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

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino'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.... : That's exactly right . . . the whole season makes no sense when you look at all the issues with the defense, the lack of a running game, the lack of real wideouts.  But Belichick and Brady have a way of working miracles.  Too bad they couldn't quite pull it off in the Super Bowl.  But really it was an amazing feat just to get there with this team. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Oh goodness. Whatever he has gotten out of that defense is a testament to how great his schemes are. Ditto on the offensive side of the ball. A slot WR and TE? 

    No one here wanted to admit it before the game, but except at QB and TE, down the board the Giants were more talented than NE was.
     
  2. 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.... : In which case expecting them to win the Super Bowl is probably also nonsensical.  
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    It turns out it was because this defense was in fact not good enough to win the Super Bowl.

     
  3. 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]it's always tempting to blame the loss on a particular play, or drive. it's about the last drive. welker should have caught the ball. tb should have been more accurate throwing that ball. blah blah blah. ultimately, it's really pointless to argue/nitpick on one play.... or even on one drive. nobody plays perfect ball. the game boiled down to production - the sum of all the plays and of all drives by each side. did the o produce even close to their normal sunday night production? far from it. did the d allow the opposing o allow them to produce more than or qual to their norm? the answer is no. asking the d to keep nyg from scoring more than 17 pts was basically asking them to perform way better than their normal, to compensate for the o's far below their normal performance. it's more reasonable to ask someone to perform to norm than to ask someone to perform way above norm. think of it this way... with zero production from the o over the last 26 mins, the only reason the pats were leading in the last four mins, anyway, was because the d kept it for 22 mins. 
    Posted by seattlepat70[/QUOTE]

    Did anybody else read this? It sums everything up perfectly.

    Somebody tell Willie Mac this defense let up less points then his vaunted 2003 or 2004 defense did in its Super bowls.

    Our one dimensional offense places too much burden on Tom Brady's shoulders and is the reason we cannot win a Super bowl.
     
  4. 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.... : Oh goodness. Whatever he has gotten out of that defense is a testament to how great his schemes are. Ditto on the offensive side of the ball. A slot WR and TE?  No one here wanted to admit it before the game, but except at QB and TE, down the board the Giants were more talented than NE was.
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    People keep saying how great Mayo and Spikes are. How Chung is a top safety. What great find Mark Anderson. How Love and Deaderick are good young d-linemen. How Sterling Moore was a really find and moving McCourty to FS would change the defense.

    We cannot have it both aways. Either vast majority of the players are bad and the scheme is what got them there or the players are good and the schemes were not good enough to win.

    I disagree with the first theory - I think the scheme had as many problems as the players - the "bend but don't break" theory was used against them in the Super Bowl to control the clock and field position. Proof that the schemes were flawed, "make them go to Manningham" back-fired and caused the game winning TD to be scored.

     
  5. 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.... : Agreed, but they almost paid for the Bradshaw TD.
    Posted by nhsteven[/QUOTE]

    To quote BB:

    "If if's and but's were candy and nuts, everyday would be Christmas"
     
  6. 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.... : People keep saying how great Mayo and Spikes are. How Chung is a top safety. What great find Mark Anderson. How Love and Deaderick are good young d-linemen. How Sterling Moore was a really find and moving McCourty to FS would change the defense. We cannot have it both aways. Either vast majority of the players are bad and the scheme is what got them there or the players are good and the schemes were not good enough to win. I disagree with the first theory - I think the scheme had as many problems as the players - the "bend but don't break" theory was used against them in the Super Bowl to control the clock and field position. Proof that the schemes were flawed, "make them go to Manningham" back-fired and caused the game winning TD to be scored.
    Posted by FrnkBnhm[/QUOTE]

    What would you have done, double teamed Manningham and let Nicks or Cruz get single covered?

    BB's idea in the end was the best way to play it imo. It was a great throw and better catch. Thats what happens when our offense can't stay on the field and gives the other team the ball back after not consuming any clock.

    19 points given up ain't too bad when your offense averages 34.


