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

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli'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.... : Mthurl I look at it as a BB coached defense will play well enough in the playoffs to win. Allowing 17 points and 19 points in both SB's is pretty good imo. I agree that this years defense was short on talent especially in the secondary. And to me it is obvious a one dimensional offense will fail to score points and maintain ball control(no turn overs) in big games i.e Super Bowls. History has shown this to be true unfortunately with our team.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    In the 3 SB wins BB's D had 8 turnovers. That's over 2.5 a game.

    In the 2 SB losses they had 1 turnover. That's .5 a game.

    So the SB wins averaged FIVE TIMES as many turnovers.

    Hell, the NFL AVERAGE is three times the rate the D had in the two losses.

    The 396 yards they gave up would put them close to last in the league average per game for the season. That results in keeping the O off the field and leaving us in poor field position.

    An offense having it's biggest weapon hobbled will hinder it's ability to score, not this jibberish about ball control. And the anemic 3.6 yac by the backs sure as hell wasn't going to control the ball anyway.

    And giving up the winning drive at the end in 2007, 2008 and 2012 isn't good D either.

    You can crow about the D only allowing 19 points all you like, but there is a hell of a lot more to decent D than just that.
     
  2. 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.... : YES!!! they held the ball for 6+ mins of the last 26. isn't that what happens the o could not hold on to the ball? first two possessions after their last td... 0:31 1:18 two chances to gain minutes. two chances to put the nail on the coffin, squandered.  even after those two unproductive possessions, the d kept the lead for a third chance to extend the lead and close the game. the rest is history.
    Posted by seattlepat70[/QUOTE]


    The D allowed the Giants to score on three of their four second-half possessions.  And the one they didn't score on was a 5-minute clock eater that set up their punter to pin the Pats O on the 8 yard line.  In fact, three of the four drives were longer then four and a half minutes.  And the one that was shorter went for a TD. 

    The O didn't deliver, but neither did the D.  

     
  3. 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.... : I do not understand what people are missing. I think I am going to give up trying to explain. The game was not low-scoring because of great defense by the Patriots. It was low scoring because Tom Coughlin made a decision to keep the game low scoring by trying to eat up time on offense. Win the turnover battle and field position battles. They were able to do all three because of a failure by the Patriots Defense .  Failing to get a single 3-and-out. Failing to force a turnover after averaging two per game in the regular season. Failing to stop the Giants from crossing the 50 yard-line on every single possession. Failing to stop the Giants from scoring on 3 of 4 second half possessions.  I do think the Patriots had one of the best TEs (but he was injured) and one of the best QBs (who may have also been hurt after the Justin Tuck sack in the 3rd Quarter), but the one who really failed this team was BB. The defense failed to stop or truly slow down the Giants for the entire second half. That is bad defense. So either people who think the defense is good need to admit that we are overrating Spikes, Mayo, McCourty, Chung, Ninkovich, Love, Deaderick, Moore, Arrington, etc. or that Belichick was outcoached pure and simple. Or else, how do explain that second half and final drive by the Giants offense.
    Posted by FrnkBnhm[/QUOTE]

    Frank, I agree with your TOP analysis.  I think Coughlin wanted to keep the game to as few possessions as possible to limit the Pats' O's scoring opportunities.  I'm not sure, though, that BB was outcoached.  I think BB's defense just isn't good enough to counter that strategy if the Giants' O executed well. And they did execute well. I'm not sure if there was scheme BB could have adopted that would have prevented Eli from completing so many passes.  If we had either better pass rushers or better DBs and coverage LBs then we could have made it harder for Eli to get a 75% completion rate.  But without that talent, I'm not sure there's much we could do.  All season we've seen the defense struggle against the pass in the open field and have to rely on either turnovers or a short field to stop teams.  The Giants took advantage of that to win the TOP battle and force an 8/9 possession game.  The Pats O could have done better on their possessions, but without Gronk at full strength, the O lacks weapons.  If BB made a mistake, it may have been continuing to rely on an ineffective Gronk (and not replacing him with a different weapon) or getting away from the hurry-up which worked so well on those two Pats' TD drives.  



