In response to wozzy's comment:

Here is a better example.  Team A gets the ball 8 times on offense and scored TDs on every single drive for a total of 56 points.  Team B gets the ball 12 times and scores 8 TDs and a FG for a total of 59 points.  Which offense played better?  By your logic Team B did since total points is what you claim matters.  This is obviously crazy since Team A scored a TD EVERY TIME THEY HAD THE BALL.  The point is not that both teams in a game have the same number of possessions.  It's that the number of possessions puts a ceiling on how many points you can score.  Team A couldn't score more than 56 points (unless they did 2 pt conversions) because they only had the ball 8 times.  So spouting off about how the offense averaged 35 points a game is silly when they got that average by usually having more than the 8 chances to score they had in the SB.  I happen to disagree with some of the other posters here who I think absolve NE's offense too much, but it is incredibly obvious that looking at the headline point totals in a game that the Giants made a concerted effort to shorten is shortsighted.

PcmIv, you have created a scenario that is impossible. team could not have 4 more possessions then team B UNLESS team A turned the ball over 4 times to give them 4 more possessions. Which would result in Team B in fact having the better offense....which was the case unfortunately in this past SB.

In response to TrueChamp's comment:

No you are confused.  Team A and Team B are not playing each other.  They are separate games.

What I mean was Team A was playing in an 8 possession game and Team B was playing in a 12 possession game.  They weren't playing each other.

And turning the ball over still counts as a possession so there is no such thing as a game where one team has 4 more possession than the other without onside kicks or ST turnovers.

I am confused. Do you think that a game of less possessions favors the team that statistically scores less points on average possession, and gives up more points on average possession(which seems to be the trend of the few supporting our 15.5 ppg offense in the last 2 SAB's)?

Because to me, anyway you slice the pie, the better team would still have the advantage...unless they say...spotted the other team 2 points and an extra possession and threw a long bomb INT with a lead on a crucial drive.

I am saying that Wozzy's argument that number of possessions doesn't matter is flawed.  You and he keep harping on the fact that the O averaged 35 ppg in the regular season.  The least number of possessions that it takes to score 35 points is 5 (5 TD's).  If the Patriots scored 5 TDs in the last SB it would have required them to score a TD on 5/8 drives.  Do you know any offense that scores TDs on almost 63% of their drives.  Because I don't.

The point of my earlier post which I admit was a bit confusing (although I can't seem to edit it) is that by Wozzy's logic that only points matter he would argue that an offense that scored 59 points (8 TDS and a FG) on 12 possessions played better than an offense that scored 56 points (8 TDs on 8 possessions).  You can't do any better than a TD on every possession so that is obviously crazy.

So....Do you think that a game of less possessions favors the team that statistically scores less points on average possession, and gives up more points on average possession?

In response to TrueChamp's comment:

yes it does

In response to TrueChamp's comment:

 

I am confused. Do you think that a game of less possessions favors the team that statistically scores less points on average possession, and gives up more points on average possession(which seems to be the trend of the few supporting our 15.5 ppg offense in the last 2 SAB's)?

Because to me, anyway you slice the pie, the better team would still have the advantage...unless they say...spotted the other team 2 points and an extra possession and threw a long bomb INT with a lead on a crucial drive.

 

 

Champ a lower scoring team always has a lower chance of winning than a higher scoring team, but a game with fewer drives give the lower scoring team a better chance of winning than a game with more drives.  I'll use a simplified example to explain why.  

 

Let's assume we have two teams.  Team A averages 2 scores every 8 drives, while team B averages just 1 score every 8 drives. If the teams play an 8 drive game, you'd expect team A to win 2 scores to 1.  The expected winning differential is only 1 score in an 8 drive game, so for team B to win, all you need is team A to score one less time than expected and team B one more time.  This isn't a big variation from what's expected.

Now let's assume the two teams play a 16 drive game.  Now the expected score would be 4 to 2. The expected winning differential is 2 scores. For team B to win in a 16 drive game, then you'd need team A to score two less times than expected and team B to score two more times than expected.   This is a bigger variation from what's expected and therefore more difficult to achieve.

Another way to look at it is by thinking about flipping coins.  We all know that the probability that a coin flip will come up heads is 50%.  If you flip a coin a large number of times, it's very rare for heads to come up too much less or too much more than 50% of the time.  If you flip a coin just three or four times, however, it's not at all uncommon to get three or four flips of heads or tails in a row, resulting in a result that is far from the 50% expected result. When you have more attempts at something, it's more likely that you'll achieve the expected (average) result.  When you have a very small sample of attempts, however, there's a much greater chance that your result will vary from the expected result or the average result.  If two teams play a large number of drives, the team that tends to score more per drive is likely to end up ahead as expected.  But if you play only a few drives, there's a greater liklihood of the achieving an anomalous result, just like when you flip a coin just three or four times. With small samples "margins of error" are large and random variation may produce results that vary widely from the expected norm.  With large samples, however, random variation has less of an effect resulting in smaller margins of error and results tend to approach the expected norm.  

 

^ Anyway you cut it, team A still has the advantage. They are better offensively and defensively from a ppg perspective. The only difference can be is if 1 offense plays a better game plan(executes a better game plan if you prefer) and runs more/ uses shorter passing plays(ball control offense), while the other offense gives back 2 points and a turnover on their 1st suspect play of the game, and then throws a 40 yard bomb to a TE with a busted ankle that results in an INT, while playing with the lead. If neither of these plays happen IMO we win the game.....or if we could have used a little more clock the Gints would have been under tremendous pressure to score the last drive. Or if our offense didn't have a 30 second, 90 second, and 91 second drive...and put the defense that we all know wasn't our strong suit back on the field.

I know this all falls on deaf ears, but what can I say man. I belive I am right, and you believe you are.

This post has been removed.

In response to RockScully's comment:

Truth is, Gomer had some of the best scoring D's in the league for many seasons and you can't use or blame them  How many good scoring D's has Brady had since 2004?

How have NE's DPR's been dating back to 2005?

Truth is Brady is now statistically better in regular and post season.

Truth is, Brady has won more with less!

This post has been removed.

In response to RockScully's comment:

That's not true. The patriots offensive drives have been at or below the nfl average the past few seasons. Brady actually gets fewer drives than most other QBs. In 2010, they had only 158 drives, the lowest in the league.  Last year they had 173, which was fourth lowest, and this year they had 180, about middle of the pack.

 

This post has been removed.

In response to RockScully's comment:

 

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

 

In response to RockScully's comment:

 

"Scoring Ds"?  NE's D has led the AFC 3 straight years in turnovers created. That means Brady gets far more drives than most QBs in this league.

Your lover has to be better in the postseason, especially AFC title games. His last 2 at home yielded a total of FIVE Ints.

 

 

That's not true. The patriots offensive drives have been at or below the nfl average the past few seasons. Brady actually gets fewer drives than most other QBs. In 2010, they had only 158 drives, the lowest in the league.  Last year they had 173, which was fourth lowest, and this year they had 180, about middle of the pack.

 

 

 

What?

 

Source please.

 

 

Football outsiders has the drive stats. My numbers are from there.

 

In response to RockScully's comment:

Turn overs don't result in more drives.  The opponent has the same amount of drives.

Do you actually watch Football?

Turnovers may shorten drives, which will mean more of them, but both teams will still have the same (or nearly the same) number of drives

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

My comments are my own. The drive numbers I report and base my comments on are from www.footballoutsiders.com.

 

This post has been removed.

In response to RockScully's comment:

We don't gain any additional drives.  Did you graduate 3rd grade?