McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

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

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that.... : So you do think the offense was more of a problem? Less then 5% have won and we have scored 17 or less twice against the same team, oh btw with a 90 - 35 PASS TO RUN RATIO IN BOTH SB'S LOSSES COMBINED .....A one dimensional offense can't win a SB. Run the Ball coach PLEASE.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]


    11% of teams won with a score of 17 0r less, not 5.

    The Jints beat the Pats in exactly the same way in each of the past 3 losses.
    (T.O.P)  In each of the 3 games they played keep-a-way and won.
    When you loose the defensive time of possession it makes you one dimensional because you are forced to try and score quickly instead of losing more possessions by eating up more clock.  It became clear early that the jints were going to keep the ball for 5 minutes at a time regardless of if they scored or not.
    By keeping the ball for 5 minutes at a time it reduced the number of possessions in the game form 11-12 to 8.5.
      If the Pats ran more it would have eaten up more time and reduced the possessions further.  Thus one dimensional.

    Look at the first qtr in SB 42.

    Super Bowl XLII: First Quarter

    The Giants won the coin toss and elected to receive. Eli Manning and the rest of the Giants offense started the game on a crisp note putting together a time consuming 16 play drive. However, the Giants had to settle for a 32 yard Field Goal by Lawrence Tynes (9). The drive had started on the Giants own 23 Yard Line. The drive netted 63 yards and 4 first downs. Time of possession was 9 minutes and 59 seconds.

    10 minutes went by before the Pats even got the ball and the jints only scored 3 pts on the drive. 
    They dictated the TOP then, week 9, and last week.  That's how they win.
    They also did it to the 49'rs.  The only way to stop that is to get the ball back quicker..
     Which is what they tried to do when they let the Jints score on the last drive.

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

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that.... : At least someone understands me so stop crying and move on. It's a game of mistakes not a game of unbeatable Patriots.... They lost  !! move on...ok. Thanks for helping me prove my point. And they still cry about ---18-0   You got it !
    Posted by donrd4[/QUOTE]

    NO, Dope!  had the jints lost, I'm pretty sure the whole world would be hearing the same things.  You know, kind of like when the Jints were sucking in the middle of the season.  Fire Coughlin!  Eli sucks!  Our best players are hurt.....
    Remember?  Pretty sure we'd all still be hearing it now. (and more)
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from unclealfie. Show unclealfie's posts

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....:
    [QUOTE]I like that people are going to come on the boards now and explain how they have a better understanding of NFL football than McGinest does...
    Posted by FrnkBnhm[/QUOTE]

    Its not about understanding of the game.

    McGinest has his opinion just like everyone else. Yes, its a better informed opinion than any of us have but its still an opinion, not some sort of universal law.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from unclealfie. Show unclealfie's posts

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....:
    [QUOTE]Willie "gets it". As a matter of fact, by far the highest concentration of those who don't are Pats' fans. The disease is rooted in their lack of appreciation for Brady. If they cut him half the slack they cut everybody else on the team they would see the light.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    Willie "Gets it"? He gets what? I think that what when you say Willie "Gets it" you're really saying that Willie "agrees with me".

    In any case, I don't see how you can take what Willie said as meaning that we don't appreciate Brady.

    There's no lack of appreciation for Brady in these parts and that has nothing to do with what Willie said. I think we're all very much aware of how extremely lucky we've been to have had Brady here for 10 years and hopefully several more.

    There's no doubt in my mind that he's the best QB in the NFL and has been for 5 or 6 years.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from zeitgeist49. Show zeitgeist49's posts

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....:
    [QUOTE]Or 7, if someone isnt holding Vinatieri on the Desmond Howard return in 96'
    Posted by JayShizzle45[/QUOTE]

    Or  8, if  the  refs  don't  steal  the  '76  playoff  game  against  the  Raiders.  The  refs  called  "roughing  the  QB"  on  Ray  Hamilton  against  Stabler.  That  was  a  clean  hit  by  Hamilton  and  the  key  play  of  the  game.  Also, the  refs  never  called  holding  on  the  Raiders  when  Russ  Francis  was  being  held  repeatedly.  It  was  the  worst  officiated  game  I've  ever  seen.  I'll  never  forget  it. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from HenryGR11. Show HenryGR11's posts

