NE's D And Turnovers

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

    Re: NE's D And Turnovers

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Did you see that stat from Sunday's game about the Pats being +70 in turnovers over the last three years!  An amazing stat.

    AGCSBill, just a fan havin' fun!!

     




    There is little doubt the D will get a turnover in this game, it's not the playoffs.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    poor Babe just can't take the defense putting in a better performance than the love of his life Brady

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: NE's D And Turnovers

    Couldn't we have just accepted the fact the Pats D is real good at getting turnovers and enjoy that?  Sheesh, cover yourself with plasitc with all this pi**ing back and forth!!

    AGCSBill, just a fan havin' fun!!

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

    Re: NE's D And Turnovers

    In response to glenr's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Did you see that stat from Sunday's game about the Pats being +70 in turnovers over the last three years!  An amazing stat.

    AGCSBill, just a fan havin' fun!!

     

     




    There is little doubt the D will get a turnover in this game, it's not the playoffs.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    poor Babe just can't take the defense putting in a better performance than the love of his life Brady

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The thing is that he is right. The last Super Bowl and last years AFC Championship game the defense that has "created" an enourmous number of turnovers during the regular season, failed to create a turnover in either game. If the other teams offense protects the ball, you still need to be able to stop them. A defense that relies on turnovers to be effective cannot be counted on when playing discipline offensive teams.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: NE's D And Turnovers

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:

    In response to glenr's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

     

     

     

     

    Did you see that stat from Sunday's game about the Pats being +70 in turnovers over the last three years!  An amazing stat.

    AGCSBill, just a fan havin' fun!!

     

     

     




    There is little doubt the D will get a turnover in this game, it's not the playoffs.

     

     

     

     




    poor Babe just can't take the defense putting in a better performance than the love of his life Brady

     

     



    The thing is that he is right. The last Super Bowl and last years AFC Championship game the defense that has "created" an enourmous number of turnovers during the regular season, failed to create a turnover in either game. If the other teams offense protects the ball, you still need to be able to stop them. A defense that relies on turnovers to be effective cannot be counted on when playing discipline offensive teams.

     



    I really have no desire to get caught up in this kind of argument, but the point is that the same sort of argument can be made regarding the offense.  During the course of the year, the offense was putting up crazy numbers, but come the AFC Championship or the Super Bowl, suddenly they were not able to replicate what they had been doing.  The fact is, neither side lived up to their reputations going into those games.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NE's D And Turnovers

    How to spot a problem.  If your posts look like this, you're either too stupid to understand how to edit the quote box, or your too rude to be bothered to do it. 

    Either way, it's poor.

     

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:

    In response to glenr's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:

     

    In response to glenr's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

     

    In response to Bustchise's comment:

    In response to NedNiederlander's comment:

     

    In response to Bustchise's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to NedNiederlander's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to Bustchise's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to NedNiederlander's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to Bustchise's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to NedNiederlander's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:

     

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to Bustchise's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to NedNiederlander's comment:

     

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:

     

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: NE's D And Turnovers

    In response to NedNiederlander's comment:

     

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to Bustchise's comment:

     

     

     

    Once again, jackazz, it was 19 points (repeating the same lie over and over, doesn't make it true)  If it were 13 points, as you constantly lie about, THEY WOULD HAVE WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Get it?

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from fanonymost. Show fanonymost's posts

    Re: NE's D And Turnovers

    I'm looking for the D to be much more aggressive tonight than it was on Sunday afternoon. With so many MIAs on the offensive side of the ball, Wilfork & Co setting the tone and making game-changing plays will be important IMRHO.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: NE's D And Turnovers

    Now it would be nice if the D would start racking up some sacks.  We need the pass rush to be better.  

     

     

    Now you got the easy part done telling me about it.

    Does that handshaped bruise on your back hurt?

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: NE's D And Turnovers

    In response to NedNiederlander's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to NedNiederlander's comment:

     

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to Bustchise's comment:

     

     

     

    Once again, jackazz, it was 19 points (repeating the same lie over and over, doesn't make it true)  If it were 13 points, as you constantly lie about, THEY WOULD HAVE WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Get it?

