http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ - The Patriots Real Problem

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ - The Patriots Real Problem

    No one has ever claimed the offense played well in the Super Bowl. However, you don't win championships by writing off the defense as bad and saying "well they're bad so we'll excuse their errors" and then say the offense is solely at fault for the loss because it didn't play up to its usual level. 

    On the safety play, Vollmer (who was injured) failed to hold his block.  The Pats were in max protect and couldn't stop a four man rush. That's an offensive failure, but it has nothing to do with shotgun formations or run-pass balance. It's an execution failure by the blockers. Brady had little choice but to throw the ball away or take the sack. 

    The offense did mount two very effective drives mid game to take an eight point lead in the third quarter. The D then gave up two long drives for field goals.  Those were bad defensive stands.  The offense sputtered too there, but the defense was also letting the Giants come back. We've seen this too often late in games when the defense just can't make a stop. Sure the offense wasn't good. They were missing their best weapon and as I've said for years they lack depth and diversity so the loss of one key weapon really hurts. but please, this was a team loss and the defense was every bit as responsible as the offense.  

     

     

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ - The Patriots Real Problem

    I seriously can't believe anyone would let the defense off the hook during that Super Bowl. The last drive of that game they did nothing to even slow the Giants down. Nothing. No sacks, no pressure, no coverage...they honestly should of just sent no one out there. We would of at least got the ball back quicker. I've never seen a game where a defense did virtually nothing - the only time we stopped them is when they stopped themselves. I call it the "Let's hope and pray they get a penalty, or fumble a hand off, or over throw a wide open receiver"...I think it's catchy.

    I do think the defense has made strides since then, however I think our defense was totally exposed during that game. Nationallly they were considered to be one of the worst defenses to ever play in a Super Bowl, and they played like it. I don't care that they didn't allow 30 points (or whatever their regular season average was), they did nothing in that game. If we had won that game Brady would of won the MVP easily...certainly no one could of been considered on the defense during that game.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ - The Patriots Real Problem

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    No one has ever claimed the offense played well in the Super Bowl. However, you don't win championships by writing off the defense as bad and saying "well they're bad so we'll excuse their errors" and then say the offense is solely at fault for the loss because it didn't play up to its usual level. 

    On the safety play, Vollmer (who was injured) failed to hold his block.  The Pats were in max protect and couldn't stop a four man rush. That's an offensive failure, but it has nothing to do with shotgun formations or run-pass balance. It's an execution failure by the blockers. Brady had little choice but to throw the ball away or take the sack. 

    The offense did mount two very effective drives mid game to take an eight point lead in the third quarter. The D then gave up two long drives for field goals.  Those were bad defensive stands.  The offense sputtered too there, but the defense was also letting the Giants come back. We've seen this too often late in games when the defense just can't make a stop. Sure the offense wasn't good. They were missing their best weapon and as I've said for years they lack depth and diversity so the loss of one key weapon really hurts. but please, this was a team loss and the defense was every bit as responsible as the offense.  

     

     



    The offense did mount two very effective drives mid game to take an eight point lead in the third quarter. The D then gave up two long drives for field goals.  Those were bad defensive stands.

    The Pats had only scored 17 to that point. Did you even consider that the only reason they got an 8 pt lead, despite the safety, there is that the D played lights out to that point, keeping NYG down to one score after four drives?

    You equate giving up two consecutive field goals bad bad overall defense? Against the 8th ranked O that season? Since rules emphasis were changed, how many teams playing in the SB do you think did not give up two consecutive scores at all? One? Two? That's because giving two consecutive scores is par for the course.

     The offense sputtered too there, but the defense was also letting the Giants come back. We've seen this too often late in games when the defense just can't make a stop. Sure the offense wasn't good. They were missing their best weapon and as I've said for years they lack depth and diversity so the loss of one key weapon really hurts. but please, this was a team loss and the defense was every bit as responsible as the offense.  

    Now my turn to ask you why you have not addressed the score impact of the two mistakes I brought up - the safety and the INT - in a game won by 4 points, and the winning team's offense scoring only 19 pts. I do not care who caused those mistakes.

    I don't even mention the Welker incompletion (regardless whose fault that was), because incompletions happen a lot in every game.

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

    Re: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ - The Patriots Real Problem

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

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In all the above babble, not one of you addressed Eli's 75% completion rate on 40 passes. Guess what?  Passes completed in bounds run off more time than running plays. Think about that a bit, then get back to me.

     

     



    What does that prove exactly? 

     

    SD had a 72% completion rate and the Pats still won.

    Indy had a 84% completion rate and the Pats still won.