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

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

    Ok guys your right. A teams defense is responsible for its time of possession. Good.
     
  5. 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.... : True or False? The D could have won the game by stopping the Giants on their last drive but let them score the winning points instead. Of course this is no big surprise. They have been doing exactly this for years and years. If the D could get stops at the end we would likely have 3 more Lombardi's.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    The O could have won the game with the ball in their hands at the end, but they didn't, end of story.  The high powered, unstoppable offense got stopped. That's where the philosophical discussion ends, you play like a passing team you live and die with the pass.  

    I believe the earlier poster was correct, you try and remember Wilfork and the other D linemen faces after Welker dropped a sure catch that probably would have got them across the 50 and near field goal range... disappointment, that's the look I saw.

    The Patriot offense needed to control the time of possession to win this game, they certainly weren't going to score a lot of points against the Giants D... they couldn't accomplish either. 

     
  6. 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]Ok guys your right. A teams defense is responsible for its time of possession. Good.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    Well they are at least half responsible for it. The offense cannot get the ball until the defense ends the other teams possession. Look at the previous Giants-Pats Super Bowl. The Giants managed to take 9 minutes off the clock before the Patriots touched the ball. That certainly is not the offenses fault.

    The Patriots offense this year was never a ball control, eat up clock kind of team. They were at their best in the hurry up offense. The won games when the defense got them the ball back quickly and with good field position (3-and-out or turnovers). The defense failed to do that in the Super Bowl.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

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

    The D gave up 17 points a game in the playoffs...

    The offense gave the Giants a 2 point lead to start the game...

    Brady heaved an INT into enemy hands on first down that would have put us ahead for good provided we could have played keep away the way the Giants did to us.

    Brady had the ball in his hands in the final minute and his receivers couldn't execute.

    The Patriots "run and shoot" offense is 0-2 in the Super Bowl.  I miss the ground and pound, we didn't always win by much but it has a 3-0 record in the big game...

     
  8. 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.... : Well they are at least half responsible for it. The offense cannot get the ball until the defense ends the other teams possession. Look at the previous Giants-Pats Super Bowl. The Giants managed to take 9 minutes off the clock before the Patriots touched the ball. That certainly is not the offenses fault. The Patriots offense this year was never a ball control, eat up clock kind of team. They were at their best in the hurry up offense. The won games when the defense got them the ball back quickly and with good field position (3-and-out or turnovers). The defense failed to do that in the Super Bowl.
    Posted by FrnkBnhm[/QUOTE]

    They are more than hald responsible for it. 

    NEs offense was 13th in TOP per drive, their defense was 31st last time I ran the stats. Yes, they have a quick strike offense, but they also have an offense that racks up first downs like there is no tommorow, and almost never goes 3 % out, which in TOP terms is far, far more important than the variable of running or passing. 

    The defense, which was ok at preventing scores (17th) was miserable at getting itself off the field. If they had managed more 3 & Outs, then the offense would have had more chances. 

    Even in the Superbowl, I'm astounded they only got the ball for the offense 8 times with any meaningful time to score. Given that the average game features about 11-12 possessions per team, it was a huge fail. 

    Yes, the score was low on both sides. It was low because the Giants consciously decided to limit how many chances NE's offense would be given, and there was nothing the NE defense could do to stop them. 

    NE needs to fix that. Opposing teams cannot dictate the game flow that was in the future -- and the offense chewing up even more time off the clock hurts that more than it helps it. They need more drives of their own, and less time where the opponent is on the field holding the ball. 

    And yes, it is mostly the defense's fault -- having longer drives doesn't equal more chances to score which is what NE needed.  
     
