Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    [QUOTE]Sure the D has some young players but youth isn't everything.  They are missing some talent, some playmakers.  The D needs to add some experienced talented playmakers to the roster to the roster. I think I would much rather them add some experienced, talented playmakers to the D then going and getting a high priced deep threat and not upgrading the D.
    Posted by TFB12[/QUOTE]

    Merriweather was a talented playmaker. As was Adalius Thomas. Haynesworth had LOADS of talent.

    Youth isn't everything. Neither is talent or playmaking ability. You need a good mix of all of these things. They obviously have youth. Calling anyone a playmaker would be a stretch. I, personally, do see a lot of talent. Now if that talent and youth can learn to play together better, you'll see the playmaking rise to the top.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA : Merriweather was a talented playmaker. As was Adalius Thomas. Haynesworth had LOADS of talent. Posted by ma6dragon9[/QUOTE]


    Just look at what they all did after BB cut them! 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Pancakespwn. Show Pancakespwn's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    One of the coolest things in watching those older teams was seeing how Bill dismantled them and brought together this young lineup. Ninkovich was such a small signing and the growth of most like Jerod, Devin and Wilfork have all been homegrown.

    I am a believer though adding veteran defensive players who have played elsewhere isn't a bad idea and is a great mixture to a locker room like ours that is young and has been to war but not often. No one knew that Adalius Thomas was going to be the ring house leader of idiots and Bill has tanked on some signings outside but its not worth going back to the well and try again because you know what the draft isn't that good and unless we move up guys like Whitney and Cox are going to be gone and that would get back our defense in the right shape. Were missing front 7 pieces and a S.  
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from threejak. Show threejak's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    Why the  redudndant over-analysis? It's been said a hundred times if it's been said once.....Draft or acquire your "perceived" pressing needs and get on with the show....It can't be any more complicated than that can it?