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    Let me try once more: 4th period 4 minutes to play,NY has the ball on their own 5 yd line, 3rd down, Eli drops back to pass, incomplete, they have to punt from their own end zone and we will get the ball around the fifty with 4 minutes to play and the lead, but NO, Nink ran off side on the play and the rest is history. Was there another play that was more important?????
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that.... : 11% of teams won with a score of 17 0r less, not 5. The Jints beat the Pats in exactly the same way in each of the past 3 losses. (T.O.P)  In each of the 3 games they played keep-a-way and won. When you loose the defensive time of possession it makes you one dimensional because you are forced to try and score quickly instead of losing more possessions by eating up more clock.  It became clear early that the jints were going to keep the ball for 5 minutes at a time regardless of if they scored or not. By keeping the ball for 5 minutes at a time it reduced the number of possessions in the game form 11-12 to 8.5.   If the Pats ran more it would have eaten up more time and reduced the possessions further.  Thus one dimensional. Look at the first qtr in SB 42. Super Bowl XLII: First Quarter The Giants won the coin toss and elected to receive. Eli Manning and the rest of the Giants offense started the game on a crisp note putting together a time consuming 16 play drive. However, the Giants had to settle for a 32 yard Field Goal by Lawrence Tynes (9). The drive had started on the Giants own 23 Yard Line. The drive netted 63 yards and 4 first downs. Time of possession was 9 minutes and 59 seconds. 10 minutes went by before the Pats even got the ball and the jints only scored 3 pts on the drive.  They dictated the TOP then, week 9, and last week.  That's how they win. They also did it to the 49'rs.  The only way to stop that is to get the ball back quicker..  Which is what they tried to do when they let the Jints score on the last drive.
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    No the only way to stop that is have the same plan on our own offense. If we were not stuck on passing so much we would maintain possession longer and limit the other teams opportunities.

    It is the same as what you are saying they did to us.

    Last I checked our passing game and running game was better then the Giants.

    Last I checked our run defense was better then the Giants and what do you know it was better in this game as well.

    So I ask you, why do we refuse to run the football in important games?

    90 passing atts to 35 rushing atts in our last 2 Super Bowls = 15.5 ppg.

    Is that the defense's fault too?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....


    The Giants did not run their way to victory, they passed their way to victory. Manning threw 40 passes and completed 75% of them.  That's what allowed the Giants to dominate in TOP--a 75% completion rate against our defense on 40 passes!  

    By comparison, Brady threw 41 passes, 8 of them in the 57 second desperation drive. If you exclude the Pats' desperation drive and the Giants' first-half kneel down drive, the Pats ran 37% of the time and the Giants ran 40%.  The difference is insignificant.

    Besides, the Pats had some really bad runs on first down.  The Giants' two lead backs ran 12 times on first down, for a 3-yard average.  They got 1 yard or less on first down only three times.  The Pats' two lead backs ran 9 times on first down, for only a 2.2 yard average and got one yard or less 4 times. Essentially, this means that the Pats' lead backs got stuffed 44% of the time when they ran on first down, while the Giants' lead backs got stuffed 25% when they ran on first down.  If you look at long runs (5 yards or more) the story isn't any better. Our lead backs had long gains just four times (24% of their runs).  The Giants lead backs had long gains 10 times (38% of their runs).  Our running game is not very productive.  Doing more of it won't help us unless we get better at it.  And that probably means getting backs other than BJGE and Danny Woodhead. 


    One addition to this: The Giants running game isn't great either, but it was better than ours. Their two lead backs averaged 4.2 yards per carry, our two lead backs averaged 3.6 yards per carry. 



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

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....:
    [QUOTE]The Giants did not run their way to victory, they passed their way to victory. Manning threw 40 passes and completed 75% of them.  That's what allowed the Giants to dominate in TOP--a 75% completion rate against our defense on 40 passes!   By comparison, Brady threw 41 passes, 8 of them in the 57 second desperation drive. If you exclude the Pats' desperation drive and the Giants' first-half kneel down drive, the Pats ran 37% of the time and the Giants ran 40%.  The difference is insignificant. Besides, the Pats had some really bad runs on first down.  The Giants' two lead backs ran 12 times on first down, for a 3-yard average.  They got 1 yard or less on first down only three times.  The Pats' two lead backs ran 9 times on first down, for only a 2.2 yard average and got one yard or less 4 times. Essentially, this means that the Pats' lead backs got stuffed 44% of the time when they ran on first down, while the Giants' lead backs got stuffed 25% when they ran on first down.  If you look at long runs (5 yards or more) the story isn't any better. Our lead backs had long gains just four times (24% of their runs).  The Giants lead backs had long gains 10 times (38% of their runs).  Our running game is not very productive.  Doing more of it won't help us unless we get better at it.  And that probably means getting backs other than BJGE and Danny Woodhead. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Nice try Pro. Bradshaws 1st 3 carries went for...wait for it 1 yard, 0 yards, and minus 1 yard. Then they gave him 14 more carries.