    I stopped looking after finding two quickly and easily addressing your point.

    The Pats still won those games because the offense did not puuuke all over themselves.

    Yeah we know and most if not all have said the D was what they were and played to what they were in the SB. They were the 31st rated pass defense in the league. They did what they did for most of the season.

    What is your point other than proving our point?

     


    The 75% completion rate is one of the major reasons the Giants were able to sustain their drives and get 26 first downs and two TDs on their 71 scrimmage plays. The fact that the Pats defense played even worse against Rivers and Orlovsky, doesn't mean they played good in the Super Bowl. Again, I'm not defending the offense, just saying that the defense was a problem too.  

     

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

    Re: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ - The Patriots Real Problem

     

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:

     

     

     

    The offense did mount two very effective drives mid game to take an eight point lead in the third quarter. The D then gave up two long drives for field goals.  Those were bad defensive stands.

    The Pats had only scored 17 to that point. Did you even consider that the only reason they got an 8 pt lead, despite the safety, there is that the D played lights out to that point, keeping NYG down to one score after four drives?

    They played reasonably well, but "lights out" is an exaggeration, given that they gave up such extended drives.  They get a bit of a pass on the TD drive because they were winded after giving up a sixq minute drive and the offense turning the ball over. 

     

    You equate giving up two consecutive field goals bad bad overall defense? Against the 8th ranked O that season? Since rules emphasis were changed, how many teams playing in the SB do you think did not give up two consecutive scores at all? One? Two? That's because giving two consecutive scores is par for the course.

    Long drives were the problem--10 and 9 plays, lasting 4.5 and 5 minutes, plus producing points. This isn't lights out D.  Not when every drive drags on like they did.

     

     The offense sputtered too there, but the defense was also letting the Giants come back. We've seen this too often late in games when the defense just can't make a stop. Sure the offense wasn't good. They were missing their best weapon and as I've said for years they lack depth and diversity so the loss of one key weapon really hurts. but please, this was a team loss and the defense was every bit as responsible as the offense.  

    Now my turn to ask you why you have not addressed the score impact of the two mistakes I brought up - the safety and the INT - in a game won by 4 points, and the winning team's offense scoring only 19 pts. I do not care who caused those mistakes.

    Again, I'm not arguing the offense played great.  All I'm saying is the reason the Pats lost was because they weren't that good on either side of the ball. 

    I don't even mention the Welker incompletion (regardless whose fault that was), because incompletions happen a lot in every game.




     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ - The Patriots Real Problem

    I told you why the offense was inept. Lack of talent to compensate for an injured Gronk.  Also, two injured O linemen against a very good D line.  Brady made one big mistake, the ill-advised throw to Gronk.  The safety hurt, but that wasn't a mistake by Brady, it was a blocking failure.  Brady played pretty well outside of that big error.  The real problem on offense was lack of enough good weapons. Welker and Hern (both with the dropsies), a hobbled Gronk, and a bunch of JAGs is not a very impressive offense.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ - The Patriots Real Problem

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    I told you why the offense was inept. Lack of talent to compensate for an injured Gronk.  Also, two injured O linemen against a very good D line.  Brady made one big mistake, the ill-advised throw to Gronk.  The safety hurt, but that wasn't a mistake by Brady, it was a blocking failure.  Brady played pretty well outside of that big error.  The real problem on offense was lack of enough good weapons. Welker and Hern (both with the dropsies), a hobbled Gronk, and a bunch of JAGs is not a very impressive offense.

     



    Got it. Thanks.

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

    Re: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ - The Patriots Real Problem

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

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

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In all the above babble, not one of you addressed Eli's 75% completion rate on 40 passes. Guess what?  Passes completed in bounds run off more time than running plays. Think about that a bit, then get back to me.

     

     



    What does that prove exactly? 

     

    SD had a 72% completion rate and the Pats still won.

    Indy had a 84% completion rate and the Pats still won.

    I stopped looking after finding two quickly and easily addressing your point.

    The Pats still won those games because the offense did not puuuke all over themselves.

    Yeah we know and most if not all have said the D was what they were and played to what they were in the SB. They were the 31st rated pass defense in the league. They did what they did for most of the season.

    What is your point other than proving our point?

     

     

     


    The 75% completion rate is one of the major reasons the Giants were able to sustain their drives and get 26 first downs and two TDs on their 71 scrimmage plays. The fact that the Pats defense played even worse against Rivers and Orlovsky, doesn't mean they played good in the Super Bowl. Again, I'm not defending the offense, just saying that the defense was a problem too.  