    Team has a  super solid core and I for one look for them to be back in the SB again next year....So there.....
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA : #1 . I'm sure there's been probably at least 1, maybe 2 instances in the history of The NFL, where some Defense played a single game where that D didn't get a "3 and Out" in this contest...maybe...1? #2 . Jesus bub , ya cannot have it both ways here...ya just can't.  NE's Defense plays exceptionally well in the first 2 games, allowing a total of 30 points to to playoff teams combined...?  Answer: Those teams had terrible Offenses so you have to factor this in relentlessly.  NE's Offense puts up 17 points, 20 points, and 17 points in 3 of NE's losses (including the SB)...?  Answer: Pats were playing teams with tough D's...So is it too much for NE's OWN Defense, to step up here? #3 .  WhenInTH did Brady put up "30+ points a game" in the playoffs recently and in the consistant manner which undertones your this phrase of yours? #4 . Let's talk about this point I've seen forwarded here as the newest brand of Total excusatory absolvement of anything and everything Brady and NE's Offense does, namely the following: "In 3 of Pats 4 Losses, NE gave up the game-winning drive in the final minute of the game..." Loss #1- <Buffalo 34, NE 31 /> Tom Brady=4 Interceptions in this game...4!  Good god...  Want me to detail them?  #1 INT- Under 2 minutes to go before halftime, with NE poised to score at Buffalo's own 13 yard line.  3 more INTs (second half... 3 )- #2 INT- Very first play from scrimmage in NE's first possession of the 2nd half (upon NE's D holding Buffalo to an initial 3 and out to begin the second half)- INT, granting Buffalo the ball already in long field goal range after the INT return (Bills Offense begins at NE's own 39 yard line...Pats Defense got a 6 second breather for their initial efforts to begin the half).  #3 INT- Beginning of the 4th Quarter, NE poised to score...Brady's 3rd INT occurs at Buffalo's 23 yard line (more certain points, beit TD or FG, thrown away...insanely more time on the field for NE's Defense in the final half of play).  #4 INT- Score 24-24 now...1st play from scrimmage again, Brady INT, this time returned by Drayton Florence for a Bills TD.   Really, on 1 hand I feel the absolute need to explain further, How and WHY Buffalo managed to score 23 points in the 2nd half...but I just can't- I can't explain st#p!d stuff to people who have their mind's set regardless, and in an absolute fashion.  So yea, yup...NE's Defense DID give up that final second Field Goal (Therefore total Blame?  NE's Defense, no doubt). Loss #2, Loss #3, and Loss #4-  NE's Offense put up 17 points against Pittsburgh, whom themselves managed an unsurmountable 25 points in total...  2 of them came with Brady's final and certain game-winning drive with just under 2 minutes left to play...seein' as TB and company managed 7 points total in the 2nd half, NE and Brady were well-rested and due...  Very 1st play of final drive?  Sack-Fumble-Polamalu knocks it into NE's own endzone=Safety.  Question: Is NE's Defense responsible for 23 points, or should we give'em the 25 point Pittsburgh total which includes the Offense's Safety? Next, we've got The NE/Giants Regular Season Game where NE's high powered machine managed 20 points, and NE's "worst NFL Defense in the history of the league", allowed The G-Men to trounce them with a 24 point tally...  Brady fare well?  Of course, 28 for 49, with 2 Interceptions and 1 Fumble (Edelman had another) is trully superb...poor guy, that Pats D lettin' him down yet again in the 2012 season.   Superbowl...  NE's stud Offense played as well as they could, makin' up for an awful Pats Defense, as Brady and Company placed 17 points on the scoreboard, 7 in the 2nd half, 0 points scored in the final 20+ minutes of play-  Brady and company come up big again, but Brady's 27 for 41 (awesome 6.2 yards average passing yards per play), 1 Interception, 1 Safety...very first time he touched the ball in the Superbowl.  Unfortunately, once again NE's Defense gives up that final game winning drive... Which, at this point, we'll now detail that it's totally irrational to expect Tom Brady to answer with his own score...on the biggest stage & the game where the winners get the lombardi trophy- Considering now...Every NFL Fan knows that NO Quarterback in the history of the league should EVER have such a lofty expectation (completely fictional), OF: Being able to score...with 57 seconds on the clock...and 2 timeouts.  Nah, A final drive that went like this, isn't ANY-one but his own Defense's Fault: Incomplete Pass, Incomplete Pass, Sack, <timeout /> Completed pass to Branch for 19 yards, Completed Pass to Hernandez for 11 yards, <penalty on Giants />, Incomplete Pass, Incomplete Pass...and, finally: Incomplete Pass.              Yup, Tom Brady and NE's Offense=Devoid of every ounce of blame...forever, no matter what happens ever=  16 Regular Season Games in 2013 where NE looses each and every one by the margin of 6-3?  Yup, The answer's so simple ANYone should recognize it:  NE's Offense helped THEIR team out by putting 3 points on the scoreboard, NE's Defense on the otherhand, HURT their team because they GAVE up 6 points, and din't score any points themselves...  Time of Possession?  Extended Drives given up by a Patriot defense?  Yup, It only works 1 way- NE's Defense is solely responsible for the TOP being won by the other team...  NE's Offense?  The poor Patriot Offense, shouldn't be held under the standards of being able to have a meaningful clock-eating second half drive for gameS at a time...  Even IF it's the 2nd half, NE's Offense is probably rushing things because NE's Defense, and so when NE's Offense gets their 4th 3 and out of the 2nd half in a row, and takes a grand total of 1 minute off the playing clock, who's fault is it...?  ANSWER : That's right, The Pats D. ~~~ Look, I love Brady as My Team's Quarterback...but some of you guys with your bat-blind absolute forms of total excusatory viewpoints towards certain Pats Players, along with completely impulsive "hang 'em now" completely impulsive spur of the moment final takes based off zero (not...1) aspects of depth, or detail surrounding your blame towards other Pats Players (McCourty-"worst CB in the league" 123 threads this subject alone this year/Brandon Spikes- "Mmm, I CAN excuse Patrick Chung being on the field less...but Spikes?  Guy's a low-class thug/Tom Brady- "Sure he threw 7 Interceptions, didn't have 1 complete pass in the game last week, and fumbled the ball 3 times...buuut, He DID win us those Superbowls, so: Brady played good last week, but NE's Defense blew it.)      
    Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium[/QUOTE]

    Exactly!! This is what I've been trying to explain (nail hit on the head)...it's the defense's fault. I just wasn't able to break it down like you:)
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA : The O's ability to score is determined by how much time they have to do so.
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    Baloney, an offense can score on the first play or after 20 plays. An offense can score in under a minute.