    They showed run commitment and it paid off with a 24 yard carry, just as BJGE had a 17 yard carry. It also paid off with better T.O.P. 10 more runs for any kind of gain or no gain = a running clock. You know that right?

    Also comparing our 2nd back(5ft7 Woodhead) with the Giants 2nd back(6ft5 Jacobs) isn't a fair comparison and the reason why I have been screaming to keep a power back in the game more then we do.

    You keep trying to cherry pick a run here and there to show why we didn't run the ball. There is no excuse, it is bad coaching to be a one dimensional offense.

    Every rb in the league has runs for no gains, but other teams don't abandon it as we have for the last 7 years.

    Open your eyes man.




    1st and 10 at NYG 23(Run formation) A.Bradshaw right tackle to NYG 23 for no gain (B.Spikes).  
    2nd and 10 at NYG 23E.Manning pass short left to B.Pascoe to NYG 27 for 4 yards (D.McCourty).  
    3rd and 6 at NYG 27(Shotgun) E.Manning pass short right to V.Cruz to NYG 35 for 8 yards (S.Moore).  
    1st and 10 at NYG 35(Run formation) E.Manning pass short left to J.Ballard to NYG 44 for 9 yards (B.Spikes).  
    2nd and 1 at NYG 44(Run formation) A.Bradshaw right end to NYG 45 for 1 yard (J.Mayo).  
    1st and 10 at NYG 45(Run formation) B.Jacobs up the middle to NYG 48 for 3 yards (B.Spikes; J.Mayo).  
    2nd and 7 at NYG 48(Shotgun) E.Manning pass short right to H.Nicks to NE 33 for 19 yards (D.McCourty).  
    1st and 10 at NE 33E.Manning sacked at NE 35 for -2 yards (B.Deaderick).  
    2nd and 12 at NE 35(Run formation) A.Bradshaw left tackle to NE 36 for -1 yards (K.Arrington).  
    3rd and 13 at NE 36(Shotgun) E.Manning sacked at NE 42 for -6 yards (M.Anderson).  
    4th and 19 at NE 42S.Weatherford punts 36 yards to NE 6, Center-Z.DeOssie, downed by NYG-Z.DeOssie.

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

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    BTW if BJGE went for 1, 0, and negative 1 yards on his 1st 3 carries we would probably burn him in effigy on this board.

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

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....


    A completed pass in-bounds runs clock too.  A run isn't the only way to keep the clock moving. 

    Here are the runs per drive for both teams . . .  the Giants were running slightly more than the Pats, but the difference isn't large.  Both teams were typically running about 40% of the time or about 4 runs per 10-play drive. To say the Giants won the game because they ran more just isn't true.  Neither team ran all that much.  The Giants won because (1) the Pats offense (both run and pass) failed to convert at key times and (2) the Giants offense was able to stay on the field and score often against the Pats defense. Running more (with Benny and Danny) would not likely have changed the outcome of the game for the better.  Of course, there's no way to prove the point either way, because we never got to see what would happen if they tried to run more.  Apparently BB didn't think it would work.  I suspect he was right.  But who knows, maybe you're right and BB is wrong.  It's possible.  I just doubt it. 




    GIANTS

    Q1-1 (Punt, 6:00) 10 plays, 40% run

    1/10

    0

    B

    2/1

    1

    B

    1/10

    3

    J

    2/12

    -1

    B

    Q1-2 (TD, 5:28)  9 plays, 44% run

    2/2

    24

    B

    1/10(s)

    6

    Ware

    1/10

    2

    J

    1/6 (s)

    4

    B

    Q2-3 (Punt, 3:48) 8  plays, 38% run

    2/10

    11

    J

    2/10

    4

    J

    2/15(s)

    0

    B

    Q2-4 (Punt, 4:21) 7 plays, 57% run

    1/10

    5

    B

    1/10

    3

    B

    2/7

    8

    B

    2/2

    1

    J

    Q2-5 (Knee, 0:08) 1 play

    1/10

    -1

    Manning

    Q3-6 (FG, 4:37) 10 plays, 20% run

    1/10

    5

    J

    2/2

    7

    B

    Q3-7 (FG, 5:01) 9 plays,  56% run

    1/10

    1

    J

    1/10

    7

    J

    2/3

    3

    J

    1/10

    2

    B

    2/8 (s)

    0

    B

    Q4-8 (Punt, 4:53) 10 plays, 20% run

    2/10

    5

    B

    1/10

    2

    B

    Q4-9 (TD, 2:49) 9 plays, 33% run

    1/10

    7

    B

    1/7

    1

    B

    2/6

    6 (TD)

