Again. Amazing.

Not a single one of those quotes has anything to do with 'balance' or rushing the ball. 

Two are about fumbles and two are about 3rd and longs. 

Just adding "and balance prevents this" doesn't make the quotes germaine. Basic logic. You could just as easily say "and eating candycanes at halftime prevents this" to those quotes, and it would logically follow in the exact same way. 

Incidentally, the 2012 Patriots turned the ball over MORE than the 2011 Patriots. Not that it has any bearing on the discussion, or that it was a large gap. SO I'm not sure the whole "running it 3 times more per game = less turnovers works". In fact, the season (albeit by a slim margin) proves that. But they are essentially identical numbers anyhow, like every other efficiency number, that proves the 2-3 more runs per game resulted in no real impactful increase in efficiency. 

Not to mention, they were actually a worse TEAM this season, taking one more loss despite having a statistically superior defense and a statistically identical offense. 

Again, per the SB to Prolate: 

Scoring TDs on 25% of your drives is very good, both the Pats and Giants did this. The top offense in 2011 scored TDs on 33% of their drives, the bottom scored 8.4% of their drives. A team scoring TDs on 25% of their drives in 2012 would have been ranked 7th in the league.

Scoring 2.3 or 2.5 ppd, which they both did, would have placed both in the top ten again. The best team in the NFL averaging 2.8 ppd and the worst averaging 1.07 ppd. 

However, allowing those scoring efficiencies would have placed both defenses squarely in the bottom five. 

Neither defense was very good in the Superbowl, the Giants made one more play than NE, the forced safety. The INT was basically a punt, because it ended with the Giants on their own 8 yard line. Not a good play by any measure, but not a tragic play in the grand scheme. 

The problem is that NE's defense did nothing. Nothing at all really. Every drive the Giants had resulted in at least THREE first downs, a FG, or a TD. That is abyssmal. Give the Giants some credit for being incredibly efficient, but knock the Patriots defense for putting up one of the most abyssmal Superbowl performances in recent history. Literally, there has not been a less efficient defensive performance than that in decades. Even the Raiders who allowed 34 points to the Buccaneers intercepted them once and forced two three and outs.  

 

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

Of course not. Very few OCs make personell decisions like that. BB has the final say on everything. And it's entirely consistent with his philosophy since before O'Brien was here (like it or lump it) that he sits players who make mistakes. 

I won't pretend that I know that and it is a constant question of who ultimately makes important decisions like these.  Here's an educated guess...

Game plan meeting, job 1, players.  Scratching Ridley for game is a big one since he was most productive down the stretch. 

 BB says "can't risk a Ridley fumble... I'm thinking of sitting him... "

O'Brien...  " yup, ok.  Were gonna throw on them big time..." said pass happy in over his head O'Brien

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

Like I said, the extra plays do much to explain the extra running which ultimately is due to the frequent running of the hurry-up.

In response to wozzy's comment:

1. That was the difference. Because our D got zero turnovers, which was their strength during the season.

2. I don't expect great production from an offense that was virtually missing their #1 weapon who scored 1/3 of their TDs AND got only 2/3 of the normal number of possessions because the D couldn't get off the field.

Actually, considering their limitations because of Gronk, I'm surprised they actually outscored winning Pats' SB teams on a per drive basis.

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

Not only that, but he launched the defender right at Brady with a desperation block.

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

They ran more than hurry-up. I hope they dust off the "blitzbomb" offense they ran in the first 8 games for the playoffs. It was terrific. And it resulted in that three game stretch where they ran more plays than any team had in three games ever. 

Not just hurry-up no huddle, but running the one minute drill ... snap, snap, snap, all coded with single word calls. 

It really wore the defenses down like nothing I've seen ... it was visible. 

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

It's not surprising when you compare the talent. 

Those Superbowl offenses, discounting the season Dillon was here, were basically Brady and a slot receiver (Brown or Branch) with some dependable jags around them.

They were't great offenses, but they had a great QB.

It was the defenses that were "great."

It's not about expecting anything either.

The Patriots offense scored more than league average last season 8 out of 10 times. And that number was the sticking point I talked about all season long. The Patriots don't win games when they score less than 23 points. Period. I think it's happened a couple times only in the last few seasons. 

No one expected  the defense to be great, because it wasn't for a number of seasons. But you also can't expect ANY offense to score 23+ through 3-4 playoff games. It just doesn't happen very often at all, at least not without a lot of help from their defense, like 3+ turnovers forced or fumble recovery/interception TD returns, or kick returns for TDs.

Eventually you run into a nasty defense, or have an off day, or like SB46 a mix of both compounded by a defense that was basically run right over on every single set of downs they were on the field to the point where you only get 8 chances to even score the ball. 