    An offense determines it's own fate, it can shrink the field an just try to use three downs to get a first, or it can go for broke at a moments notice and open the throttle, it either imposes it's will on a defense or it doesn't, our offense is feast or famine. This fluffy pass downfield, finesse offense is soft... S. O. F. T.

    What you can't grasp for dear life is how what our offense does, or in this case doesn't do, how that affects the defense.  If the defense has to watch three and outs over and over, there is the mental fatigue as well as the physical of being put out there on the field again and again and again...  

    This isn't Madden football, these guys get tired, they lose hope.  Yes the defense could have played better but their job is to limit points and get the ball back if possible, they did that. They could have recovered the 3 fumbles they caused but they held for most of the game.

    The offense gave the Giants opportunity after opportunity to try again and again, in the end it was a number's game. You can only stop them so many times...



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

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA : Just look at what they all did after BB cut them! 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Of course, Most of BB's picks are actually even worse than they seem. He just gets a lot out of people as a coach.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA : Baloney, an offense can score on the first play or after 20 plays. An offense can score in under a minute. An offense determines it's own fate, it can shrink the field an just try to use three downs to get a first, or it can go for broke at a moments notice and open the throttle, it either imposes it's will on a defense or it doesn't, our offense is feast or famine. This fluffy pass downfield, finesse offense is soft... S. O. F. T. What you can't grasp for dear life is how what our offense does, or in this case doesn't do, how that affects the defense.  If the defense has to watch three and outs over and over, there is the mental fatigue as well as the physical of being put out there on the field again and again and again...   This isn't Madden football, these guys get tired, they lose hope.  Yes the defense could have played better but their job is to limit points and get the ball back if possible, they did that. They could have recovered the 3 fumbles they caused but they held for most of the game. The offense gave the Giants opportunity after opportunity to try again and again, in the end it was a number's game. You can only stop them so many times...
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    You are officially even dumber than TrueChump. That's a hard guy to beat in that category. You are Hall of Fame dumb.

    The problem isn't the #2 rated offense. It's the #31 rated defense.


    DUH LOL
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    [QUOTE]IThe offense gave the Giants opportunity after opportunity to try again and again, in the end it was a number's game. You can only stop them so many times...
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]


    C'mon Wozzy . . . the Giants only had 8 drives (I'm not counting the kneel down to end the second half as a drive, but if you want to, then they had 9 drives).  The NFL average is 11.5 drives.   So saying they had "opportunity after opportunity to try again and again" is a little bit of an exaggeration.  They had far fewer chances than normal.  

    Of course, they did score on half their chances.  And on the half they didn't score they managed to eat big chunks of time off the clock and leave the Pats offense in terrible field position:
    • 10 plays, 6:00 off the clock, 35 yards, punt to back the Pats' offense up at the 6 yard line
    • 8 plays 3:48 off the clock, 39 yards, punt for touchback
    • 7 plays, 4:21 off the clock, 22 yards, punt to back the offense up to the 4 yard line
    • 10 plays, 4:53 off the clock, 49 yards, punt to back the Pats offense up at the 8 yard line
    You can blame the offense for not capitalizing on several key drives--that's fair.  But please stop trying to tell us this defense played well.  It didn't.  