     

     



    Yes, take away one of the 3 bonehead plays, and it was 13 points allowed.   Clock would have run more and NY wouldn't have had any time at the end.

     

    Yes.

    Enjoy the facts!

    We can't score past 20 points which is a joke.

    [/QUOTE]


    Where are the facts?   (besides mine)  Why is it so hard for you to tell the truth?

    Take away a bone head play??????  How about we take away the D's 13 on the field penality that negated a TURN OVER!  BWAAAAAHHAAAAHAHAHA.  What a dope.

    D has 2 To's in the last 6 play-off games!    Where are the other 10-12 they get during the rs?

    No huge leads= no turn overs.  Fact

    Worst pass D to EVA play in a SB.  FACT

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

    Re: NE's D And Turnovers

    In response to NedNiederlander's comment:

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to Bustchise's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to NedNiederlander's comment:

     

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:

     

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

     

    Did you see that stat from Sunday's game about the Pats being +70 in turnovers over the last three years!  An amazing stat.

    AGCSBill, just a fan havin' fun!!

     




    There is little doubt the D will get a turnover in this game, it's not the playoffs.

     

     

     

     



    Now to be fair, we could make a similar comment about the offense...they'll probably score 20 points or more, it's not the playoffs.  But, I don't get why people get into these foolish attacks regarding our favorite team.  For me, I'm rooting for all of them.  I think they'll get it done on both sides of the ball.

     

     

     

     



    Exactly. 20 points and under from our supposed lethal offense come January.  Brady has 3 TDs and 7 INTs in his last 3 home AFC title games. That is in no way on the D. Kind of hard to go above and beyond, play with confidence and energy when you're on the field all the time with turnovers by your own QB.

     

     

    I remember some friends of mine in Chicago who are jealous Bears fans asking why NE was so good in the dynasty years.

    My answer:

    Don't turn it over.

    Play smart (no penalties, no mental mistakes).

    Be able to adapt style on offense and defense.

    That is the recipe. If one of these things goes awry, the odds become less for a win.  It happened this past Sunday. Perfect example. If Buffalo was a better team, we lose that game.

     



    Oh, and have top rated defenses.  You always seem to leave that one out, Queenie. Why?

     

     

     

     




     

     

     

    People seem to over emphasize the need for a shut-down D.  Whether the Patiots have ever truly had one is up for debate.  The fact is, this team of ours has always given up points late in the game (Super Bowls specifically)...14 fourth quarter points in '02 to St. Louis, 19 in '04 to Carolina, 7 in '05 to Philadelphia, 14 in '08 to New York,  and 6 in '12 to New York.  If we take a broader look, it turns out that second half points given up is 14 in '02, 19 in '04, 14 in '05, 14 in '08, and 12 in '12.  It looks pretty consistent, win or lose.  Now on offense, second half points look like this...6 points scored in '02, 18 in '04, 17 in '05, 7 in '08, and 7 in '12.  This is where we find the greatest variance.  The only one consistent point that we find here is that, even  in '02, when our offense scored 7 or fewer points, our defense gave up the lead.  I think that it is fair to say that people have a habit of putting on rose colored glasses when they think of our defenses from years ago.  The fact is, when it comes to the most important fact, all of our Super Bowl defenses have been pretty consistent in second half points allowed (excluding the Carolina game).  I don't think you could say any of them shut down anyone.  Certainly, no one considered the D in the '12 Super Bowl to be elite and yet it performed in line with the other D's before it.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The Patriots Super Bowl winning defenses were 1st, 2nd and 6th in points allowed over the course of the seasons. The offenses were 4th, 6th and 12th in points scored. The last three years, the offense has been 1st, 3rd and 1st, while the defense has been 8th, 15th and 9th. I think people are focused more of the fact that in the early 2000s when the team won three out of four Super Bowls. The defense was clearly the strength of the team.