     

     




    Well, that's false. Brady's Safety, AWFUL INT, the worst of his career, at the very least, helped the stat you're saying was the real key to the loss.

     

    Dude, I'll be real honest with you:

    Most real Pats fans aren't concerned with an average D allowing 13 points in a SB. They're wondering why Tom Brady and the offense were so inept. Again.

     




    Again, with your 13 point lie.  You've said the same lie twice today and where is this famous "in 57 minutes", you always claim to put in there?  Why does every thing with you have to be modified to sell your BS agenda?

    Why do you keep forgetting that BB sold his soul for that one last 35 second drive because his D was playing "lights out"?  More like "lights are on but nobody's home"

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

    Re: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ - The Patriots Real Problem

     

    What's odd is I actually agree with the premise that the offense has been a big problem for the Pats in the postseason.  What I disagree with are the following claims:

    • The reason the offense fails is because of play calling or game planning, including overutilization of the shotgun formation and pass plays in general and underutilization of the run
    • Brady is terrible in the postseason
    • The defense plays good in the postseason

    I place the failures of both offense and defense squarely on a lack of talent (and related lack of execution)--either because there are just gaps in the talent level at some positions (DBs, WRs) or because of injuries that have plagued us in key positions in the postseason (Gronk, O-line, Talib).

    On the play calling--I think that's dictated by situation and, ultimately, by the talent we have which (especially in 2011) forces us to rely on a game that depends on quick short passes and Brady's decision-making ability.  Welker is one of those guys who's effective only if he gets open quickly and the ball comes to him quickly.  Welker is (or I guess was) the main weapon in our offense other than Gronk.  With Gronk out, you almost have to call a game plan that relies very heavily on Welker--and passing to him from the shotgun is helpful because it allows Brady to see the field and make decisions more quickly than if he was backing up from center.  Sorry, I don't buy for a minute that lining up in running formations and relying more heavily on guys like BJGE or Ocho would have helped us in the Super Bowl.  Nor, honestly, do I think Hern has been very great in the postseason.  Too many drops. And Branch has no legs. That 2011 offense was not impressively talented with Gronk out.  It was so successful during the regular season because of Brady's ability to get the ball out quickly and make good decisions, especially in the hurry-up offense which keeps defenses scrambling.  Unfortunately, that offensive style puts way too much pressure on Brady to be perfect.  We need to surround him with more players who are threats on their own.  Gronk is one of those types of players--but he's been injured for the big games and that's really hurt the Pats. 

    On Brady--I think he's mostly good, but of course he does make mistakes occasionally and in an offense like ours that relies so heavily on him those mistakes hurt.  I think Brady has been generally strong in most preseason games.  The one exception was in the second half of the Ravens game last year.  I think he seemed completely discouraged by the end of that game.  I think it's because he knew the Pats just didn't have the talent to win. I thnk he gave up. Sad, but when Welker and Hernandez are dropping balls they should catch, Ridley and the running game is ineffective, and Gronk is out, there isn't much to turn to.  

    The defense has, in almost every preseason loss, given up big plays or allowed teams to crawl back into games after the offense gets a lead.  Whether they play a bit above their regular season level doesn't matter to me.  The postseason performance is hardly dominant and so the burden of winning, again, falls pretty much on the offense . . . which means pretty much on Brady.  

    Ultimately, I think the Pats have not been built like a true championship team. The defense is far too weak and the offense not deep or diverse enough.  It's a good team, brilliantly coached, but it isn't the most talented team in the world.  And at times--particularly in the postseason--talent matters a lot.  

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

    Re: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ - The Patriots Real Problem

    And one other thing.  Pezz is right that number of possessions is important.  You need a possession to score.  Because the game is fixed at 60 minutes and because possessions alternate, in games where drives are long there necessarily will be fewer possessions for both teams and therefore fewer chances to score for both teams.  This is the whole reason "ball control" works.  You eat up time on your own drives to reduce the number of possessions--and therefore scoring chances--your opponent's offense gets. That was the Giants' strategy. It used some running, but it also depended heavily on their ability to complete passes for first downs against our weak pass coverage. For the Pats to counter that strategy, they didn't need longer offensive drives, they needed more effective offensive drives resulting in points . . . and they needed some defensive stops earlier in Giant drives to get the ball back to the Pats offense.  The lack of effectiveness on the offense's drives is on the offense.  The lack of defensive stops is on the defense.  It's a team game and issues on both sides of the ball contributed to the loss. 