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

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA : Baloney, an offense can score on the first play or after 20 plays. An offense can score in under a minute. An offense determines it's own fate, it can shrink the field an just try to use three downs to get a first, or it can go for broke at a moments notice and open the throttle, it either imposes it's will on a defense or it doesn't, our offense is feast or famine. This fluffy pass downfield, finesse offense is soft... S. O. F. T. What you can't grasp for dear life is how what our offense does, or in this case doesn't do, how that affects the defense.  If the defense has to watch three and outs over and over, there is the mental fatigue as well as the physical of being put out there on the field again and again and again...   This isn't Madden football, these guys get tired, they lose hope.  Yes the defense could have played better but their job is to limit points and get the ball back if possible, they did that. They could have recovered the 3 fumbles they caused but they held for most of the game. The offense gave the Giants opportunity after opportunity to try again and again, in the end it was a number's game. You can only stop them so many times...
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    What you can't seem to grasp is that what the Pats O did against The jints D, in an 8 possession game was about average.
    But.....What the Pats D did against the jints O was so far from average that they nearly broke the record for the worst D is a SB, ever.
    Just as they almost broke the record for the worst D of all times with yards surrendered.  (only turn overs saved their butts to give them a better points/game)
    TOP (loss) is a direct result of yards surrendered and 1st downs surrendered.
    There is a reason they gage a D's performance by yards surrendered.
    It means the D is not getting the ball back efficiently.
    Oh, and the Pats D did not have to watch the Pats go 3 & out over and over.  I only remember 1, 3 and out and 1 quick turnover(the safety).  And the Pats O didn't give the jints opportunity over and over again.  They both had equal possessions.  The Jints possessions just happened to last nearly twice as long because the D let them hold it nearly twice as long.
    The Pats D didn't just give up.  The jints first drive was 7 minutes and it never got much better from there.
    Incidentally, the Jints first drive in SB 42 was 10 minutes without the benefit of a safety.  See the correlation...both games were lost the same way.  Loss of TOP right from the git go.  Also the 1st jints game last year had an almost identical TOP.  So did the Steelers game. 
    Luckily, all teams don't have the O to pull that off, and the D to stop the Pats O.  It usually takes both to beat them.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    Pezz and Prolate~

    How hard are wozzy's and my own points, to understand (I omit babe, who's on your side, because I feel deep down basic understanding has to be willful and capable here)?

    Wozzy's point...IS: Non-Arguable.  Wozzy's point (he simplifies it in an easy to comprehend sentence forwarding a point-blank succinct thesis...I've taken a hard stance against doing this in each & every single matter in this life).  Said point in question:  "The Offense controls their own fate."  And accounting for, and so long as 1 or 2 most often unusual events Do NOT occur As this relates to our subject at hand (i.e. Time of Possession), ANY and EVERY argument against this notion, is downright painfully weak & stretches any notions of consistant, broader, and objective reasoning- well past the breaking point...

    So long as 1 or 2 things Do NOT occur, And As a direct result of such a porous handicapping Defensive Effort and Output in any given game-time example, The argument which not only blames NE's Defense for the Total Allotment as exemplified here, of NY's 38 minute TOP mark, but ALSO holds NE's same Defense responsible for NE's 22 minute or so TOP low-mark...IS: IN-sane.  Here are certain contingencies, which you might hope occured...but which never actually DID occur, which "might" make the argument you fellas are forwarding (up above), A tad bit less: IN-sane...  1 would be, IF The oppossing team's Offense got on the scoreboard quick, and/or in a decently high number, and/or did this consistantly, drive after drive after drive...  In this instance, yup: A person COULD actually make the "NE's Offense was forced into a shootout contest, where they were forced to score both quick and consistantly in order so the game didn't get outta reach...

