In response to RockScully's comment:

Actually we just get our next possession sooner than if our opponent's drive had ended some other way (punt, score, turnover on downs).  Turnovers help you because they stop your opponent from scoring on their drive and you often get the ball with better field position helping you score more easily. Because they shorten drives they may also increase the number of drives in the game, but this isn't definite, and because possessions almost always alternate they rarely give you more possessions than your opponent will have. 

This post has been removed.

In response to RockScully's comment:

The source for the third time is www.footballoutsiders.com. 

 

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to RockScully's comment:

Sports or no sports it's clear you weren't very good at math.

This post has been removed.

In response to RockScully's comment:

You can up look it up yourself. I'm not going to cut and paste from my iPad because you're too lazy to go to the site yourself and click on the statistics tab then click on drive stats.

This post has been removed.

Your opponent's possession that ended with the turnover would, in the absence of the turnover, have ended some other way. The turnover brings their possession to an end sooner than it would have ended otherwise and without producing a score for them and possibly also gives you your next possession with better starting field position. But their possession would have ended some other way and you gotten the next possession even if the turnover didn't occur.

Now shortened possessions may lead to more possessions during the game, but since possessions alternate each team will (generally) have the same number of possessions as the other team. The turnover won't result in the team that created the turnover having two or three more possessions than the other team has. Possessions will remain alternating and therefore roughly equal.

In response to RockScully's comment:

Well then you'll just have to wait.

In response to RockScully's comment:

That's correct.  A fumble or turn over won't put additional drives in TB's Hands.

The only thing that will put more drives in Brady's hands is TIME.

Does a turn over after the opponent has had the ball for 5 minutes increase drives?  NO! It merely ends the drive and then you get the ball the same way a 3rd down stop would.

Does a TO  by the D increase possessions if it's after 2 minutes?  Or 1?  NOPE! 

In a 12 possession game, you have to kill almost 5 minutes off the clock to get 1 more drive

60 /12=5  60/13=4.62  per drive.    .38 (the dff)x's 12 drives = 4.65.  This is usually done by reducing a number of drives to = that time.

Just the same as you have to run your o for 4 minutes and 45 seconds (more then 2 minutes more for each and every drive) to reduce drives by 4., resulting in an 8 possession game.

Thanks for showing us, once again, how much football smarts you don't have.

Does a TO by the D on our 10 yard line give you good field position?  NO!  It gives you horrible field position.

None of this results in any more possessions than the other team has.  Again, the only thing that can do that is TIme running out at the half or end of game.

Everything you say is Blatently FALSE!

 

And it does not give them more drives than their opponent, as you imply.

2011

TeamDrives

PIT165

SD166  

GB168

NE173

NO174

CLE174

CAR175

TB177

DAL179

TEN180

IND180

BAL180

ATL182

SF184

BUF185

WAS185

MIN185

PHI187

HOU187

KC187  

JAC188

MIA188

OAK190

CIN190

STL190

NYG191

DET192

SEA193

ARI194

CHI194

NYJ198

DEN199

In response to pezz4pats' comment:

Cool numbers. 

I never actually thought of breaking it down to time-saved. 

The best way to create more drives is indeed to save time. The best way to save time, is to take your opponent's time. The best way to take your opponent's time is to get a 3 & out. 

The best defenses don't rely on turnovers (which are great) but basically choke the opponent out with 3 & outs. 

It gets the ball back to the offense so they can maintain a rhythm, it preserves the defense's strength, it's absolutely demoralizing when you have many of them.

A quick 3 & out is the best kind of failed drive, short of a turnover on the first few plays of a drive which is a three and out. 

Turnovers can shorten the field, which is a great thing. But unless they come quick, they usually worse at creating "extra drives."

Consider the 2003-4 Patriots defense. Their offense was 3rd in total drives (192). But this was likely because their defense was 1st in punts per drive. The 2011 Patriots were 30th in punts per drive. 

It kind of chews up the "turnovers" that they get when they so infrequently can force a team to punt. In the end, they gave up too many yards, which meant too many minutes for the opponents. The fact that NE's offense was 3rd in total scoring was practically a miracle considering some other teams had 20+ more opportunities to actually score. 

The "other" way to increase your drives is to run a hurry-up on offense/pass more often, deliberately attempting to not use clock time. But this isn't the best way. It's cheating the clock, and is best reserved for situations when you really, really need more time -- for instance, late in games when talk of extra drives is by the wayside and you are trying to save seconds. 

In response to zbellino's comment:

Which is why a defense that gives up historic amounts of yards is a problem.

In response to pcmIV's comment:

Of course it's flawed.

It is obvious if two teams have fairly equal defenses and one has a significantly better offense, that the team with the better offense wants more possessions and the team with the weaker offense wants less possessions.

It's the entire theory around "ball control" Keep a high powered O off the field by sustaining long drives that eat up clock. That's what the Giants did to a tee and had the perfect pigeon to perpetrate it upon in our D.

 

In response to pcmIV's comment:

 

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.

 

And you'd be wrong.  We aren't harping on the offense scoring 35 ppg, in fact we aren't looking at averages at all, because they have NO bearing on one game.  The offense scored 17 points and gave back 2 on a safety, turning it over twice = 15 points.  In today's NFL that's a joke...

 

You can put lipstick on a pig and say how great it feels compared to average, human skin but you'd still wake up the next morning beside a pig.  

These stats based on "averages" per drive, the idea that the length of the drive is something that Belichick is sitting there charting in game is foolish.  The offense is the biggest determining factor on how long a drive lasts, they control their own destiny, so even by your standards the offense laid a turd.  