     

     

    I do not get your point about the team that lost the second Super Bowl to the Giants. They were 15th in points allowed and 31st in yards. Combining the two numbers, they were (statistically) the worst defense that BB has had in New England.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    But, they OUTPLAYED the offense in the 2011 postseason.  So, how do you not get it. I don't care where their "ranking" is. It's irrelevant come postseason time.

     

    Also, the pre lockout era of 2001, 2003, or 2004s SBs, the league was different.

    You had weaker QBs in general and Paul Tagliabue wasn't interested in changing rules to promote more production or points being scored. He was a traditionalist. It's why the owners asked him to retire.

    So, yards allowed for a D now is pretty much the worst metric on planet earth, unless it's rushing yards allowed because those kinds of yards run clock, which effectively lose you games in the 4th qtr.

    So, points allowed in top 10-15 to me is not that bad at all for a D, especially when you're off a lockout with no camp and a discombobulated back end like they had in 2011.

    The fact is, the D was playing at its peak in late 2011.    Were they great? Absolutely not.  But, barring a fumble or INT in the 4th qtr, they weren't going to be bailing out Brady and Welker.

    Our own SB winning Ds barely did something of note in that area, where Rodney's INT iced SB 39 but good thing Mcnabb was puking on his shoes, huh?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I disagree about a fumble or an interception being required to "bail out" Brady and Welker in Super Bowl XLVII. In the second half, the Giants scored on three of four possessions. They earned at least three first downs on every drive (5 first downs on the final possession). The Patriots had an average starting position of their own 17 yard-line (their best was their own 21). That is a long field for the offense every time.

    I would contend that in addition to "forcing" a turnover which was allegedly the strength of the defense. A single three-and-out, and a shorter field for the offense could have been enough to change the outcome of that game. All those yards matter. The Giants worst possession in the second half moved the ball from their own 8 yard line to the Patriots 43 yard line before punting and took nearly 5 minutes off the clock. Instead of getting the ball back with a short field, the offense still had to start deep in it's own territory. That matters.

    Same thing in the second half of the Ravens game last year. For a 15 minutes stretch the defense could not stop the Ravens offense. Three consectutive TD drives of 87, 63 and 47 yards is not good defense. One three-and-out in the second half. Again, the Ravens had a non-scoring drive that moved the ball just 27 yards (from their own 18 to the their own 45), but took 4:44 when the need the ball back (down by two scores with seven minutes to go is not impossible). Down two scores with two minutes to go is a lot to ask any offense.

    I agree that the offense under performed in both of those games as well. The modern (2007 to 2012) Patriots have been front runners. They try to score early and often, the scoring puts pressure on the other teams offense which leads to turnovers and compounds the problem. In their playoff losses, they never get that two score lead that causes the other team to come out of their game plan and push too much on offense. 

    To me, that is what was encouraging about the opening week win. The Patriots had to comeback. The defense had to make and stop AND the offense had to score to win the game. It helped that Marrone kept running his hurry-up offense in the second half with a lead (if he takes and extra minute off the clock on each of the second half possesions after they take the lead, the Patriots do not have time to march for the game winning FG).

     

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

    Re: NE's D And Turnovers

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

    Couldn't we have just accepted the fact the Pats D is real good at getting turnovers



    Not in the playoffs.

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

    Re: NE's D And Turnovers

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    Take away a bone head play??????  How about we take away the D's 13 on the field penality that negated a TURN OVER!  BWAAAAAHHAAAAHAHAHA.  What a dope.

    D has 2 To's in the last 6 play-off games!    Where are the other 10-12 they get during the rs?

    No huge leads= no turn overs.  Fact

    Worst pass D to EVA play in a SB.  FACT


    Those facts are like sunlight to a vampire for the dumbkoff. He's the worst Pats fan that ever lived! LMAO

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

    Re: NE's D And Turnovers

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

     

    Couldn't we have just accepted the fact the Pats D is real good at getting turnovers

     



    Not in the playoffs.

     



    Can't we all simply agree that getting turnovers and scoring points are two issues that the Pats need to work on in the playoffs?

     

Share