     
  7. 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.... : What would you have done, double teamed Manningham and let Nicks or Cruz get single covered? BB's idea in the end was the best way to play it imo. It was a great throw and better catch. Thats what happens when our offense can't stay on the field and gives the other team the ball back after not consuming any clock. 19 points given up ain't too bad when your offense averages 34.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    Average TOP is 2 min and 38 sec per drive.
    Pat's average TOP was 2 minutes and 45 seconds (slightly better than average)
    The Jints average TOP was 4 minutes and 45 seconds  ( 2 minutes and 8 seconds better than average) 
    The D let the jints have the ball 2 minutes and 8 seconds longer than average per drive.   How is that on the O?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from HenryGR11. Show HenryGR11's posts

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

    Pure and simple_____Ninkowski
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

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

    It isn't all the defense fault that they lost.. it's on all 3 phases and coaching. Bradys pick, safety, and bad throws hurt just as much as anything that the defense gave up. Why is it all on the defense when the offense can only score 17 points? Did the offense do everything they could to win that game? How many teams win super bowls with 17 points? Its on all of them.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

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



    They both own it

    it was also the job of the Offense to hang on to the ball
    and not punt it back

    there was about only 80% of the normal possessions in the SB

    Pats 31 season per game times 80% = 25 pts offense
           21 season per game times 80% = 17 pts defense

    Pats lose 22 -17

    Seems to me that the Pats left a TD on the field on Offense
    and one TD on Defense

    In many games this year - that is what we did- even tho we won
    most- It was the same story in the 3 losses

    someday when i gt the courage I will relook at the tape
    and see how many critical unforced errors we had
    and the Giants had - and how many great plays too



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

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

    How many teams win super bowls with 17 points? Its on all of them.

    5 (about 11%) Super Bowls were won with 17 pts or less including SB 42. 17-14

     
  12. 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]In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that.... : Did anybody else read this? It sums everything up perfectly. Somebody tell Willie Mac this defense let up less points then his vaunted 2003 or 2004 defense did in its Super bowls. Our one dimensional offense places too much burden on Tom Brady's shoulders and is the reason we cannot win a Super bowl.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    The offense's lack of scoring was a problem, but so was the defense's inability to keep the Giants off the field.  The fact is the D let the Giants hold possession for 37 minutes (nearly a whole quarter more than the Pats possessed the ball) and gave up points on 3 of the Giants' 4 second-half drives. And on the one drive where the Giants didn't score in the half, the Pats let them eat 5 and a half minutes off the clock and punt to pin the Patriots offense at their 12 yard line.  The O stunk after it's first drive in the second half, but the D was terrible too.  



     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven'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]An hour or so after the game was over I watched an interview with Tom Coughlin and he said he was relieved that Bradshaw got the TD because a field goal is not a sure thing, just ask the Ravens.
    Posted by digger0862[/QUOTE]

    They could have tried again on 2nd Down, leaving hardly any time on the clock.
     
  14. 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]How many teams win super bowls with 17 points? Its on all of them. 5 (about 11%) Super Bowls were won with 17 pts or less including SB 42. 17-14
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    How are people still not getting this? The score was low because the Giants intentionally kept the scoring low to improve their chances of winning. The Giants were capable of doing that because the Patroits defense allowed them to move the ball and take time of the clock every time they had the ball.

    The key to the Giants D stopping the Patriots O was the Giants O holding onto the ball for as long as possible and not letting Brady get touches.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy'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.... : How are people still not getting this? The score was low because the Giants intentionally kept the scoring low to improve their chances of winning. The Giants were capable of doing that because the Patroits defense allowed them to move the ball and take time of the clock every time they had the ball. The key to the Giants D stopping the Patriots O was the Giants O holding onto the ball for as long as possible and not letting Brady get touches.
    Posted by FrnkBnhm[/QUOTE]

    So your argument is that the defense was to blame because the Giants offense succeeded in running a game plan that the Patriots offense SHOULD have run to keep Eli Manning off the field?  The same game plan that won 3 previous Super Bowls for the Pats I might add.

    The offense had the ball last, they whiffed on three straight dropped balls that were squarely in receivers hands.  Fine, you "finesse" offense, high powered offense, fantasy football, throw 50 times a game guys got exactly what you wanted, Brady in the final minute with the ball in his hands; fail!!  

    What you all can't seem to realize is that the biggest failure on offense wasn't the dropped passes to end the game, but rather that the Giants simply had the better game plan to begin with and perhaps if the Pats had run the ball and played keep away, our defense wouldn't have spent 2/3rds of the game on the field and would have been fresh enough at the end of the game to tee off the way the Giants defense did.

    BTW Babe, Gronkowski was very much active for this game so don't make excuses, our defense's best pass rusher (Andre Carter) and starting corner (Dowling) were actually inactive for this game so don't fall back on the old injury excuse.  