    This never occured...  This never even remotely occured.  Here are facts which DID occur: 
         New York Giants scored 9 points in the first half of play...7 points- 1 Insurmountable Touchdown (and a 2 point Safety offered up in their laps by NE's Offense).  6 points in the 3rd Quarter, and 6 more points in the 4th Quarter...  NOT EVEN REMOTELY ANY-thing which can OR should affect the following shortcomings and failures by NE's Offense in this contest:  #1. NE's Defense getting NY's Defense off the field after NY failed to score on NY's opening possession, THEN- NE's Offense taking what (3 seconds?) off the clock, b/c on the very first play THEY had, NE's Offense placed NE's Defense DIRECTLY Both back onto the field, and with their backs against the wall due to the short Safety turnover kickoff scenario...  5 seconds...first possession.  So, HowInTF, do you tally NE's Defense with these added TOP minutes...Honestly, even IF NY's Offense just took a knee for 3 plays, before punting, that'd be just under 2 minutes toward NY's heavy TOP final tally, with ZERO NE's Defense could do about it...so?!?!?!  How is this not obvious, except a select few people on here? 
         Oh, and another Drive- 3rd Quarter-opening 4th Quarter with a NE Offensive possession looking like this:  1st play- Incomplete pass (we're still discussing TOP, right?), 2nd play- 11 yard catch by Branch and ran out of bounds at the end, 3rd play- BJGE rush, 4th play- A 2nd BJGE rush, 5th Play- Brady Intercepted...  There ya go=Tom Brady's forced response, because it was the end of Quarter Number 3, and NE's Defense had already forced NE's Offense to keep with NY, considering that NY's scary O had slammed NE's D by the end of Quarter #3, with a whopping 13 point grand total (15- 2 points from Brady's Safety, while at this instant NE was at 17 points in the lead).
         Even with the same scoring drives and possession chances, How is Eli Manning and The NY Offensive juggernaut capable of having longer extended clock-controlling drives (b/c NE's Defense, obviously...), while HOF QB Tom Brady given these same possession examples and opportunities, Ends the very same looking drives...with the same results...BUT controls the clock, Far, FAR less?!?
    Example:  NY's "Gift drive after Brady's Safety" upon being forced right back on the field after successfully stopping NY 5 seconds earlier:  Touchdown- 9 Plays, 78 Yards, and a 5 minute and 28 Second Drive.
    Brady's answer as the 1st quarter ends, and the 2nd one begins: Touchdown- 10 Plays, 60 yards, and a 4 minute and 36 second TOP drive (less yards...but not enough to make up for a full minute TOP less).

    So...next NE chance- Nope, not the immediate Safety, or the 4 play INT...this one was just a NE: Incomplete pass, Woodhead run for 3 yards, Brady pass for 6 yards (short 1 yard of the 1st down marker), and=PUNT...3 and out (1/4-1/3rd of the way into Quarter No. 2.


    Oh, here's an extended NE drive in the 2nd Quarter resulting in a Touchdown- 14 Plays, 96 Yards, and 3 Minutes and 55 Second TOP tally... <insert reminder to scroll back up in order to see how this relates by yardage and TOP with NY's Drive, and NE's 1st successful drive).

    Here's the next one- (Both score and Gameclock concerns STILL= ZERO Factor...whatsoever <NE 10 and NY 9...or if you'd like: NE 10, NY 7 and Brady + NY 2= NY-9 points; 1st drive of the second half <NE with the ball first />)- TD- 8 Plays, 79 Yards, and a 3 Minute and 40 Second TOP tally.
     
    And here's The NY Giants Offensive Response:  Field Goal- 10 Plays, 45 Yards, and a 4 minute and 37 Second tally... 

    Btw...these are NORMAL Drive times by the NY Offense.  When you're Offense commits One "1 and Out" prior to a Safety TO, and One "4 and Out" prior to an Interception TO, and Lmao- Not just 1, but 2(!) more "3 and Out(s)" before Punting, and subsequently, upon them actually driving anywhere from 80-90 yards, and they DO so in under 4 minutes...As it is RIGHT Here & Now...and as it relates to blaming NE's Defense for The Patriots Time of Possession shortcomings alone...ANY argument which forwards this, IS: Absolutely IN-sane.       
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    OK Laz
    Here's why we're not so insane.


    To quote Bill Parcell:

    “I don’t know what the time of possession was,” the Giants’ coach would say after the Giants’ 20-19 victory over the Buffalo Bills in Super Bowl XXV. “But the whole plan was try to shorten the game for them.”

    The purpose, of course, is time control, optimizing time of possession, and thus reducing the opportunity of the opposing offense to have big plays. It’s a classic reaction to an opponent’s big play offense, to their ability to create those terrific net yards per attempt stats [1].