If having perfect, 30 point performances were as simple as "hand the ball off once for every time you pass it" I think after 100+ years of professional football every single coach would be doing this, and every single offense would be "essentialy perfect" if we believe this fairy tale.

Unless there are a select few savants on this forum that can "see" the game better than guys like Bill Belichik, Bill Walsh, etc, etc, etc.  

NE is unbalanced, but they are unbalanced offense to defense. Just loading one side of the ball with talent isn't a great recipe ... there is a definite law of diminishing returns. 

Also, I didn't expect NE's defense to produce turnovers magically in the postseason. 

Last season especially they tended to produce turnovers when they were playing with a 14+ lead. They were frontrunners ... not nearly as good as that stat would indicate. 

When the games were close and low ... they really weren't difference makers most of the time. 

In response to zbellino's comment:

Those who understand the game know this. In actual effect it was no worse than a 3 and out with a good punt.

Those with an agenda portray it as akin to the sacking of Rome.

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

The big turnover was the bomb to gronk. This happened on 1st and ten after pass happy obie ran 2 plays to bjge for a first down.  Again, didn't use running game when it was working.  Too greedy, too impatient, etc.  Bad OC, Proven again .

Funny thing was Collingsworth saying play before that it would be a good time to take a shot...  Hmmm , ya think jints might be expecting it too?

Immature obie not experienced enough, got schooled the hard way.

 Bad OC, Proven again .

 

 

In response to coolade2's comment:

The big turnover didn't happen. It was one of the zero our D got.

Frankly, more than the safety or the INT or even the lack of getting a turnover by the D, the WORST OF THE WORST was...

The 12 man penalty. Players don't always play well. But losing a SB over something that STUPID is unforgivable.

Bp...  You can't count on d getting turnovers.  That's silly.  They happen , but bigger picture is crap-asc playcalling when you're moving the ball with bjge.  Put a drive together , eat some clock . That situation called for a different OC than the one we had.  obie lost that game.

The Brady-Gronk interception wasn't a bad play call, it was bad execution.  The O line got beat badly with a four-man rush.  Play broke down.   Gronk was wide open; Brady just underthrew Gronk (and got slammed by the rush immediately).  

The play wasn't designed to be a "bomb."  It was a broken play.  

 

 

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

So why was it a broken play?  Jints were waiting for it because obie was so pass happy predictable.  It was a wasted play that should have been a throw away.  Brady forced it, but it all starts with a badly conceived ill timed play call stemming from poor grasp of an offensive philosophy that controls clock and wins games.

 

In response to coolade2's comment:

It's not like the Giants did anything special to counter the play.  They just beat our interior O line badly with an ordinary four-man rush.  It was good defensive execution and poor offensive execution.  Sure, they knew it was going to be a pass (empty backfield), but they didn't blitz or do anything special to counter it.  Their D line just outplayed our O line. 

the jints covered the receivers  and rushed the passer...  Terrible play call that ended badly.  You have to put that one on O'Brien.  that play was designed to go deep, when a more conservative play was called for to burn clock and move the chains. That play was beginning of the end for pats.  It was like check.... checkmate...  Obie lost the match.

In response to coolade2's comment:

They put together a 6 minute drive in the 4th, just didn't score off it.

Also it is reasonable to expect a turn over a game when the NFL averages about 3 a game.  The Gints got 2 the Pats got???????? ZERO

What happen to that last TO?  A 12 men penality.  ugh

Of course the Giants' D covered the receivers and rushed the passer.  That's what the D is supposed to do on pass plays.

If only our D did the same when the Giants had the ball . . . 

 

 

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

From Kerry Byrnes CHFF

22.2 -- Points per game scored by the average NFL team in 2011 (teams averaged 34 passes, 27 rushes).

23.1 -- Points per game scored by the average NFL team in 1965 (teams averaged 28 passes, 31 rushes).

23.2 -- Points per game scored by the average NFL team in the leather-helmet season of 1948, a record (teams averaged 26 passes, 38 rushes).

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/kerry_byrne/01/03/2011.season.review/index.html#ixzz2GyM1r3ht

 

Prior to 2011 it was about 21 points per team per game and that was true for about 10 years.  It's interesting that 1965 and 1948 had higher points per game.

I don't have the stats for 2012 although I believe them to be lower as there is only one clear leader in points and they drop off significantly from there.

Last year I think there were a number of teams with minor differences, that were higher in points.  More high scorers last year

Interesting reading for those who think Bill Belichick is hands-off when it comes to the offense:

 

FOXBOROUGH, Mass. -- Patriots coach Bill Belichick offered a glimpse into his role as head coach of the Patriots during Wednesday's press conference, talking at length about how he divides his time and how play-calling is handled among his assistants. 

