Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach? : The 2001 team didn't not have a great offense, but Smith had a good year running the ball, the backs (Smith, Faulk, Edwards, Redmond) contributed heavily in the passing game (about 100 catches out of the backfield), Brown was just as effective as Welker (more than 100 catches for over 1,000 yards), and Patten provided a decent deep threat.   babe said that the sb winning nwe teams had more talent all around. the point i was making was that the 2011 team had far more talent all around, allowing for a more diverse offense. sorry but i think you're blowing something if you even think the talent level all around is even comparable between 2001 and 2011. the reason for the more diverse offense is team mentality. they were much more of a blue collar, patient, willing to grind it out offense, that got things done by getting everyone involved. The real difference between the 2001 team and the 2011 team, though, was defense.  That defense gave up only 17 points per game in the regular season, and just 15.7 in the postseason. While the offense came through with a nice drive to win the game in the Super Bowl in 2011, it was primarily the defense that beat the Rams.  The offense scored just 10 points.    i'll give you this. but still the d kept nyg's score at a level that statistically speaking should have been won. over the last 20 years, the team that scored 21 pts has a record of 2-4. the problem this year was lack of diversity that 17 pts won only once (against nwe who score 14). in some ways, this is a similar argument that you make when you compare below brown's 1,000 yard season with welker.  The 2003 team was much better than the 2001 team. Not only did it have an even better defense, its offense had much more diversity.  A decent running game (Smith was declining, but Faulk was very productive running that year), a good passing game out of the backfield (Faulk was big here too), and a diverse group of receivers. In 2003, they had six guys with more than 25 catches and more than 250 yards: Branch, Faulk, Brown, Graham, Givens, and Fauria. In 2011, they had only four: Welker, Gronk, Hernandez, and Branch.  Right there you see the difference in diversity.  It may be that the four guys in 2011 are individually better than the six guys in 2003, but the six together allowed you attack more of the field in more diverse ways.  That was probably a bigger advantage than having three great players who all attack the shorter, middle part of the field on most plays.   I think when you look at the 2011 offense, what you see is an offense that could explode on teams when Gronk, Hernandez, Welker, and (to a lesser degree) Branch dominated in the middle of the field.  When, however, a defense was successful at shutting one or two of these guys down, the offense just stalled because of lack of alternative options.  In 2003, you could go to the running game with either Smith or Faulk, you could involve Givens along the perimeter and deeper, Branch was hugely dangerous over the intermediate middle of the field, Brown was nearly as good a short possession receiver as Welker and in some ways more versatile deep.  Graham and Fauria may not have been Gronk and Hernandez, but they still allowed good production from the TE position.    brown was the #1 receiver in that team. I love the guy (his jersey is the only one i have), but he would have had a hard time keeping a #3 spot in other teams. the only reason he emerged as the #1 was terry glenn being in bb's doghouse. take away his one 1,000 yard season and his best seasons are comparable to welker's worst seasons. i followed branch throughout his stay here in seattle. he did nothing. givens and graham did nothing in other teams after leaving at ages when they were supposed to have peaked.  Some people argue that it's not the talent in 2011--it's the play calling. We could use guys like Benny and Woodhead and Ridley and Ocho and Edelmen more.  But honestly, none of those guys seems very good to me (Ridley possibly excepted if he can hold on to the ball).   exactly key to the point. none of the guys who contributed tremendously in those SBs turned out to be not talented enough to make it after leaving nwe. together however, they scored when they needed to, because they had diversity and unpredictability, and it was not because of having talent. Given the make-up of the team, I think the offense is pretty much stuck running nearly all the plays through Gronk, Welker, Hernandez, and Branch . . . all short field receivers.  ... i think the big difference is that the team is becoming too much of a perfectionist and pretty on o, versus back then, they were focused on being consistently effective
    Posted by seattlepat70[/QUOTE]


    The differences between 2001 and 2011 are abundant.

    The O scored more points in this SB than the O did in 2001.

    This O did this despite having its biggest weapon hobbled.

    The 2001 D had 3 turnovers including a pick six in the SB. This D had none.

