Re: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ - The Patriots Real Problem
posted at 4/5/2013 7:25 PM EDT
In response to pcmIV's comment:
In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
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?
I've noticed people keep bringing up this post when arguing with prolate. This is a silly point. Against San Diego the D forced 5 turnovers (2 fumbles, 2 ints and a 4th down stop at the goal line). Against Indy they forced 2. Allowing that high of a percentage of passes to be completed IS NOT GOOD. The defense made up for it with turnovers. Something they didn't do in the SB. People arguing that giving up a high completion percentage on that many passes had no effect on the outcome of the game are delusional.
If I'm not mistaken, the games Low-FB-IQ was referring to weren't playoff games. I think they were the 2011 regular season games against SD and Indy. Rivers had about a 70% completion rate in that game and Orlovsky (my God!) had something like an 80% completion rate!
We won those games . . . but both were similar in that they featured late game breakdowns by the defense. All they prove is that our pass defense in 2011 was atrocious. An 80% completion rate for Dan Orlovsky? You gotta be kidding me . . . (but I was there and saw it in front of my own eyes).