    B

                     

    PATS

    Q1/Q2-2 (FG, 4:36) 10 plays, 40% run

    1/10

    -1

    B

    1/10 (s)

    4

    B

    2/6

    10

    Welker

    2/8 (s)

    4

    B

    Q2-3 (Punt, 1:36) 3 plays. 33% run

    2/10

    3

    W

    Q2-4 (TD, 3:55) 14 plays, 29% run

    2/5 (s)

    6

    W

    1/10 (s)

    4

    W

    1/10 (s)

    1

    W

    2/2 (s)

    -1

    W

    Q3-5 (TD, 3:40) 8 plays, 38% run

    2/2

    17

    B

    2/5

    4

    W

    3/1

    4

    B

    Q3-6 (Punt, 1:07) 3 plays, 33% run

    1/10

    2

    B

    Q3/Q4-7 (INT, 1:18) 5 plays, 40% run

    1/10 (s)

    7

    B

    2/3

    5

    B

    Q4-8 (Punt, 5:38) 11 plays, 36% run

    1/10

    3

    B

    2/7 (s)

    11

    Welker

    1/10

    1

    W

    1/10

    -1

    B

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

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    I can't be the only one on here that watched Tuck crush Brady's bad shoulder. After that hit he wasn't the same!
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    "Both teams were typically running about 40% of the time or about 4 runs per 10-play drive. To say the Giants won the game because they ran more just isn't true."

    No both teams were not running 40% of the time. The Giants were. We ran 29% of the time. 17 runs out of 58 plays. They ran 27 out of 67.

    The 10 more runs they had would take off at least 30 seconds per play wouldn't you say. Probably more since as you said they were trying to slow things down(we were not). So 10 runs at 30 seconds is 300 seconds or......5 minutes of clock that there offense was on the field.

    Imagine if we had used that type of plan. The Giants would have had less opportunities in the 4rth qtr and had less time to win the game. We were terrible at using the clock on offense and it is a direct result of refusing to run the football. Add to that our lead back was running well with a 4.4 ave and it is mind blowing.

    And yes I will say that Belichick or whoever is responsible for instituting a game plan that calls for 90 pass atts to 35 rushing atts in 2 Super Bowl losses which results in 15.5 ppg is absolutely wrong.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....:
    [QUOTE]I can't be the only one on here that watched Tuck crush Brady's bad shoulder. After that hit he wasn't the same!
    Posted by soxfanHawaii[/QUOTE]

    No we all saw it, the coaches saw it, the trainers looked at it, but what is crazy is that we kept the same formula and threw 11 atts to 5 runs before the final minute of the game when we obviously had to throw the whole series.

    Over 2-1 pass to run ratio while playing with a lead after your QB gets murdered and hurts his previously sprained left shoulder???? Our lead back had 2 carries for 7 and 5 yards right before we went deep to Gronk for the INT??

    It might have been nice to run out some clock there instead of chucking the ball up. I don't blame Brady btw, but the play callers. Run that clock and we probably win our 4rth SB.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    it's just hilarious how people keep pushing this top issue on to the d. 

    do you guys even realize that by the time the pats got the ball for the second time in the first qtr, the the giants had an 11 min 30 second top advantage? that is directly attributable to the safety. it's hard to win a top battle when one possession yields ZERO secs.

    secondly, with the number of passes the pats threw, it was inevitable to lose the top battle. just compare the pats' second td drive vs the giants' first td drive. they both had to drive the ball practically 80 yards. pats took less than 4 mins. giants took more than 5.

    each run play may take as much time as each pas play. ultimately, it takes fewer pass plays to march 80 yards than run plays. 

    the pats did not lose because of top. they always lose on top. they lost because the the offense did not score on 5 of their 8 possessions, yielding their lowest offensive production of the season.


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

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....:
    [QUOTE]Let me try once more: 4th period 4 minutes to play,NY has the ball on their own 5 yd line, 3rd down, Eli drops back to pass, incomplete, they have to punt from their own end zone and we will get the ball around the fifty with 4 minutes to play and the lead, but NO, Nink ran off side on the play and the rest is history. Was there another play that was more important?????
    Posted by HenryGR11[/QUOTE]

    actually, every possession/play is as important as others. the only reason why that play or drive looked more important than others is that there were other important ones where someone screwed up too.