    And that D did it against one of the greatest Os of all-time.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    [QUOTE]SeattlePat with another great breakdown. @Prolate, I don't think you realize how much you are actually proving our point in what you are saying. The 2001-2003 offense had every reason to be one dimensional. They had below average runningbacks, with short receivers with no big play potential(other then Patten that guy was under rated) yet they committed to an offense that worked, balance and smash mouth. Now our offense is more talented then ever(2nd to 07....maybe) with the best o-line I have seen on this Patriot team in the last decade, yet we are a one trick pony? I do not want to see us "become a running team" not with our QB! I want to see us help Brady by using more then one dimension of the offense. We put too much pressure on him, yes our defense is not as good as it used to be, even more of a reason to be diverse on offense. The fact of the matter is that 17 points should not be good enough to win a SB but it would have been if our offense could have just used some clock in the 2nd half. 2011 talent is superior to 2001-2004 talent, 2001-2004 coaching staff is superior to 2005-2011 coaching staff
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    This one huge fact you are ignoring is that in 01,03,04 the teams were more balanced on O & D.  the 01 team was ranked 21, Of & 24th D.  Although not high they still got the 3rd seed and the D played much better than advertised in the SB.
    03, O 7th D 7th
    04,  O 7th D 9th
    Now last 2 yrs,  10, O 2nd & D 25th
                           11, O 3rd & D 31st
    The only year where this wasn't true was 07 where they were ranked 1st and 4th but like in 01, the Jints D played out of it's mind and they also had quite a few bounces go their way.  The jints also played ball control and limited possessions.
    Since the Pats O is always near or at the top in the league, it can't be as imbalanced as you think, but rather the imbalance between the O & D rankings is more likely the problem.
     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    [QUOTE]Right.  So, if the O is loaded in 2011 and the strength of the team in 2011, why are you making excuses for blowing a 17-12 lead, never to even score a FG after that? This is why people think you are a troll. You're celebrating our offense scoring 17 points, Brady's horrendous gamechanging INT and Welker's gamechanging wide open drop on a less than good throw from Brady.  I am a Pats fan and am left scratching my head and just stunned we'd watch our offense repeat the ideological mistakes that cost us SB 42 against the same team with the same gameplan. Either way you slice it, you lose and have lost this debate before it started. As usual.
    Posted by RustyGriswold[/QUOTE]

    Why are you making excuses for a D that just blew another SB with a late game fold and couldn't get even one stinking turnover?

    You've lost every debate. Look at the poll numbers.
     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    [QUOTE]3 fumbles caused is not missing on turnovers. The ball, not even just the one, didn't bounce their way. Oh well.  They didn't generate a pick.  What they did do is hold the Giants D to 2 FGs, opening the door multiple times for our offense to slam the door shut. The offense left the door open repeatedly. Do you realize we may not have won in NYJs this year without Nink's two INTs, one for a TD and a fumble recovery for us on STs?  Everyone starts pissng int he wind babbling about how great Brady was in the second half, but 21 points were basically set up directly due to the defense or STs. Same deal in Pitt. Guyton's INT set up the Pats first TD, NE had 5 sacks and held Pitt to 2 FGS in that second half and Brady is fidgeting with a shotgun spread wasting over a 1:30 at the 1 yard line, making BB to pick the wrong choice in using an onside kick with 3 timeouts left. Super! Yes, let's praise bad offensive game management and decisions by Tom Brady. You're a troll.
    Posted by RustyGriswold[/QUOTE]


    Stop with the idiotic troll nonsense. Anybody who doesn't agree with your Brady bashing and trying to prop up a BAD D you call a troll. It's pathetic, even for you.

    Yeah, the average D gets 1.5 turnovers a game. Getting NONE in the SB hurts a LOT. Glad you're seeing that finally.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    Okay, we're going to try to make it really simple.