"I know titles are a big important thing externally, but whether you’re President of the United States or graduate assistant, whatever your job is, you do it and then there are people that you work with that do that job," Belichick said when asked if offensive coordinator Bill O'Brien had assumed more of the offensive play-calling duties since being officially elevated to the title of offensive coordinator this season. 

"Call [O'Brien] whatever you want to call him, it doesn’t matter. Whoever is calling plays, if the head coach is involved with the play-calling or the organization of the play-calling, then I’m going to talk to the person that calls the plays. If I’m not, then he calls them and you know, there’s no input from the head coach, that’s alright, too. I’m not saying it has to be one way or the other, but however you’re structured to set it up, that’s how it's set up. But the way it’s structured here is, I’ll take responsibility for all the plays that are called. I have the final say on it. If I don’t want to run the play, then I can call it off – that’s my right as a head coach. Any of the bad ones, you can blame me for because ultimately I could change them if I wanted to." 

The coaching chatter spawned from Belichick being asked if he becomes more involved with a specific position when there's numerous new faces added to that group. 

"What I try to do as a head coach, and it’s one of the advantages, honestly, of being a head coach, is that you can go where you want to go," said Belichick. "If you want to work with this group, you can work with this group; if you want to work with that group, you can work with that group. So that’s kind of nice. But no, the assistant coaches do the coaching, but if there’s anything that I want to try to convey to a particular player or to a particular group, then it doesn’t make a difference whether it’s new guys, old guys, whoever they are. I have no problem going into that meeting room, calling him into my office, talking to [him], sitting down with him and trying to tell them, ‘Look, this is what I think is important this week or this is what I think you need to do better or this is what we’re looking for from you or this is something that’s going to change and here’s what’s going to happen.’ 

"I try to do that on, I would say weekly but really it’s more of a daily basis. It could be with young players, it could be with veteran players, it could be with anybody. It’s wherever I feel like I want to put that emphasis. It’s not always in the same groups; it’s not always with the same people." 

Asked if a hands-on role permeates over to gameday, Belichick offered a glimpse into how play-calling works for New England. 

"During a game, I talk to all the play callers, to [special teams coach] Scott [O’Brien] to [offensive coordinator] Billy [O’Brien] to [safeties coach] Matt [Patricia]," said Belichick. "First of all, we go into the game with a plan of how we want to try to start things -- believe it or not. I know everybody doesn’t think that’s the way it is, but we actually talk about, ‘This is how we want to start the game and these are the calls that we would make in this situation, second-and-long, third-and-short, third-and-medium, red area, goal line,’ and then, after the game starts to unfold, then you kind of say ‘OK, well we want to sort of stay with the way we mapped this out, or they’re doing this and these don’t look as good, these look better or maybe we have to make an adjustment and say, ‘Well we can run these plays but if this happens we have to do something else,’ that type of thing. We talk about that over the course of the game." 

One question Belichick didn't have an answer for: How many times per game he uses his ultimate authority to overrule a coordinator's call. Pressed on the issue, he quipped: "I don’t know. I’ll log them for you over the next couple of weeks and we’ll see how that goes." 

In response to pezz4pats' comment:

Thanks Pezz. Interesting stuff . . . in the article he suggests that there was more defensive scoring back then and more turnovers resulting in short fields.  Would be interesting to do a more careful analysis of where the points came from.  It's hard to believe that offenses aren't scoring more now than they used to, but maybe defenses have gotten better too. 

 

I really like this years version of the offense, not that last year or any other were bad but this has been a lot of fun to watch when everyone is out there. Brady never seems to slow down and has more control of his offense than anyone IMO. 

Better offense, better defense, hopefully will translate to Super Bowl victory.

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

This is about as obtuse as one can get, an INT on first down to begin the 4th quarter is as good as a punt?  I rest my case, these people are f-ing lost in a wilderness of stats and can't see past the end of their noses.

Only in weird world is bad not bad, and the Patriot's defense giving up the least amount of points from 4 out of 5 of their last Super Bowl appearances a bad showing by the defense.

These people are blinded by fantasy football stats... and maybe what Rusty says has some truth, their Brady love doesn't allow them to see the obvious.  

For example, I state the Patriots offense gave up 2 turnovers, automatically Prolate follows up with a mea culpa on behalf of Brady for the safety.  I didn't say Brady played poorly I said the offense did and somehow that means Brady alone played poorly.

Turnovers are more important than any stat except points scored and points allowed, you can take the rest of your convoluted stats and blow them out your azz.