    It does appear that Coughlin was a good student.
    Unless you think Parcells is also insane (debatable) you can clearly see that this tactic Does indeed limit what opposing O's can do.
    The jints optomized TOP, shortened the game and reduced the opportunities for the Pats O to score.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ws04ed. Show ws04ed's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    You know Bill, he will see who filled positions w/ F/A. Perhaps draft as he should Brockers LSU  with the 1st pick ,trade the 2nd no 1 pick for slew of  2nds this year and next. Then go for a CB thats versital and could play FS. Convert Dowling to FS if he can stay healthy. Barron would help immiedetly but in the new world order of tight ends you need a smaller safety that can cover the slot and TEs and not just protect the deep threats and come in on the the run. At WR who the hell knows, look at his last picks.And finally  we will pick up an OLB  maybe Perry or Jones Its a total crap shoot.My last guess is he is going to draft a QB out of Hoffstra and convert him into WR/DB/FS because he has a knlowledge of the game. In Bill we trust but until the picks are announced at the mike its all mental masturbation.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    [QUOTE]OK Laz Here's why we're not so insane. To quote Bill Parcell: “I don’t know what the time of possession was,” the Giants’ coach would say after the Giants’ 20-19 victory over the Buffalo Bills in Super Bowl XXV. “ But the whole plan was try to shorten the game for them.” The purpose, of course, is time control, optimizing time of possession, and thus reducing the opportunity of the opposing offense to have big plays . It’s a classic reaction to an opponent’s big play offense, to their ability to create those terrific net yards per attempt stats [1]. It does appear that Coughlin was a good student. Unless you think Parcells is also insane (debatable) you can clearly see that this tactic Does indeed limit what opposing O's can do. The jints optomized TOP, shortened the game and reduced the opportunities for the Pats O to score.
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    Pezz, I'm not so sure I understand right here...  Are you countering the 120 seperate details from my posts on this thread regarding the gametime specifics of Brady's and NE's Offense's scores of utter failures to control the clock in The Superbowl, and in their other 3 Losses, and by and large throughout the course of this past 2012 Season...With a Bill Parcell's quote that he made after His NY Giants beat The Buffalo Bills in 1990?  

    You must not think very highly of me.  Sure, I've actually seen the days where critical analysises went from newfound takes on subject material, solidified with things like referenced facts from real-life referenced sources and people, TO the point where I'm certain many believe that you here actually went above and beyond the burden of proving your counter-take because you went so far as to offer up a real-life person's name to your 20 year old general quote that has nothing whatsoever to do with NE's 2012 Offensive TOP shortcomings ("Bill Parcells", as opposed to "Some anonymous guy once said...").  But c'mon pezz, I have a very, VERY long ways to go before I begin to swallow a response which offers THIS as the relatable portion:  Bill Parcells was a very successful Pro Football Coach.  Parcells even coached The New England Patriots for a little bit.  20 years ago after some team that Bill Parcells Coached, beat some other team in that year's Superbowl, he said that He believes in shortening the other team's TOP and possession numbers for their Offense BY Himself (his own team's Offense) controling the clock... 
         Thus: The New England Patriots Offense in the 2012 Superbowl and throughout the season are and forever will be, at the mercy of having a Defense which gives up long drives; There, is in fact, nothing whatsoever NE's Offense can themselves do about this, no matter the score, no matter their own 3 and outs, No matter the Multiple turnovers on the first plays of any given possession they have, No matter the Timespan of the game (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th quarter)...Nada- Because until NE's Defense forces 90% of every oppossing team's O to go "3 and Out", Tom Brady's game-calling, regardless of ANY-thing and EVERY-thing that he might be doing subpar, and regardless of ANY and EVERY even smallest aspect of the positive from NE's Defensive effort on any given single 1 second- Doesn't Matter AT All...because until that day comes, Brady and The Offense's play-calling, play success- EVERY-thing= Will, forever be at the complete mercy of NE's poor showings on defense...(further proven because, In 7 years NE's Defense hasn't made 1 decent play or effort in that timespan). 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    Laz, Laz, Laz . . . .