    • The big difference between the team the past two years and in 2001-2004 is the defense.  Our defense is not good right now.  If you don't believe that, sorry, I can't help you.  You'll have to take a remedial course in football. 
    • The poor defense changes the way we need to game plan. We have to plan to score points and we have to assume our offense is not going to get as much time on the field as it would like.  The bad defense requires an adjustment to the way we play offense.  We don't have the luxury of keeping scores low because we can't rely on our defense to cooperate.  
    • In terms of offense, we have two challenges.  First, we need to get points to win.  This dictates us going to more passing and more hurry up on offense.  We maybe could go the other way and try to slow things way down, but that requires better backs than we have.  So we go the fast route.  And guess what?  It generally works.
    • When we do go fast, we have one Achilles heel and that is that we rely too much on four receivers who are all short middle type guys.  We don't challenge the perimeter well, we don't challenge deep, and our backs aren't stellar catching out of the backfield. This lack of diversity was greatly exacerbated in the Super Bowl with Gronk's injury.  Gronk right now is our best offensive weapon.  Take him out and we are greatly diminished. 
    • In the Super Bowl this year, we moved the ball best when we went hurry up. We did try to run with Benny under center on a few drives and it wasn't successful.  We didn't have time to keep trying to run Benny in the hopes that it would eventually work.  Our defense was giving up most of the time to the Giants' offense.
    • In 2001, 2003, and 2004, we won primarily because we had great defenses.  2001 had the worst offense of any of our five Belichick Super Bowl teams.  But that offense had better backs (Smith, Faulk, Edwards, and Redmond) who were a more versatile group in both the running game and passing game.  The rest of the receivers were weak, but Brown really did that year contribute as much as Welker does now and Patten also was a serious deep threat.  Still, defense won it for us that year.  
    • In 2003 and 2004, our offenses may not have had quite the same talent in their top three receivers as the offense has now, but they had more and better talent everywhere else and were able to get more people involved.  That made those offenses less likely to stall out, even if they may not have been as explosive.  This wasn't just because of play calling though--a lot of what drives the difference between those 2003 and 2004 offenses and today's offense is the people in it. 
    • All that said, the big difference between today and 2003 and 2004 is still defense.  Those teams had great defenses that controlled the pace of the game from start to finish.  Today's defense is a wet rag compared to 2003 and 2004.  That's the major, major problem.  Blame the offense all you want, but good defense really makes a big difference.  And despite all the nonsense you hear from some of the posters on this site, what the analysts have been saying all season is right: the Pats defense is a problem. If you don't want to believe that, I can't help you. I'm just not qualified to cure delusions. 


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

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    [QUOTE]Okay, we're going to try to make it really simple. The big difference between the team the past two years and in 2001-2004 is the defense.  Our defense is not good right now.  If you don't believe that, sorry, I can't help you.  You'll have to take a remedial course in football.  The poor defense changes the way we need to game plan. We have to plan to score points and we have to assume our offense is not going to get as much time on the field as it would like. ...
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]


    i never argued that the 2011 d was good. that said, even bad teams can have one good game. that's what happened in the sb this year.

    your argument actually gets blown out by 2003. they had the #1 d in pts allowed (14.9) that season, better than in 2001 (17) or 2004 (16.3). yet in sb 38, that #1 d gave up 29 pts. they won because the o scored 32 - 10 above their reg season avg of 22.

    in sb 39, nwe scored 24 vs their reg season avg of 22. 

    2001 was arguably the only time they won with the d.

    the point is that if there's one game in the season that the team should have shined, it was the sb. they lost because the o that is supposed to be the best in the league played like it was team from the bottom tertile of the league.

    i don't know how to debate with you because your arguments were disproven and yet you come back to the same illogical conclusion.

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

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach? : i never argued that the 2011 d was good. that said, even bad teams can have one good game. that's what happened in the sb this year. your argument actually gets blown out by 2003. they had the #1 d in pts allowed (14.9) that season, better than in 2001 (17) or 2004 (16.3). yet in sb 38, that #1 d gave up 29 pts. they won because the o scored 32 - 10 above their reg season avg of 22. in sb 39, nwe scored 24 vs their reg season avg of 22.  2001 was arguably the only time they won with the d. the point is that if there's one game in the season that the team should have shined, it was the sb. they lost because the o that is supposed to be the best in the league played like it was team from the bottom tertile of the league. i don't know how to debate with you because your arguments were disproven and yet you come back to the same illogical conclusion.
    Posted by seattlepat70[/QUOTE]


    You're missing a huge key to most football games. In 2004 the D had gotten 4 turnovers in the SB.