  9. 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.... : They are more than hald responsible for it.  NEs offense was 13th in TOP per drive, their defense was 31st last time I ran the stats. Yes, they have a quick strike offense, but they also have an offense that racks up first downs like there is no tommorow, and almost never goes 3 % out,
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    Now I'm laughing... never go 3 and out?  We've become the Colts, great in the regular season, but post season poison...  finesse is great when you're playing pool or golf.  Yeah when they're not going 3 and out they prefer to throw an interception instead.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli'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 are more than hald responsible for it.  NEs offense was 13th in TOP per drive, their defense was 31st last time I ran the stats. Yes, they have a quick strike offense, but they also have an offense that racks up first downs like there is no tommorow, and almost never goes 3 % out, which in TOP terms is far, far more important than the variable of running or passing.  The defense, which was ok at preventing scores (17th) was miserable at getting itself off the field. If they had managed more 3 & Outs, then the offense would have had more chances.  Even in the Superbowl, I'm astounded they only got the ball for the offense 8 times with any meaningful time to score. Given that the average game features about 11-12 possessions per team, it was a huge fail.  Yes, the score was low on both sides. It was low because the Giants consciously decided to limit how many chances NE's offense would be given, and there was nothing the NE defense could do to stop them.  NE needs to fix that. Opposing teams cannot dictate the game flow that was in the future -- and the offense chewing up even more  time off the clock hurts that more than it helps it. They need more drives of their own, and less time where the opponent is on the field holding the ball.  And yes, it is mostly the defense's fault -- having longer drives doesn't equal more chances to score which is what NE needed.  
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    This was very reminicent of the Steelers loss. The Giants didn't quite pull it off as well as the Steelers did and Gronk being out was a big help to them too, but it was very similar.


     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from nyjoseph. Show nyjoseph'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.... : I do not understand what people are missing. I think I am going to give up trying to explain. The game was not low-scoring because of great defense by the Patriots. It was low scoring because Tom Coughlin made a decision to keep the game low scoring by trying to eat up time on offense. Win the turnover battle and field position battles. They were able to do all three because of a failure by the Patriots Defense .  Failing to get a single 3-and-out. Failing to force a turnover after averaging two per game in the regular season. Failing to stop the Giants from crossing the 50 yard-line on every single possession. Failing to stop the Giants from scoring on 3 of 4 second half possessions.  I do think the Patriots had one of the best TEs (but he was injured) and one of the best QBs (who may have also been hurt after the Justin Tuck sack in the 3rd Quarter), but the one who really failed this team was BB. The defense failed to stop or truly slow down the Giants for the entire second half. That is bad defense. So either people who think the defense is good need to admit that we are overrating Spikes, Mayo, McCourty, Chung, Ninkovich, Love, Deaderick, Moore, Arrington, etc. or that Belichick was outcoached pure and simple. Or else, how do explain that second half and final drive by the Giants offense.
    Posted by FrnkBnhm[/QUOTE]

    +1.  Excellent summary.

    I again say, given the Giants dictating TOP, it's pretty amazing that BB was able to scheme to limit the points on the scoreboard with what he had to work with.

    He had to keep the safeties deep to help in coverage for CBs who are limited.  And he could not depend on the front-7 to apply consistent pressure to reduce the amount of time the secondary was exposed.

    It's pretty clear to me that the Pats need multiple people who can produce a consistent pass rush.  Carter may be one of those if he's back.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli'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.... : The O could have won the game with the ball in their hands at the end, but they didn't, end of story.  The high powered, unstoppable offense got stopped. That's where the philosophical discussion ends, you play like a passing team you live and die with the pass.   I believe the earlier poster was correct, you try and remember Wilfork and the other D linemen faces after Welker dropped a sure catch that probably would have got them across the 50 and near field goal range... disappointment, that's the look I saw. The Patriot offense needed to control the time of possession to win this game, they certainly weren't going to score a lot of points against the Giants D... they couldn't accomplish either. 
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    You're really going to try and make the case that the O should have scored a TD, not a FG, a TD, with fifty fahkin seven seconds left? If you're going to hang your hat on that laughably flimsy spin, knock yourself out.


    2007, 2008 and 2012 have been D FAILs in the waning couple of minutes that were likely to mean a Lombardi trophy.

    This year three of our 4 losses have featured FAILs by the D in the waning minutes to lose them.

    It's all about the D FAILs.