    TOP is the result of two things:
    • How well our offense does against our opponent's defense
    • How well our opponent's offense does against our own defense
    You and Wozzy are attempting to argue that only the first factor matters and calling pezz and I blind for not seeing that.  But in fact, it is you and Wozzy who have tunnel vision on this one.  Yes, the offense is -- in part-- responsible for TOP.  And there is much to blame them for on that score (I have no disagreement with you or Wozzy on that).  But, but, but . . . the defense is also to blame . . . and the fact that the Pats' offense's/Giants' defense's drive times were about average and the Giant's offenses/Pats'defensive drive times were about twice average seems to suggest that the real reason TOP was so heavily in favor of the Giants was because the Giants' offensive drives (and hence the Pats' defensive stands) were long more than because the Pats' offensive drives (and Giants defensive stands) were short.  Now the length of the Giants offensive drives is due to two factors: the success of the Giants' offense in moving the ball and the failure--yes, failure!--of our defense to stop them.  

    In some ways I don't know why we continue to argue this point.  The Pats need improvements on both offense and defense.  It's pretty obvious that the defense is extremely vulnerable to the pass, bad at getting opposing offenses off the field, and only average at keeping them from scoring.  And it's pretty obvious that the offense, while usually quite good (one of the best in the NFL by nearly all statistical measures), stalls at times against good defenses in big games.  Both problems need to be corrected.   You can argue about the root cause of the problems (game planning or talent), but the problem seems abundantly clear and not really worth arguing about . . . improvements need to be made on both sides of the ball.  


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

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA



    And the "good young defense" argument just makes no sense either:  I mean Edelman and Slater just aren't that young anymore . . . 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    So we've finally gotten the (there's nothing wrong with the offense, it's all the defense's fault) camp to admit that the offense has some responsibility in terms of time of possession and playing keep away from the opposing offense, can we all agree on that?  

    Now if they'll just admit that a running game is the the best way to ensure this result we'll have accomplished something here, but they won't, because the whole time clock stopping on incomplete passes thing escapes them. Maybe they should re-watch a Tivo'ed game and should stare at the clock after an incomplete pass so they can see how 20 seconds elapses than it stops.

    Pezz4Pats you're sitting there quoting Parcells yet you're siding with a group that suggests passing 75% of the time or more is the best way to go.  Do you guys contradict yourselves in your everyday lives or just here?  Yeah I agree with Parcells and Coughlin, running IS the way to go.

    I never suggested the D played amazing, but compared to the offense (supposedly the strength of this team?) they played better.  

    And Babe again, the defense was ranked 15th in the regular season and was the 2nd best defense in the playoffs.  They don't award points for yards, only TD's, field goals and safeties, like the one our offense spotted the Jints to start the game. 

    Our D gave up two TD's, our O couldn't control the time of possession or score... same old story.  Until this team learns to run they will lose the battle for the clock every time.

    The D needs another defensive tackle and playmaker but our offense has to impose it's will every time we step on the field if they want to win with this style of play. You can't control the time of possession unless you can convert first downs in crunch time against the best, this same offense has lost twice to this same Giants team. 

    Was it the defense's fault last time also I can't recall, or was it the same 14 point effort by the offense that doomed us in both Bowls?  Either way they ran the ball almost a 3rd more than we did and controlled the TOP in both games... coincidence?

    We'll never know how well the D would have played if they didn't have to spend 2/3rds of the game on the field as our offense watched.

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

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    [QUOTE]So we've finally gotten the (there's nothing wrong with the offense, it's all the defense's fault) camp to admit that the offense has some responsibility in terms of time of possession and playing keep away from the opposing offense, can we all agree on that?  [/QUOTE]
     
    Yes, Wozzy, the offense is also responsible for TOP and is responsible for sustaining its drives and not producing turnovers.  I haven't ever excused the offense's faults. 

    [QUOTE] Now if they'll just admit that a running game is the the best way to ensure this result we'll have accomplished something here, but they won't, because the whole time clock stopping on incomplete passes thing escapes them. Maybe they should re-watch a Tivo'ed game and should stare at the clock after an incomplete pass so they can see how 20 seconds elapses than it stops. [/QUOTE]

    Yes, yes, running generally does eat more clock for three reasons:  (1) there are no clock-stopping incompletions, (2) running plays average fewer yards and therefore you tend to need to run more plays per drive if you run a lot, and (3) running plays are less likely to go out of bounds and stop the clock that way.