    Have the D get that many this year and we win that game going away. But they got none.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach? : i never argued that the 2011 d was good. that said, even bad teams can have one good game. that's what happened in the sb this year.
    Posted by seattlepat70[/QUOTE]


    This is incorrect. You're basing everything on the points allowed which is always just a part of the story.

    The D had no turnovers, allowed excessive t o p, as usual gave up nearly 400 yards and folded for the winning score at the end.

    THAT IS NOT GOOD D.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach? : i never argued that the 2011 d was good. that said, even bad teams can have one good game. that's what happened in the sb this year. your argument actually gets blown out by 2003. they had the #1 d in pts allowed (14.9) that season, better than in 2001 (17) or 2004 (16.3). yet in sb 38, that #1 d gave up 29 pts. they won because the o scored 32 - 10 above their reg season avg of 22. in sb 39, nwe scored 24 vs their reg season avg of 22.  2001 was arguably the only time they won with the d. the point is that if there's one game in the season that the team should have shined, it was the sb. they lost because the o that is supposed to be the best in the league played like it was team from the bottom tertile of the league. i don't know how to debate with you because your arguments were disproven and yet you come back to the same illogical conclusion.
    Posted by seattlepat70[/QUOTE]

    My arguments aren't disproven.  You just think they are.  The defense did not play well during the Super Bowl because:

    1. They allowed the Giants to mount drives averaging more than 4 and a half minutes each.  That's about a full two minutes over the NFL average of 2:38.  The shortest Giant drive (other than the kneel down play to end the second half) at 2:49 was longer than the average NFL drive (and it scored a touchdown).  One drive was six minutes, two were between 5 and 6 minutes; three were between 4 and 5 minutes, and one was 3:48. You may discount the significance of this, but if you do, you're not disproving anything, simply choosing to ignore a fact that is actually important. 

    2. The consequence of allowing long drives was reducing the number of drives to 9 (really more like 8, since one drive for the Giants was a kneel down and the last for the Pats was a 57 second end of game drive).  Reducing drives is a classic way for a team with a weaker offense to try to defeat one with a stronger offense.  It's up to the D to prevent that strategy from working.  Our D didn't come through. Remember, the average number of drives per team in an NFL game is 11.5. In a normal game, the Pats offense would have had three more chances to score. 

    3. The D allowed points on 4 of 8 drives (I'm excluding the one-play kneel down drive).  That's points on 50% of drives in the game, 75% of the drives in the second half.  That's bad.  The Giants averaged 2.38 points per drive (and it would have been 2.5 points per drive had they gotten the extra point rather than failing on a two-point conversion). You want to know which teams in the regular season gave up more than 2.38 points per drive on average? Carolina and Tampa Bay.  That's it.  Only Tampa Bay gave up more than 2.5 on average.  Because there were so few drives, the Giants didn't score a lot overall--but their scoring rate was very good. In fact, in the second half, they scored at a rate of 26 points per game and that was on just four drives.

    4. Because they could not get stops and gave up long drives, the Pats D allowed the Giants to dominate TOP.  Yes the offense also helped with that, but the offense's drive length actually was near average--2:32--even with the 0:08 safety and 0:57 final drive included. TOP was won by the Giants' offense and lost by our defense more than it was lost by our offense and won by the Giants. I'm not saying our offense was good, just saying that the defense was to blame at least as much for the TOP deficit.

    5. The defense allowed Manning to complete 75% of 40 passes for 296 yards. That was his highest completion percentage in any game--regular season or post season--this year or last.  It was 14 percentage points above his 61% regular season average--and he got it on a hefty 40 pass attempts! The defense also gave up 114 yards rushing. Net yardage given up was 396.  That's not very good. They got no turnovers.  The three sacks were nice, but two of them came on the first drive and generally the pass rush was not very effective. You wouldn't have had a 75% completion rate if it had been. 

    These are all facts that point to why the defense did not play well despite the relatively low point total.  If you want to dismiss this all as irrelevant and say only points matter, fine.  I can't stop you from taking a simplistic view of the game if that's what you want to do.  But real football works differently and I'm not about to pretend that a simplistic view on points alone proves anything.  