    Sad really, the Pats have lost three straight games to the Jints running the same BS game plan but somehow it's the defenses fault that the super high powered offense can't score enough points to win, moreover they can't control the time of possession either, because their very nature dictates that they either score quickly or go 3 and out... pathetic.

    Either the high powered offense is the reason for our success or not, you can't have it both ways fellas?  Our offense is a liability because if they ain't scoring the other team has more opportunities to...  We had the ball, the offense blew it... choke on it.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

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


    Calling more runs isn't the same as being able to run.  Sure, if this team had Corey Dillon in his prime, we could have tried ball control.  I'd even like that. But you need good backs or you're going 3 and out anyway.  In fact, the only 3 and out of our five drives in the second half was the one we started by handing the ball off to BJGE for an impressive 2 yards.  Our best drives in the game, were pass-first drives, with some run mixed in.  Establishing the pass allows us to run. If we don't establish the pass first we can't run--because we're not really very good at running!  Not having a good running game hurts us.  I agree with that.  But relying more on something you're not good at is not the answer. We live and die by the (short) pass.  We're vulnerable because of that.  But the answer isn't to call more runs--the answer is to get better running backs (and better wideouts, too, to get the safeties to back away).  

    One other thing on the ball control approach.  Since possessions alternate, controlling the ball is not going to mean more possessions for you and fewer for the defense.  What it does mean is fewer possessions for both teams.  The Giants wanted to keep possessions low, because it gave our offense fewer chances to score.  If we had been able to mount long time-eating drives by running more, it woud simply have reduced possessions-per-team from 9 to 8 or maybe to 7.  That would help us only if we were able to actually score on more of our possessions than the Giants scored on theirs.  In the second half, the Giants scored on 75% (3 of 4) of their possessions, while we scored on just 20% of ours (1 of 5).  Would reducing the second half possessions of the teams have helped?  Only if we also were able to bring the scoring percentages more in balance.  As long as the Giants were scoring on three and a half times as many drives as we were scoring, reducing the number of drives probably wouldn't have made any difference in the outcome at all. 

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

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

    In Response to McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....:
    [QUOTE]The game was lost because of the D's inability to get the ball back (TOP) and that it doesn't matter if the team is ahead by 1 or 7, it's the D's responsibility to make the stop and help win the game. http://espn.go.com/espnradio/boston/play?id=7558814  
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    Who can argue with this?  But it is kinda diversionary.  Who thought that the defense would even play as well as they did?  Who thought that the Pats would even make to the SB with this defense?  It was always about the offense carrying this thing as far as it would go.  It failed against Baltimore and it failed against the Giants. 

    Now of course it's about having a complete team where the Pats have the WRs and the pass rush.  The running game is there but I believe the short off season put it behind.  Let's hope that the Pats can address the issues this off season.  Meanwhile enjoy that we got there and not a one and done. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis'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 disagree, the game was lost because both sides didn't execute when they most needed to. I bet a quarterback would say its more on the offense because they had a chance to step on NY's throat numerous times and didn't.
    Posted by CaptainZdeno33[/QUOTE]

    I agree. Why is it that some folks don't see that the loss was a result of a number of factors and the outcome wasn't isolated to a single specific play or one phase of the game (including the coaching staff).  Plenty of reasons why the Patriots lost.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis'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.... : How are people still not getting this? The score was low because the Giants intentionally kept the scoring low to improve their chances of winning. The Giants were capable of doing that because the Patroits defense allowed them to move the ball and take time of the clock every time they had the ball. The key to the Giants D stopping the Patriots O was the Giants O holding onto the ball for as long as possible and not letting Brady get touches.
    Posted by FrnkBnhm[/QUOTE]

    seems like people will take something "out of context" and make isolated plays be a "fact" to prove whatever point they are trying to make.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from donrd4. Show donrd4's posts

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

    In Response to McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....:
    [QUOTE]The game was lost because of the D's inability to get the ball back (TOP) and that it doesn't matter if the team is ahead by 1 or 7, it's the D's responsibility to make the stop and help win the game. http://espn.go.com/espnradio/boston/play?id=7558814  
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    Well Mr McGinnest ..All i can say to your crying is if if if . You want to use if's then Baltimore Ravens should have lost to the New York Football Giants.. Ya Get it ?????
     