    add all the plays together - the sum is production as reflected by the score. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....:
    [QUOTE]it's just hilarious how people keep pushing this top issue on to the d.  do you guys even realize that by the time the pats got the ball for the second time in the first qtr, the the giants had an 11 min 30 second top advantage? that is directly attributable to the safety. it's hard to win a top battle when one possession yields ZERO secs. secondly, with the number of passes the pats threw, it was inevitable to lose the top battle. just compare the pats' second td drive vs the giants' first td drive. they both had to drive the ball practically 80 yards. pats took less than 4 mins. giants took more than 5. each run play may take as much time as each pas play. ultimately, it takes fewer pass plays to march 80 yards than run plays.  the pats did not lose because of top. they always lose on top. they lost because the the offense did not score on 5 of their 8 possessions, yielding their lowest offensive production of the season.
    Posted by seattlepat70[/QUOTE]

    Because......
    time of possession -- wearing down the opposing defense and allowing the other team fewer chances to score.
    Losing time of possession is a direct result of:
    inability to prevent first downs
    losing  the turn-over battle
    poor field position
    penalties extending drives
    inability to create negative plays (sacks)
    AVG TOP/drive is 2 minutes 38 sec.
    The Pat's TOP was average for the amount of drives.
    The jints TOP was nearly double the average per amount of drives which means the D failed in ALL of the contributing factors.  Did they not???

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

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that.... : Because...... time of possession -- wearing down the opposing defense and allowing the other team fewer chances to score. Losing time of possession is a direct result of: inability to prevent first downs losing  the turn-over battle poor field position penalties extending drives inability to create negative plays (sacks) AVG TOP/drive is 2 minutes 38 sec. The Pat's TOP was average for the amount of drives. The jints TOP was nearly double the average per amount of drives which means the D failed in ALL of the contributing factors.  Did they not???
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    they each had 8 full possessions. so right off the bat, your theory of top causing your opponent to fewer possessions go flat.

    so you you actually think that wearing down the d is important. that just takes the safety to the forefront. the d stopped nyg from scoring on their first drive. the safety gave them no more than a minute to sit. so them getting worn down in the first is a direct result of that safety.

    in the second half, the pats o had three possessions after they scored their last td. on the first two, after the last td, the pats o were on the field for 0:31 and 1:15 respectively. not only did the o fail to step on nyg's neck on two occasions, they gave the d any time to rest. taking it from your own post, the o helped nyg get the d worn down. 

    then the pats' last full possession. it lasted more than five minutes, but they did not score. another chance to step on nyg's neck goes down the drain. 

    so, because of all the opportunity that the d gave the o, every one of them was squandered, all of a sudden, the d had to make a final stop after they got worn down.









     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from palookaski. Show palookaski's posts

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that.... : No we all saw it, the coaches saw it, the trainers looked at it, but what is crazy is that we kept the same formula and threw 11 atts to 5 runs before the final minute of the game when we obviously had to throw the whole series. Over 2-1 pass to run ratio while playing with a lead after your QB gets murdered and hurts his previously sprained left shoulder???? Our lead back had 2 carries for 7 and 5 yards right before we went deep to Gronk for the INT?? It might have been nice to run out some clock there instead of chucking the ball up. I don't blame Brady btw, but the play callers. Run that clock and we probably win our 4rth SB.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    Thank you TrueChamp. Change that to 5 SB! Belichick knows what the problem is but does'nt solve it. He drafts TWO RBs high and they were not the answer, only hope. You don't win on Hope! You win on Talent.
    If he gave the Offense the hard nosed RB it needs for the last 3 years then this discussion is moot. Rookie Ingram was not the answer either as only a proven RB is the answer in the Brady era. I even think a smaller RB like Sproles would have done it for them. Yet he ends up N'orleans.


     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from FrnkBnhm. Show FrnkBnhm's posts

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that.... : they each had 8 full possessions. so right off the bat, your theory of top causing your opponent to fewer possessions go flat. so you you actually think that wearing down the d is important. that just takes the safety to the forefront. the d stopped nyg from scoring on their first drive. the safety gave them no more than a minute to sit. so them getting worn down in the first is a direct result of that safety. in the second half, the pats o had three possessions after they scored their last td. on the first two, after the last td, the pats o were on the field for 0:31 and 1:15 respectively. not only did the o fail to step on nyg's neck on two occasions, they gave the d any time to rest. taking it from your own post, the o helped nyg get the d worn down.  then the pats' last full possession. it lasted more than five minutes, but they did not score. another chance to step on nyg's neck goes down the drain.  so, because of all the opportunity that the d gave the o, every one of them was squandered, all of a sudden, the d had to make a final stop after they got worn down.
    Posted by seattlepat70[/QUOTE]

    You are missing the point to limiting the number of possessions. The Patriots are a fast-paced, quick-scoring team. They are at their best when they can score two or three times in a short period of time and put pressure on the other teams offense.