    _____________

    Just hypothecally if a team were able to mount two 14 minute drives each half and score on 50% of them, getting ten points, would you say the other team's defense played well becaues it only gave up ten points?  Of course not.  The Super Bowl wasn't that extreme, but that's the type of game it was.  Long drives designed by the Giants' offense to limit the amount of scoring in the game.  The defense has to step up and prevent the offense from getting away with that strategy. Our defense couldn't do that. 

    Again, I'm not saying the offense played well.  They s^cked too for big parts of the game.  But only a very simplistic view of the game will allow you to say the defense played well. 

    ________

    And finally, about the Carolina game, I posted this before:

    That defense dominated until the fourth quarter, though.  In the first half it got five three-and-outs and one six and out before giving up a touchdown drive.  In the third quarter it held Carolina to a six and out and a three and out. It struggled more in the fourth quarter, but in part that was because Brady threw an interception which gave the Panthers a first and ten from the Pats ten yard line.   In the two playoff games before that (Colts, Titans), the defense held the opponents to 14 points, allowing the offense to win while scoring just 17 points against the Titans and 24 points against the Colts. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach? : This is incorrect. You're basing everything on the points allowed which is always just a part of the story. The D had no turnovers, allowed excessive t o p, as usual gave up nearly 400 yards and folded for the winning score at the end. THAT IS NOT GOOD D.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    You are correct, in fact they played WORSE than they they did the whole season.  Part of what made them successful throughout the year is was because they were opportunistic.  They usually got 2-3 TO's a game.  They got zero.  I don't remember another game where they got Zero TO's & Zero 3 & outs.  Nor could they prevent them from crossing the 50 yrd. line the whole game.
    The poor play was evident through the year but their turn overs often bailed them out.
    People love to use points allowed as a measure of defensive efficiency but a more concise method would be 1st downs allowed. 1st downs prolong plays and eat up time.  The idea is not to allow any or as few as possible.  They were allowing nearly 3 a possession which is extremely poor. The only drive they didn't allow 3 was when they allowed them to score which speaks volumes. 
    That is not good D. That is why they held the ball for 38 minutes which left only 22 minutes for the O to try and score quickly.
    The only way to fix that is get the ball back sooner.  That is where they failed!
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach? : This is incorrect. You're basing everything on the points allowed which is always just a part of the story. The D had no turnovers, allowed excessive t o p, as usual gave up nearly 400 yards and folded for the winning score at the end. THAT IS NOT GOOD D.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    And the offense had an interception, a safety, dropped passes, and couldn't sustain time consuming drives. That is not good O. In no way am I saying that they are bad but they didn't play well.  Can we agree that the game was lost in all facets? I think that the guys on the team and the coach would say so. BB is a great coach and had a great season, the game plan. In the end the players just didn't execute on enough plays to win. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rocky. Show Rocky's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    I would love to know who those 5 votes come from!
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    [QUOTE]I would love to know who those 5 votes come from!
    Posted by Rocky[/QUOTE]

    Could be trolls or someone who thinks that he isn't directing the defense well enough. He's done a fantastic coaching job once again, any team that makes it to the super bowl has to be good in all phases of the game. Its a very competitive league and extremely difficult to make it to the championship, it takes a great GM , coach, and players to win in this league.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    We all know the defense is not what it used to be.

    What can help a suspect defense?

    How about trying to keep them off the field because we know they are not suddenly going to get better in the playoffs every year.....oh wait yeah they do.

    Turnovers are pretty important in football games as Babe suggests. Perhaps we should stop throwing int's in the playoffs, we have 10 int's in our last 8 playoff games. Now unless some of you think that Tom Brady suddenly became "unclutch" then  these offensive turnovers are happening for a reason. I say that reason is due to our predictable one dimensional pass heavy attack.

    Giving up yardage is kind of important I guess.(Although BB's bend don't break defense has always suggested otherwise)

    But nothing is more important then how many points your defense gives up, and in our last 2 SB's our defense allowed 18 ppg, while our pass heavy offense has scored 15.5 ppg. 90 pass atts to 34 runs in 2 SB losses to the same team led to 31 total points scored. (Doesn't that number just burn you guys up?)

    One of these units performed better then their average.

    One of these units performed less then half of their average.