  21. 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 McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that.... : Well Mr McGinnest ..All i can say to your crying is if if if . You want to use if's then Baltimore Ravens should have lost to the New York Football Giants.. Ya Get it ?????
    Posted by donrd4[/QUOTE]

    Funny, don't remember WM using the word if at all.  So, it must really be on you're feeble little mind.  Probably because IF the ball hadn't braised Kyle Williams knee, (a one in a thousand play) the 49'rs would have been playing the Pats.
    It's a game of funny bounces and IF's.
    You got it!
     
  22. 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]Calling more runs isn't the same as being able to run.  Sure, if this team had Corey Dillon in his prime, we could have tried ball control.  I'd even like that. But you need good backs or you're going 3 and out anyway.  In fact, the only 3 and out of our five drives in the second half was the one we started by handing the ball off to BJGE for an impressive 2 yards.  Our best drives in the game, were pass-first drives, with some run mixed in.  Establishing the pass allows us to run. If we don't establish the pass first we can't run-- because we're not really very good at running!   Not having a good running game hurts us.  I agree with that.  But relying more on something you're not good at is not the answer. We live and die by the (short) pass.  We're vulnerable because of that.  But the answer isn't to call more runs--the answer is to get better running backs (and better wideouts, too, to get the safeties to back away).   One other thing on the ball control approach.  Since possessions alternate, controlling the ball is not going to mean more possessions for you and fewer for the defense.  What it does mean is fewer possessions for both teams.  The Giants wanted to keep possessions low, because it gave our offense fewer chances to score.  If we had been able to mount long time-eating drives by running more, it woud simply have reduced possessions-per-team from 9 to 8 or maybe to 7.  That would help us only if we were able to actually score on more of our possessions than the Giants scored on theirs.  In the second half, the Giants scored on 75% (3 of 4) of their possessions, while we scored on just 20% of ours (1 of 5).  Would reducing the second half possessions of the teams have helped?  Only if we also were able to bring the scoring percentages more in balance.  As long as the Giants were scoring on three and a half times as many drives as we were scoring, reducing the number of drives probably wouldn't have made any difference in the outcome at all. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]


    WE WERE ABLE TO RUN. BJGE was the most efficient back on the field!!!

    The Giants ran the ball to own T.O.P. Now we blame a defense that gave up 19 points in a prototypical BB bend don't break fashion for the t.o.p differential???

    How does that work? Give Benny 6 or 7 more carries, give Ridley his 5 carries and then watch Woody get his poor 2.7 per and we maintain the ball longer and give N.Y less time to score.
     
  23. 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]How many teams win super bowls with 17 points? Its on all of them. 5 (about 11%) Super Bowls were won with 17 pts or less including SB 42. 17-14
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    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.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from mybologna2. Show mybologna2'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 your argument is that the defense was to blame because the Giants offense succeeded in running a game plan that the Patriots offense SHOULD have run to keep Eli Manning off the field?  The same game plan that won 3 previous Super Bowls for the Pats I might add. The offense had the ball last, they whiffed on three straight dropped balls that were squarely in receivers hands.  Fine, you "finesse" offense, high powered offense, fantasy football, throw 50 times a game guys got exactly what you wanted, Brady in the final minute with the ball in his hands;  fail!!   What you all can't seem to realize is that the biggest failure on offense wasn't the dropped passes to end the game, but rather that the Giants simply had the better game plan to begin with and perhaps if the Pats had run the ball and played keep away, our defense wouldn't have spent 2/3rds of the game on the field and would have been fresh enough at the end of the game to tee off the way the Giants defense did. BTW Babe, Gronkowski was very much active for this game so don't make excuses, our defense's best pass rusher (Andre Carter) and starting corner (Dowling) were actually inactive for this game so don't fall back on the old injury excuse.   Sad really, the Pats have lost three straight games to the Jints running the same BS game plan but somehow it's the defenses fault that the super high powered offense can't score enough points to win, moreover they can't control the time of possession either, because their very nature dictates that they either score quickly or go 3 and out... pathetic. Either the high powered offense is the reason for our success or not, you can't have it both ways fellas?  Our offense is a liability because if they ain't scoring the other team has more opportunities to...  We had the ball, the offense blew it... choke on it.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]Plus the Pats had the ball 9 times same as Giants,hooray for the Pats finese offence,sometimes you need a little sometimes you need a lot!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from donrd4. Show donrd4'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.... : Funny, don't remember WM using the word if at all.  So, it must really be on you're feeble little mind.  Probably because IF the ball hadn't braised Kyle Williams knee, (a one in a thousand play) the 49'rs would have been playing the Pats. It's a game of funny bounces and IF's. You got it!
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    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 !
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share