    To fight this, the Giants game plan was to eat up time and yards every time they got the ball. They new it would limit how many points they would score, but they also knew their best chance to win was to be in a low-scoring game. 

    They were successful because to stop the Giants from doing what they wanted the Patriots defense needed to do the following:
    • force 3-and-outs - they got zero
    • get turnovers - they got zero
    • win the field position battle - Pat's average starting postion = OWN 16
    The Giants managed to score on three of four drives in the second half. That is poor defense at best. As for being rested, the Patriots had their longest time-of-possession drive right before the Giants final drive so the defense was as rested as it had been all game. The defense responded by allowing the Giants to walk down the field for the game-winning touchdown.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that.... :  
    Posted by FrnkBnhm[/QUOTE]

    You are missing the point to limiting the number of possessions. The Patriots are a fast-paced, quick-scoring team. They are at their best when they can score two or three times in a short period of time and put pressure on the other teams offense. 

    actually no... it's just not an important point.

    To fight this, the Giants game plan was to eat up time and yards every time they got the ball. They new it would limit how many points they would score, but they also knew their best chance to win was to be in a low-scoring game.  They were successful because to stop the Giants from doing what they wanted the Patriots defense needed to do the following: force 3-and-outs - they got zero get turnovers - they got zero win the field position battle - Pat's average starting postion = OWN 16 The Giants managed to score on three of four drives in the second half. 

    here's why it's not important. all season, the d has not been able to get off the field. that has not stopped the pats from scoring - averaging 35 a game. that means the pats getting off/ not getting off the field has nothing to do with the pats scoring half what they normally do.


    That is poor defense at best. 

    that poor defense almost matched sff in points allowed. 

    As for being rested, the Patriots had their longest time-of-possession drive right before the Giants final drive so the defense was as rested as it had been all game. 

    yup... that was the third consecutive pats drive that laid an egg. a third consecutive chance to put the nail on the coffin squandered.

    The defense responded by allowing the Giants to walk down the field for the game-winning touchdown.

    nyg is a good team too. you keep giving a team like that a chance to get back, eventually they do. 

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

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....:
    [QUOTE]" Both teams were typically running about 40% of the time or about 4 runs per 10-play drive. To say the Giants won the game because they ran more just isn't true ." No both teams were not running 40% of the time. The Giants were. We ran 29% of the time. 17 runs out of 58 plays. They ran 27 out of 67. The 10 more runs they had would take off at least 30 seconds per play wouldn't you say. Probably more since as you said they were trying to slow things down(we were not). So 10 runs at 30 seconds is 300 seconds or......5 minutes of clock that there offense was on the field. Imagine if we had used that type of plan. The Giants would have had less opportunities in the 4rth qtr and had less time to win the game. We were terrible at using the clock on offense and it is a direct result of refusing to run the football. Add to that our lead back was running well with a 4.4 ave and it is mind blowing. And yes I will say that Belichick or whoever is responsible for instituting a game plan that calls for 90 pass atts to 35 rushing atts in 2 Super Bowl losses which results in 15.5 ppg is absolutely wrong.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    Champ, read what I said.  I excluded the Pats 57 minute drive at the end of the game because of course that was all passing of necessity and I excluded the Giants kneel down drive at the end of the second half because that really isn't a drive.  When you make those adjustments, the Pats had 33 pass plays and 19 runs (17 if you want to exclude the reverses that Welker ran).  The Giants had 40 pass play and 27 runs (26 if you exclude the Ware run).  19 divided by 52 = 36.5%.  27 divided by 67 = 40.3%.  Look at the drive charts: both teams were calling about 4 runs in 10 plays.  The difference was not great.  Sure, throw in the 8 passes Brady made in the last 57 second drive and the Pats passing percentage goes way up.  But those 57 seconds are not representative of the rest of the game.

    What you fail to see is that the run actually hurt two key drives for the Pats in the second half. The Pats had two great drives right before the half and coming out of the half in the third quarter.  Both resulted in TDs.  On their second drive of the second half, though, they went to a run formation and handed off to BJGE.  They got two yards on first down.  That drive ended up with a three and out, because the second down throw to BJGE was incomplete and with third and eight, the Giants D was able to tee up on Brady and sack him (should they have run there?).  And on their second to last drive they were moving the ball quite well till they handed off to BJGE on first down and got -1 yards.  The next play was the Welker pass. Should they have handed it off a second time to Benny there?  

