I believe this Pats defense is better than it was then. If the Pats offense does not play it's A game (especially in the red zone like last year)and allows the Ravens to hang around than it should be another nail biter coming down to the final seconds again. Not that anyone cares but i think the offense and defense both underachieved in the super bowl and are both at fault. Despite that, if Welker catches that pass the Pats probably win the super bowl and we all say the offense and the defense both played great. Just my two cents. Now attack!

     
  22. 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 pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to mgraham's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

     

    On average for a 16 game season...


    Team A scores 35 ppg.

    Team B scores 26 ppg

    Team A allows 21 ppg

    team B allows 25 ppg.

    Which team is more likely to score more points while allowing leSS points in a 14 possession game? A 10 possession game? A 4 possession game.

    Hint... Team A is the answer to all 3 questions.? The only factor that changes things is if one half of team A under performs.

    As Bill Belichick just said in Prolates postabove points is the number one determining factor in the outcome of a game.

    Class dismissed, you can go back to cheer leading now. Try not to drop anyone while executing the pyramid Formation.

     

     

     


    Flawed logic.

    The smaller the sample the larger the chance of deviation from the average.

    The Pats' offensive average was a greater difference from the Giants offensive average than the two teams defensive averages were. Therefore the Pats would want more total possessions than normal and the Giants less. The Giants got what they wanted. Just like they did in '07.

     

     




     

    and also against the Bills in the "wide right" super bowl!

     




    EXACTLY!  There's no better way to stop a high scoring offense than keeping them off the field. 

     

    Sincerely,

    Parcells/Coughlin

     



    I guess O'brien didn't know what Coughlin knew.

     

     




    Oh, he knew alright and so did BB.  The problem is they couldn't get the D off the field.

     

    The O and the D, both, can't have 5 minute possessions unless you want a 6 possession game which is exactly the opposite of what they wanted.

     



    So coughlins gameplan forced BB into a reactionary decision? Or was it BBs plan to not use as much clock on offense? Please tell me which one, I'm dying to know.

     




    Ya, when you are dealing with a 2/1 ToP and reduced possessions because the D can't get off the field, you basically have to react.  The reaction would be quick strike drives for the O, not longer drives to defeat the purpose,. 

    Since the O was basically a quick strike O they were playing their game, unfortunately the D , didn't hold up their part of the bargain.

    .No he didn't intentionally go in to the game wanting low possessions and a skewed ToP.

    He also didn't want to go into the game with the intention of slowing it down, either.

    He went into the game intending to execute the 12 possession, 2 1/2 minute drives that made them sucessful so many times before.

    High possessions help the higher scoring O.

    Low possessions help the lower scoring O.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    People don't seem to understand what Belichick means when he points out that possessions alternate and both teams (generally) get the same number of possessions because of that.  There's a logical flaw when people assume that by maintaining long drives you reduce the other team's scoring chances more than you reduce your own. What you really do is reduce the number of drives and therefore the number of scoring chances both teams have. Long drives result in fewer drives, but each team will still have the same (or almost the same) number of drives that its opponent has. In an average game, with average length drives, teams have about 12 possessions each.  If you extend drives, both teams will have possessions of 10 or, in the extreme case of the Super Bowl, 8 drives each.  If you go the other way and have short drives, then you might have 14 drives each or 16 drives each.  But (with some minor exceptions), both teams will always have an equal number of possessions and an equal number of scoring chances. 

    If you mount long drives and score on 1/4 of them and the other team runs short drives and scores on 1/3 of them the other team will win because you have the same number of drives. What's important isn't how long your drives are, but whether or not you score on them!

    Now long drives can provide strategic advantages, particularly if the other team is a better scorer against your defense than you are against its defense.  In that case, reducing drives, reduces the opportunity for the other team to press its scoring advantage and therefore gives you a better chance of winning based on random variations from the expected result.  In this case, more drives hurts you because the other team that scores better has more opportunities to press its advantage if you give it more drives.  If you are the better scorer, however, you generally want more drives, not less. An exception may occur at the end of the game when you have the lead and want to reduce drives to the point that the other team doesn't have enough opportunities to catch up.  But that's a fourth quarter strategic decision. 

    I know this is not how average football coaches or media pundits talk about football.  But there's a reason Bill Belichick is a great coach, and the fact that he mentions this fact of alternating drives shows that he's thinking of it.  He's not trying to dupe anyone.  He's just telling it like it is and revealing just how sophisticated his thinking about football is.  

    ________

    One additional point:

    If you are great defensive team and only an average or weak scoring team, you generally do prefer longer (and therefore fewer) drives.  The reason is because the other team has little probability of scoring against your defense, so you don't want to increase its number of chances to do so.  What you want in that case is to get a lead and then really reduce the number of drives to limit the other team's ability to ever come back. 

     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    Wozzy, with all due respect, the argument has never been about the teams having different numbers of possessions.  It's been about both teams having a below-average number of possessions (roughly 8 each rather than the typical average of 12 each).

    Number of drives makes a difference because it limits the amount of points you can score.  In an 8 drive game, the maximum points any offense can score is 54 (asssuming TDs and one-point conversions on all drives).  In a 12 drive game, the maximum is 84.  The Pats both in 2011 and 2012 average TDs on 33% of their drives and FGs on 16% of their drives.  Given those typical scoring rates an "average" offensive performance for the Pats in an 8 drive game would be about 22 points and in a 12 drive game would be about 34 points. 

    I know you don't believe that number of drives makes any difference, but mathematically it does.  It creates an upper limit on scoring and it also effects the expected score based on the average scoring rate. 

     

     

Share