    Your BS spin can't change those facts.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

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

    I think BB franticall plugging in people from the start of the year into the D shows pretty clearly where he thought the problem was with this team. He was correct of course as all but a few kooks around here well know.
     
  14. 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.... : You're really going to try and make the case that the O should have scored a TD, not a FG, a TD, with fifty fahkin seven seconds left? If you're going to hang your hat on that laughably flimsy spin, knock yourself out. 2007, 2008 and 2012 have been D FAILs in the waning couple of minutes that were likely to mean a Lombardi trophy. This year three of our 4 losses have featured FAILs by the D in the waning minutes to lose them. It's all about the D FAILs. Your BS spin can't change those facts.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    Ironically the offense is a high flying, TD scoring machine until the playoffs when they meet better defenses then it withers...  The O had a chance to get downfield, the receivers didn't execute. Game over.

     
  15. 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.... : They are more than hald responsible for it.  NEs offense was 13th in TOP per drive, their defense was 31st last time I ran the stats. Yes, they have a quick strike offense, but they also have an offense that racks up first downs like there is no tommorow, and almost never goes 3 % out, which in TOP terms is far, far more important than the variable of running or passing.  The defense, which was ok at preventing scores (17th) was miserable at getting itself off the field. If they had managed more 3 & Outs, then the offense would have had more chances.  Even in the Superbowl, I'm astounded they only got the ball for the offense 8 times with any meaningful time to score. Given that the average game features about 11-12 possessions per team, it was a huge fail.  Yes, the score was low on both sides. It was low because the Giants consciously decided to limit how many chances NE's offense would be given, and there was nothing the NE defense could do to stop them.  NE needs to fix that. Opposing teams cannot dictate the game flow that was in the future -- and the offense chewing up even more  time off the clock hurts that more than it helps it. They need more drives of their own, and less time where the opponent is on the field holding the ball.  And yes, it is mostly the defense's fault -- having longer drives doesn't equal more chances to score which is what NE needed.  
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    THANK YOU!  Have been trying to prove this for more than a week but.........
    The Jints used NE's D against them.  By NE trying to keep everything in front of them, The Jints were happy to oblige by running and using high percentage passes to gain 1st down after 1st down after 1st down.  The safeties rarely helped with the run because they were always back helping out the corners.
    A better pass rush would have helped but that wasn't there either mainly because they couldn't send many.
    BB made an attempt to fix that this year, unfortunately injuries thwarted the attempt.  Have faith, he'll fix it this year.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli'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.... : Ironically the offense is a high flying, TD scoring machine until the playoffs when they meet better defenses then it withers...  The O had a chance to get downfield, the receivers didn't execute. Game over.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, well, if you're expecting a team to score as much against the best teams as they do against the league average you're probably going to be disappointed. And if you're expecting they will score a lot when their #1 weapon is hobbled you're going to be disappointed too. That's especially true if the other team gobbles up the clock against a D that is notorious for not being able to get off the field.


     
  17. 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.... : You're really going to try and make the case that the O should have scored a TD, not a FG, a TD, with fifty fahkin seven seconds left? If you're going to hang your hat on that laughably flimsy spin, knock yourself out. 2007, 2008 and 2012 have been D FAILs in the waning couple of minutes that were likely to mean a Lombardi trophy. This year three of our 4 losses have featured FAILs by the D in the waning minutes to lose them. It's all about the D FAILs. Your BS spin can't change those facts.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    The offense lost by running a lousy game plan that has proven ineffective against the Giants superior defense on multiple occasions. 

    They lost the game long before the opening play where they handed the Giants 2 points.  

    When Brady played a ball control running offense he was most dangerous, he won 3 rings... dismiss that if you like, but the Giants just ran the game plan that we should have and won with it.  Coughlin went to the same football academy as Belichick, no surprise there...

    But I get it now, the offense is responsible for everything good that happens to the Pats, when they lose it's the defense's fault.  Got it...


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

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

    If your expecting a defense that let up 22 ppg to hold the best offense's in the league to under that, well you were right because that is exactly what we did.