    But . . . and it's very important . . . you have to be able to get first downs and sustain drives running the ball for this clock-eating strategy to work.  If you can't run well, you just go three and out a lot and that doesn't help TOP, field position, or ultimately the score. 

    And--also important--you can also eat clock passing if (1) you complete a high percentage of your passes and (2) stay in bounds and generally throw more, shorter passes rather than fewer longer passes.  The Giants did complete an extraordinary 75% of their passes in the Super Bowl.  And this pass completion rate helped the Giants' TOP as much if not more than running a rather ordinary 38% of the time (71 non-kicking offensive plays, which broke down into 27 runs, 1 kneel down, 40 passes, and 3 sacks). 

    [QUOTE]Either way they ran the ball almost a 3rd more than we did and controlled the TOP in both games... coincidence? [/QUOTE]

    Actually, if you take out the Pats last drive (the 57 second one where Brady had to pass on all eight plays), the Giants ran 38% of the time and the Pats 35%.  It wasn't a big difference except for the last drive.  But someone will never admit that, I don't think. 

    [QUOTE]We'll never know how well the D would have played if they didn't have to spend 2/3rds of the game on the field as our offense watched.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    The offense may be culpable for putting the defense back on the field but getting itself off the field is definitely the defense's own responsibility. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    Wozzy,
    No one is saying the O wasn't partially responsible.  I have mentioned the safety and the int many times.
    I bring up Parcells to show that the Giants have been using this method to limit the opposing teams O for quite some time. They have won at least 3 SB's against high powered O's for this very reason. It works if you have the team to execute it.
    I blame the D more than the O because:
    The O scored on 3 of 8 drives which is average.  Their TOP for those 8 drives was also average.  I am emphasizing average here, not elite.
    They scored the longest drive in SB history.  Why?  Field position due to never stopping the Jints in their own territory.  Never, not once!  Field possession sucked throughout the game.  They only had to punt from our 40 or so.
    Average D's get 3 & outs, get turn-overs, stop the opposing O in their own territory, limit 1st downs and get the ball back quicker than 4:45/ drive. ( getting the ball back in 4:45 a drive is a direct result of failure in those other areas) Don't you agree?
    Since non of those things happened, I am merely concluding that the D played BELOW average as the stats would support.

    Basically, it all boils down to:
    The gints D out performed the Pats D therefore the gints O out performed the Pats O.  OR if you like.... The jints O out performed the Pats O because the jints D out performed the Pats D.  Either way the results are the same, as one result usually dictates the other.  Haven't heard of too many teams winning when the other team's D played much better than their own.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    [QUOTE]I bring up Parcells to show that the Giants have been using this method to limit the opposing teams O for quite some time. They have won at least 3 SB's against high powered O's for this very reason.
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    We won three Super Bowls using this same method.  Maybe we should go back to that method?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    How have I missed this action!?!?
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    Belichick's defenses for a number of years have a Jeckyll and Hyde look. 

    In the second and third quarters of games, when they've figured out the other team's new wrinkles and are just playing the game, they're an excellent defense.

      They still give up yardage on the opponent's side of the field, but they tighten up just outside of field goal range and near the goal line.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    Really I think when you look at this team it represents very little of the Parcells, Belichick, and Caughlin principals. We don't (or aren't capable) of playing solid defense - I mean the type of defense where you wouldn't see 3rd and 10's completed on a consistent basis. Also we aren't the type of offense that will run the ball - we don't have a guy that can do that. When your lead back is a guy that runs a 4.7 with a jet pack strapped to his back and loses all of that 4.7 speed when he has to make a cut...you're not going anywhere on the ground.

    I imagine these things will finally be fixed when free agency begins next week, because it's wishful thinking that we're going to run into a team like the Broncos or a wide receiver like Lee Evens in the playoffs again. 
     

Share