    I want the defense to be as good as they used to be, and talent/scheme/ personnel may have a factor in that, but the offense my friends have no excuses. They are more talented then ever.

    Many of you think our defense is "terrible" but please dispute the following statement - The defense is not the reason our offense cannot play well in the biggest games of the season.

    "Has the whole damn world gone crazy?"
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    [QUOTE]We all know the defense is not what it used to be. What can help a suspect defense? How about trying to keep them off the field because we know they are not suddenly going to get better in the playoffs every year.....oh wait yeah they do. Turnovers are pretty important in football games as Babe suggests. Perhaps we should stop throwing int's in the playoffs, we have 10 int's in our last 8 playoff games. Now unless some of you think that Tom Brady suddenly became "unclutch" then  these offensive turnovers are happening for a reason. I say that reason is due to our predictable one dimensional pass heavy attack. Giving up yardage is kind of important I guess.(Although BB's bend don't break defense has always suggested otherwise) But nothing is more important then how many points your defense gives up, and in our last 2 SB's our defense allowed 18 ppg, while our pass heavy offense has scored 15.5 ppg. 90 pass atts to 34 runs in 2 SB losses to the same team led to 31 total points scored. (Doesn't that number just burn you guys up?) One of these units performed better then their average. One of these units performed less then half of their average. I want the defense to be as good as they used to be, and talent/scheme/ personnel may have a factor in that, but the offense my friends have no excuses. They are more talented then ever . Many of you think our defense is "terrible" but please dispute the following statement - The defense is not the reason our offense cannot play well in the biggest games of the season. "Has the whole damn world gone crazy?"
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]


    Again, you ignore what you don't like and embrace what suits you.

    Yes, the D allowed about their seasonal average in points.

    Yes, the O did not score their seasonal average.

    Obviously when you have Gronk negated you can't replace that kind of performer.

    But more than that; the D got zero turnovers. The average NFL team gets 1.5 a game. We got just over 2 a game this year. Like it or not that affects the O's production too.

    As far as the one turnover by the O, that was the norm for the team this year, and that is lower than the league average.

    So what was the anamoly in this game? No Gronk and no turnovers gained by the D.

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

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    [QUOTE]We all know the defense is not what it used to be. What can help a suspect defense? How about trying to keep them off the field because we know they are not suddenly going to get better in the playoffs every year.....oh wait yeah they do. [/QUOTE]

    If our offense was a plodding clock-eating offense, maybe we could have tried to slow the game down on offense.  Since the Giants were already using a slow-down approach, that would have reduced the game to 6 or 7 drives (about as few drives as possible).  It would work if two things happened: (1) we were scoring more on our 6 or 7 drives than the Giants were.  And (2) we could actually move the ball slowly and steadily.  But would these two things happen?  All year we score best in the hurry up.  We'd be doing something we haven't done all year and that I see no sign we can do well.  If we're going to try to use this approach in the playoffs, I think we need to change the players.  We need big bruising running backs, a fullback, and probably another blocking TE on the Alge Crumpler model. Slowing the game down would be a very bad strategy by the way if we couldn't score that way (or worse couldn't really move the ball that way) and the Giants were still scoring on their possessions.  All it would do in that case would give us even fewer chances on offense to try to score. 

    [QUOTE]Turnovers are pretty important in football games as Babe suggests. Perhaps we should stop throwing int's in the playoffs, we have 10 int's in our last 8 playoff games. Now unless some of you think that Tom Brady suddenly became "unclutch" then  these offensive turnovers are happening for a reason. I say that reason is due to our predictable one dimensional pass heavy attack.[/QUOTE]

    I don't disagree on the one-dimensionality. I think it mostly has to do with the lack of diversity in our talent.  No great backs, no great wideouts other than a slot receiver.  I don't think it's due to a stubborn insistence on Bill Belichick's, Bill O'Brien's, or Tom Brady's part not to run the ball.  I don't think our coaches are incompetent, but whether you want to admit it or not, that's the only reason they wouldn't run if running were the ticket to victory. 