    If your expecting your 34 ppg offense to score more then half of that in the SB well then you are in for disappointment as our one dimensional offense can't do it.

    2 Super bowls = 15.5 ppg but its the defense's fault.

    I am literally laughing out loud.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli'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.... : The offense lost by running a lousy game plan that has proven ineffective against the Giants superior defense on multiple occasions.  They lost the game long before the opening play where they handed the Giants 2 points.   When Brady played a ball control running offense he was most dangerous, he won 3 rings... dismiss that if you like, but the Giants just ran the game plan that we should have and won with it.  Coughlin went to the same football academy as Belichick, no surprise there... But I get it now, the offense is responsible for everything good that happens to the Pats, when they lose it's the defense's fault.  Got it...
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]


    Wrong. They won 3 SBs with the D getting 8 turnovers. They lost 2 SBs with the D getting 1.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli'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]If your expecting a defense that let up 22 ppg to hold the best offense's in the league to under that, well you were right because that is exactly what we did. If your expecting your 34 ppg offense to score more then half of that in the SB well then you are in for disappointment as our one dimensional offense can't do it. 2 Super bowls = 15.5 ppg but its the defense's fault. I am literally laughing out loud.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    If you're expecting this offense to score 34 points with a hobbled Gronk and 8 drops you're going to be disappointed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

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

    cant expect the defense to hold every single time, espescially since the offense never gave them a breather in the 4th quarter....one possession lasted a total of 31 seconds! absolutely pathetic
     
  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]In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that.... : If you're expecting this offense to score 34 points with a hobbled Gronk and 8 drops you're going to be disappointed.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    Good try underdog clone. I said if you expect our offense to score over HALF of there average you are in for a disappointment.

    I don't think over half of your average is unreasonable.

    The again I wouldn't expect reason to stand in your way.
     
  23. 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]cant expect the defense to hold every single time, espescially since the offense never gave them a breather in the 4th quarter....one possession lasted a total of 31 seconds! absolutely pathetic
    Posted by redsoxfan94[/QUOTE]

    That would be true if "holding" was the D's only job.
    The other part of the equation would be getting the ball back in a timely manner to give the O more opportunity to score. (average is 2 minutes and 38 seconds)This is where they failed miserably.
    They held 50% of the time, which is ok for playing a potent O. 
    They failed to get the ball back even close to the average, 100% of the time.
    Which is why BB let them score otherwise the jints would have just held the ball and kicked a FG, just like they did throughout the whole game.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94'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 would be true if "holding" was the D's only job. The other part of the equation would be getting the ball back in a timely manner to give the O more opportunity to score. (average is 2 minutes and 38 seconds)This is where they failed miserably. They held 50% of the time, which is ok for playing a potent O.  They failed to get the ball back even close to the average, 100% of the time. Which is why BB let them score otherwise the jints would have just held the ball and kicked a FG, just like they did throughout the whole game.
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    the giants offensive game plan was great down the stretch, while the pats offensive gameplan was trash down the stretch.....lobbing the ball up to a hobbled gronk? taking woodhead out of the game after he had just gashed the giants defense on the current and previous drive? bringing in a freakin fullback? horrendous

     
  25. 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.... : the giants offensive game plan was great down the stretch, while the pats offensive gameplan was trash down the stretch.....lobbing the ball up to a hobbled gronk? taking woodhead out of the game after he had just gashed the giants defense on the current and previous drive? bringing in a freakin fullback? horrendous
    Posted by redsoxfan94[/QUOTE]

    That is very true, although I don't know why they brought in the FB, but they were forced to abandon the run in order to preserve time (they could not afford to waste it) and try to score quickly due to the time constraints. (Long passes)
    Both teams could not average 5 minute possessions.  That would have given them a 6 possessions a game.  It was already reduced to 8 as it was.
    Since they could not get the ball back, they had no choice.
    When you have to hurry more than usual, it causes mental mistakes (7 dropped balls) forced passes,  one dimensional ect... It also makes you easier to defend.
    The jints won all their play-off games this way.  That and getting all the breaks.
     

Share