    If you're going to claim running would have improved things--point to the places where they should have run more.  I'll give you running rather than throwing on the Pats first offensive play.  But look at each drive after that:

    Drive 2--they started with a hand off to Benny for -1.  They ran 4 times in 10 plays. Where else should they have run?

    Drive 3--It was a three and out.  Incompletion on first down was no better than the Benny -1 on first down in the previous drive.  They then ran Welker for 3 yards on second down. Then they pretty much had to throw.  Are you arguing that they should have run on first down there? Or third?

    Drives 4 and 5--both TD drives.  I assume you're not going to argue with the playcalling in those?  They ran 7 times in 22 plays in those two drives, lower than you'd like.  But are you complaining?  Those were their two most successful drives. 

    Drive 6--Another three and out started with a hand off to BJGE for two yards.  You think they should have run on second down there? 

    Drive 7--They had run with BJGE on 2 of 4 plays when Brady threw the interception on play 5.  Maybe there they should have run on the fifth play . . . but balance wasn't the problem on that drive. 

    Drive 8--They run 3 times in 11 plays.  They are moving the ball well despite starting at their own 8 yard line. On first and ten from the Giants' 43 they hand off to BJGE for -1.  That sets in motion the Welker incompletion. Should they have run on second and 11 instead of passed there?  

    Drive 9--it was 57 seconds to end of game--of course they threw on every down. 

    So tell me where the extra run plays should have come in?  

    Now I'm not claiming that things like the safety and interception and an incompletion on first down were irrelevant.  Those were problems too.  All I'm saying is that the run isn't the panacea you seem to think it is.  The Giants maintained TOP mostly by throwing.  Completions in-bounds eat up clock just as well as running plays.  They had a 75% completion rate on 40 passes, thanks to their own good play and our defense's inability to stop their passing game.  That's a ton of time taken off the clock.  The reality is that the Pats have two major problems:  (1) they lack diversity on offense, not because of poor play calling, but because of a lack of great talent at RB and WR (other than the slot) and (2) they have fewer drives than ideal and often start with poor field position because our defense allows other teams to eat clock and accumulate yards. 
      
    I'm all for a better running game--but that means getting better running talent. It also means getting receivers who can stretch the field enough to pull safeties back from the LOS.  The play calling isn't the problem.  BB is a very good game planner.  The problem is a lack of talent.  In fact, rather than looking at BB as a failure for losing the Super Bowl, you should be looking at him as a genius for getting this team to the Super Bowl given the limited talent it has.  Great game planning is what got us as far as we did get.  Handing the ball to BJGE over and over would have gotten us to 8 and 8 at best. 





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

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    28 of 41 with 8 drops by receivers. Brady's not the problem. We came in second because of mental errors: period! If the coaches had Moore up on the line to block Manningham "the big play" would be mute. You can go up and down the line with blame, but I would prefer to think, we got farther than anyone dreamed of!
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....:
    [QUOTE]it's just hilarious how people keep pushing this top issue on to the d.  do you guys even realize that by the time the pats got the ball for the second time in the first qtr, the the giants had an 11 min 30 second top advantage? that is directly attributable to the safety. it's hard to win a top battle when one possession yields ZERO secs. [/QUOTE]

    Yes, the terrible first drive is on the offense.  But before the offense got the ball, the defense had already let the Giants run a 6 minute drive.  It's fine to blame the O for their eight second possession.  But you can't ignore the fact that the D gave up a six minute drive to open the game and followed it by giving up another five and a half minute drive.  The D has some responsibility for getting itself off the field. 
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....