    [QUOTE] Giving up yardage is kind of important I guess.(Although BB's bend don't break defense has always suggested otherwise) But nothing is more important then how many points your defense gives up, and in our last 2 SB's our defense allowed 18 ppg, while our pass heavy offense has scored 15.5 ppg. [/QUOTE]

    Yes, giving up yardage is important--as is allowing long drives.  It reduces the time our offense has to score. And most importantly, it allows teams to reduce the number of drives remaining for our offense, reducing our chances to score. Since our offense normally scores at a high rate, this is a great strategy for opposing offenses: take advantage of our defense's inability to make stops and thereby shorten the number of drives per game so our offense has fewer chances.  Also, while points per game was not bad for our defense, points per drive weren't great.  When a team scores on half their possessions, you are not really keeping them from scoring. The Giants' goal was to reduce possessions so neither team could score a lot.  The defense allowed the Giants to do that while also allowing them to score on half their possessions.  The final point total is a function of number of drives and points scored per drive.  If the opponents succeed in reducing the number of drives, the total points will decline, but points per drive could stay high.  This is what happened in the Super Bowl.  

    [QUOTE] 90 pass atts to 34 runs in 2 SB losses to the same team led to 31 total points scored. (Doesn't that number just burn you guys up?) [/QUOTE]
    No, not when you look at what actually happened in the games, rather than just looking at some statistic in isolation. Yes, running 27% of the time is not something you'd like to see.  But in the last Super Bowl, the Pats were running about 40% of the time until the last 57-second drive.  This is about average.  Same as the Giants, actually.  In 2007, they did try to establish the run with Maroney early on.  It didn't work. Their runs in the first half went for 9, 2, 0, 1, -2, 0, -3.  For the game, their rushing average was 2.8 yards.  Running when you can't run doesn't really help you.  

    [QUOTE]One of these units performed better then their average. One of these units performed less then half of their average.[/QUOTE]

    Actually, I think one unit (the offense) played worse.  The defense played about the same as they usually do.  


    [QUOTE]I want the defense to be as good as they used to be, and talent/scheme/ personnel may have a factor in that, but the offense my friends have no excuses. They are more talented then ever . [/QUOTE]

    Here's the crux of our disagreement again.  I don't think you judge talent on an individual-by-individual basis.  You have to look at the whole and judge the kinds of combinations you can put on the field.  While Gronk, Hernandez, and Welker are all top performers who would be top performers on any of the Pats' teams over the past decade, the rest of the skill positions are weak right now and the combinations of receivers/runners you can put on the field aren't terribly diverse.  We don't have good backs who can be both (serious) running and receiving threats and we don't have wideouts who can challenge safeties and corners on the edges or deep or win battles with their size and speed.  An offense constructed out of two TEs and two slot receivers is by nature not diverse and therefore limited in what it can do.  It does what it does do very well (hence the high scores often).  But when a key player is injured or a defense is successful at flooding the short middle of the field while getting pressure on Brady, the offense really has few alternatives.   

    [QUOTE]Many of you think our defense is "terrible" but please dispute the following statement - The defense is not the reason our offense cannot play well in the biggest games of the season. 
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    Yep, the offense has its own problems.  But the defense has big problems too. In my opinion, the talent levels of both units need to be higher or more consistent or both.  I don't think coaching (game planning or play calling) is the problem.  In fact, I think it's great coaching that enabled a flawed team not only to go to the Super Bowl but to compete well against a team that talentwise was better.  


     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    [QUOTE] you just have no idea who Ridley and Vereen are, what they're skill sets are, and how they could be used in this offense.  Some of us do. We know who they are, what they did in college and don't buy into this crap of them not being ready.
    Posted by RustyGriswold[/QUOTE]


    Your Brady bashing has become as blatant as a typical jets' troll. And now you subversively bash BB at every turn. No wonder you've been banned a half dozen times.

    I trust BB knows enough about Ridley and Vereen to decide how much they should play.
     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?

    In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Is BB getting the job done as Head Coach? : Prolate, Babe Parilli, etc, never really know when they get slapped in a debate. Instead of them saying "you know what, you're right", they drag these things out.
    Posted by RustyGriswold[/QUOTE]


    Somebody better phone BB because you and your Brady/BB bashing buddies have been carping about the same nonsense all year but he hasn't admitted he is wrong yet either.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share