    And by the way, when a ball control strategy works like it did for the Giants, what you get is a low scoring game, with a smaller point differntial than usual.  So the 20-17 score is expected given the success of the Giants strategy.  Both units should have scored less than normal because the Giants strategy was to reduce scoring --and they succeeded because they executed well on both sides of the ball and we didn't execute so well on either side of the ball. 

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

    Re: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ - The Patriots Real Problem

    In response to JohnHannahrulz's comment:

    Low FQ. Insightful and hilarious.



    I wanted to echo this statement. I've really enjoyed IQ'S posts on this thread. Not just because we agree on the particular subject but because the manner in which he states his points. Very well done good sir.

    on a side note to Prolate, I disagree the play calling has no impact on an a 35 ppg offense that struggles to score over 15 ppg on the biggest stage.

    Also I do not give the defense a pass. However BB's defense historically plays better as the season progresses which has been true the past 3 years of a rebuild. They played pretty well against Eli only giving up 1 td till the last 2 minutes. Seattle sums up my feelings on how the offensive short comings contributed to this last defensive score.

    Where I strongly disagree with you is that this offense is short on talent. That is something I will never be able to understand. 

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ - The Patriots Real Problem

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

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

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In all the above babble, not one of you addressed Eli's 75% completion rate on 40 passes. Guess what?  Passes completed in bounds run off more time than running plays. Think about that a bit, then get back to me.

     

     



    What does that prove exactly? 

     

    SD had a 72% completion rate and the Pats still won.

    Indy had a 84% completion rate and the Pats still won.

    I stopped looking after finding two quickly and easily addressing your point.

    The Pats still won those games because the offense did not puuuke all over themselves.

    Yeah we know and most if not all have said the D was what they were and played to what they were in the SB. They were the 31st rated pass defense in the league. They did what they did for most of the season.

    What is your point other than proving our point?

     

     

     


    The 75% completion rate is one of the major reasons the Giants were able to sustain their drives and get 26 first downs and two TDs on their 71 scrimmage plays. The fact that the Pats defense played even worse against Rivers and Orlovsky, doesn't mean they played good in the Super Bowl. Again, I'm not defending the offense, just saying that the defense was a problem too.  

     

     




    Well, that's false. Brady's Safety, AWFUL INT, the worst of his career, at the very least, helped the stat you're saying was the real key to the loss.

     

    Dude, I'll be real honest with you:

    Most real Pats fans aren't concerned with an average D allowing 13 points in a SB. They're wondering why Tom Brady and the offense were so inept. Again.

     

     




    Again, with your 13 point lie.  You've said the same lie twice today and where is this famous "in 57 minutes", you always claim to put in there?  Why does every thing with you have to be modified to sell your BS agenda?

     

    Why do you keep forgetting that BB sold his soul for that one last 35 second drive because his D was playing "lights out"?  More like "lights are on but nobody's home"

     




    Dummy, everyone knows it was eventually 21 points. I am talking about watching that Sb and realizing the D was very good only allowing 13 points and just waiting for the offense to DO ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE in the final 3 or 4 drives.  Even just milking the clock better and kicking a FG with our big legged kicker!

     

    But, that can't happen when dreamboat Brady is lobbing wounded ducks to one legged TEs on 1st down, can it?

    Stating what happened is not "selling a BS agenda".

    That's what happened!

    Get over it.  If you had just ONE friend who isn't a Pats fan, they'd be giving you an objective take on why they think Brady is struggling in his recent postseasons, and THAT being the reason for them not winning a SB in the last 5 years.

    But, it's likely an angry older person like yourself has NO friends so you tell yourself what you want in order to keep that image of Brady as pristine as possible.

    You have mental illness and don't realize it.

    Post Brady's stats in his last 3 home AFC title games. Let's start there.

     

     




    No simpleton!  The real issue is you trying to protect a Gm who has failed to put even close to an adequate Defense on the field, by ignoring the most important drive (the game losing drive) of the game over and over.  The game is 60 minutes long, not 59:25 or 59:03.

    This has been a constant short coming for years.  The D has lacked play makers (other than 2-3) since the SB years and that is the elephant in the room.

    This D has done next to nothing to help the team, in fact it has hurt it.  The SB teams actually had play makers (other than TB) step up to save the day.  Could be wrong but I believe, every SB winning team, had a play maker or two step up to help his team win.

    A Qb can't do it alone.  There has to be receivers that don't drop critical passes, defenses than can make a goal line stand or get the ball back to the O, or a special team contribution.

    It takes a team to beat another team.  This is not debatable!!!

    Where have these play makers gone?  You know, the guys that step up to make a difference.

    Unfortunately, they all seem to be on other teams and getting paid for their game changing ability.  Fail!

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share