The Patriot's offense couldn't sustain any drives, couldn't score more than 17 points and turned it over twice.  To try and paint that as great offense is a joke, and anyone who buys into this junk science is either over thinking it or a complete maroon.

I'm not going to continue arguing this because I believe it to be complete garbage and arguing with fools makes me look foolish.  When BB comes out and states how important average per drive stats are, then maybe then I'll listen, but instead what we have is a group who have been vehemently insisting that the running game plays no part in a successful championship team and that a team can win by passing alone trying to convince us that this turd the Pat's offense laid was really gold.

Belichick says the most important stats after wins are points for, points against and turnovers... all this other stuff, while it might tell a story is irrelevant when held up to these stats.

Funny how you guys laud the Giant's for their ball control offense but knock those of us who have been lobbying for a more efficient offense for the past 4 years.

In response to wozzy's comment:

Why is that funny? The Giants had an elite performance. No one here ever said that you couldn't have an elite performance that way. Most just said, there are many different ways to have an elite performance, for instance passing it many, many times in an obivous pass-first offense to decimate the Texans last week. That's one.

What is funny is that you routinely laud performances like the Giants, but absolutely refuse to discuss that the defense was essentially manhandled by that "efficient" "ball control" offense. They couldn't do a thing to stop it. 

That is their job. Stopping the offense. 

Also

"running game plays no part in a successful championship team and that a team can win by passing alone trying to convince us that this turd the Pat's offense laid was really gold."

Actually ... you can't comment on this, at least not without making yourself into more of a hypocrite. Run/pass ratios are an obscure statistic that has nothing to do with the only three that matter to BB: points scored, points allowed, and turnovers. Untill BB comes out and starts talking about the importance of run-pass ratios to success ... I won't hear it.

 

Wozzy, no one is saying the offense had a great performance in the Super Bowl.  It was distinctly mediocre.  Our points all along have been two:

• We don't believe (as you apparently do) that running more would have necessarily improved the offensive results.  
• We think that the defense played very poorly too and allowed the Giants to mount long drives, which limited our own offense's opportunities to score, while also allowing the Giants to score on half their useable drives and complete 75% of 40 passes.

We also believe that last year's offense, while lacking in diversity and balance and therefore having some significant vulnerabilities, was quite good and well-designed for the particular talent on the offensive side of the ball and the challenge of having a defense that gave up lots of points (often quickly) and therefore necessitated a higher scoring offense. 

This post has been removed.

In response to RockScully's comment:

Completely false, all of it!

If you tell me we have a 9 point lead in the 3rd qtr and the D gives up scoring plays on 3 of 4 possessions, I'd say we lost.

Points per game, per team, have only increased by 1 freaken point since that era. 1 point!

Which means average D's are keeping up.

The problem is, the Pats D played far worse than the average D.

Your opinion of their play does not matter!!!!  Your opinion couldn't be any more far removed from REALITY!

The stats tell the story.  The Pats offensive stats were in line with a good or effecient Offense.  The D's were not.

Do you know what a 102 DPR means?  It means the defense is allowing the opposing qb a 102 passer rating.  Think about that for one second.

The D allowed ELI Manning a 102 passer rating.

An elite D would allow a passer rating of the 65-75 range.  TB's was an 89 and a 100 before the last drive.

Here's a little (SHOCKING) perspective from CHFF for this year.

And right now it might be even worse than you think. The Patriots enter Week 11 No. 28 league-wide in Defensive Passer Rating (97.3). Put another way, opposing quarterbacks torch them for a 97.3 passer rating week after week.

For a little perspective, future first-ballot Hall of Fame quarterback

Tom Brady, the leader of the most consistently prolific offenses in football history, boasts a career passer rating of 96.6.

That’s right: the 2012 Patriots make every quarterback look better than Tom Brady   THE PATS D gave up a 102 in the SB to ELI MANNING, for the love of GOD!!!!! Put that in your perspective!!!!!

This post has been removed.

In response to wozzy's comment:

I don't think anyone has ever said that the Patriots offense was great in the last Super Bowl.  I certainly haven't.  In fact I think the offense was worse than a lot of other posters who disagree with you.  However I think the defense also played incredibly poorly in a way that is not reflected by looking at the absolute point total which is why I mention the points per possession.  There seems to be this notion among some posters that the D played well enough to win and the O did not.  I do not think either unit did.

As for your claim about BB talking about points he is by definition talking about points per drive.  Teams that score more points almost always score more points per drive (because over the course of a season there isn't a huge difference in the number of drives teams have although there is more variation game to game).  The correlation between points per drive and total points is pretty dam close to 1.

In any event I think we can all agree that both sides of the ball are playing better football this year than last year and that we all want the Pats to bring home another Lombardi.  So on that note.  Go PATS.

In response to RockScully's comment:

Yeah I don't agree with either of those statements.  The result of the play (INT) was bad because of the situation, but it was hardly the worst of his career.  I still think it was a good decision.  It was a broken play and Gronk was wide open when he threw it.  He just underthrew it and Blackburn made a good play and Gronk didn't do anything to break it up.  In my view it required poor execution by Brady and Gronk as well as a good play by Blackburn to get the result we saw.

In response to RockScully's comment:

Again, Dumb!

QB play is always contingent on the D they are playing.

It is more likely you throw a pic against a rotten D than it is you will throw a pick against a good or or even mediocre D.

ELI put up a 102 PR against a very, very poor defense.

It's like beating up on a girl.  The Pats D played like girls.  Case closed.!