    In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that.... : Champ, read what I said.  I excluded the Pats 57 minute drive at the end of the game because of course that was all passing of necessity and I excluded the Giants kneel down drive at the end of the second half because that really isn't a drive.  When you make those adjustments, the Pats had 33 pass plays and 19 runs (17 if you want to exclude the reverses that Welker ran).  The Giants had 40 pass play and 27 runs (26 if you exclude the Ware run).  19 divided by 52 = 36.5%.  27 divided by 67 = 40.3%.  Look at the drive charts: both teams were calling about 4 runs in 10 plays.  The difference was not great.  Sure, throw in the 8 passes Brady made in the last 57 second drive and the Pats passing percentage goes way up.  But those 57 seconds are not representative of the rest of the game. What you fail to see is that the run actually hurt two key drives for the Pats in the second half. The Pats had two great drives right before the half and coming out of the half in the third quarter.  Both resulted in TDs.  On their second drive of the second half, though, they went to a run formation and handed off to BJGE.  They got two yards on first down.  That drive ended up with a three and out, because the second down throw to BJGE was incomplete and with third and eight, the Giants D was able to tee up on Brady and sack him (should they have run there?).  And on their second to last drive they were moving the ball quite well till they handed off to BJGE on first down and got -1 yards.  The next play was the Welker pass. Should they have handed it off a second time to Benny there?   If you're going to claim running would have improved things--point to the places where they should have run more.  I'll give you running rather than throwing on the Pats first offensive play.  But look at each drive after that: Drive 2--they started with a hand off to Benny for -1.  They ran 4 times in 10 plays. Where else should they have run? Drive 3--It was a three and out.  Incompletion on first down was no better than the Benny -1 on first down in the previous drive.  They then ran Welker for 3 yards on second down. Then they pretty much had to throw.  Are you arguing that they should have run on first down there? Or third? Drives 4 and 5--both TD drives.  I assume you're not going to argue with the playcalling in those?  They ran 7 times in 22 plays in those two drives, lower than you'd like.  But are you complaining?  Those were their two most successful drives.  Drive 6--Another three and out started with a hand off to BJGE for two yards.  You think they should have run on second down there?  Drive 7--They had run with BJGE on 2 of 4 plays when Brady threw the interception on play 5.  Maybe there they should have run on the fifth play . . . but balance wasn't the problem on that drive.  Drive 8--They run 3 times in 11 plays.  They are moving the ball well despite starting at their own 8 yard line. On first and ten from the Giants' 43 they hand off to BJGE for -1.  That sets in motion the Welker incompletion. Should they have run on second and 11 instead of passed there?   Drive 9--it was 57 seconds to end of game--of course they threw on every down.  So tell me where the extra run plays should have come in?   Now I'm not claiming that things like the safety and interception and an incompletion on first down were irrelevant.  Those were problems too.  All I'm saying is that the run isn't the panacea you seem to think it is.  The Giants maintained TOP mostly by throwing.  Completions in-bounds eat up clock just as well as running plays.  They had a 75% completion rate on 40 passes, thanks to their own good play and our defense's inability to stop their passing game.  That's a ton of time taken off the clock.  The reality is that the Pats have two major problems:  (1) they lack diversity on offense, not because of poor play calling, but because of a lack of great talent at RB and WR (other than the slot) and (2) they have fewer drives than ideal and often start with poor field position because our defense allows other teams to eat clock and accumulate yards.     I'm all for a better running game--but that means getting better running talent. It also means getting receivers who can stretch the field enough to pull safeties back from the LOS.  The play calling isn't the problem.  BB is a very good game planner.  The problem is a lack of talent.  In fact, rather than looking at BB as a failure for losing the Super Bowl, you should be looking at him as a genius for getting this team to the Super Bowl given the limited talent it has.  Great game planning is what got us as far as we did get.  Handing the ball to BJGE over and over would have gotten us to 8 and 8 at best
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Everything with you is one extreme or another. Nothing I say insinuates I think BB is a failure at anything. We have the best coach and the best QB in NFL history. That doesn't mean that they have done everything right.

    Obviously you have your eyes closed in this case.  Wanting this Patriots to have a better balance then 138 passes to 55 runs in there last 3 losses to the same team (2 SB's) does not mean they have to "hand the ball off to BJGE over and over".

    In your eyes BB is omniscient. Despite calling a game plan that passes 90 plays in 2 SB's and runs 35 you think that it is obviously because he was correct, and our players just didn't execute for no other reason then dumb luck....oh no its lack of talent, it could have NOTHING to do with scheme because that means we are questioning the play calling...oh no.

    It is no coincidence that our defense which was gassed by the offense's inability to stay on the field finally gives up the final score in 2 SB's. They did the best they could by only letting up 17 and 19 ppg but with the other team using the run more often they were forced to stay on the field longer.

    2 minutes of time used in 2 late 2nd half possessions was all because of 1 play where our rb only has 2 yards. It had nothing to do with the Giants consistent ability of predicting our 1 dimensional offense and stopping it again and again.

    Oh but it is a talent problem in your eyes. We have very little talent on offense as you have said and were just lucky to break Marinos passing record, and the all time TE rec's/yards/td record, or to have a receiver tie Jerry Rice and Marvin Harrison for the the most 100 catch seasons in a row?

    The scheme to throw and lean on 35 year old Brady as a crutch is flawed. Bring back balance like we had with 3.9 ypc Antowain Smith and we will win SB's. We will stay on the field and wear down opposing defense's in the playoffs. It is no coincidence that our offense which is the best in regular season history has suffered in the playoffs. Good defense's stifle one dimensional offesne's. History has proven it over and over, just like it happened last Sunday.




     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share