In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:
In response to pezz4pats's comment:
In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:
In response to pezz4pats' comment:
It's called CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and even Tom Brady IS NOT & SHOULD NOT be above it
It's called being sick and obsessive on every post, every day.
Sick, obsessions do not allow for constructive anything.
"The worse New England has gotten on defense, the better Brady has been forced to become -- with 109 touchdowns, 20 interceptions and a 39-9 record the past three seasons. "
Certainly, there is an element of truth to that. The irony is, however, that when it comes to Super Bowls, the defense has been remarkably consistent in the points it has allowed, particularly in the second halves of these games, and that includes the two losses. The part of the team that has experienced the greatest variance has been the offense. Now, I'm not laying that all at TB's feet, but I don't think it is unfair to say that he has played a part in it.
So, by that logic, it's blame the O because the D typically gives up points in the second half?
You don't see a flaw in that?
Do you think in the last 2, that maybe....just maybe..... the O could have scored more with 4-6 more opportunities to score like in an average NFL game? Like in their other SB's?
No body on this forum ever said TB was perfect or even great. The problem is, he had to be and so did the receivers.. The problem is, if your QB HAS to be perfect, with limited opportunities to score, to overcome defensive deficiencies that are causing the loss of possessions, you're probably screwed. The Gints were banking on that.
That's not how you win SB's.
No, my point is only to say that, as much as everyone suggests that the defense in the two most recent Super Bowls somehow played less effectively than they did in the three that the Patriots won, is not really accurate. The total number of points given up (excluding the Carolina game) is very consistent. All of those teams had a habit of giving up points late. Actually, the team that performed best, points wise, in the second half, was the most recent Super Bowl loss. Now that's ironic, isn't it?
I'm not saying that it wouldn't have been nice if the defense could have shut the door on the opposition to close out any of those games. The point is, they have never done that, even when the team won.
As to the suggestion that the offense needed to be perfect in any of those Super Bowls...that's not true, at all. They didn't have to be, any more than the defense had to be. The difference between those wins and losses was one more turnover, one less poor decision, better execution, and just a little bit of luck. They could have been 5 and 0 over that stretch, just as easily as they could have gone 0 and 5. As it is, they are 3 and 2. I can live with that.
Ok, let's make this clear.
Did the Defense cause the Offense to lose 4-6 possessions in the first 3 SB's?
NOPE, they were 12-14 possession games!
It happened in the last 2. And it happened immediately with the D on the field for 10 minutes on the first drive in SB 42 and 6 in 46. Do you see the scoring opportunities lost right from the get go? And it never ended.
Do you think the O would have scored more if the D hadn't lost those possessions for the O? Was the D, in those games, on the field for nearly 5 minutes a possession, nearly double a NFL Defensive possession? Do you not see how this hurt the O?
It ROBBED TIME FROM THEM. It robbed scoring opportunities. It gave them little time to recover from errors. It made them one dimensional and unable to control their fate, because they had no choice but to try and score quickly, because both the O and the D can't spend 5 minutes, each on the field.
My point is that with the limited possessions, you basically HAVE to play mistake free because if you don't, you don't have adequate opportunity to recover from any mishaps.
For example: The safety on the first drive.
Do you agree it would have been easier to overcome that with 12 scoring opportunities, rather than 8?
Now, couple that with the D's affinity for giving up points in the second half and the O's measly 4 possessions in that half, to try and score, and what do you get?
A team that actually had a 8 point lead, scoring on 3 0f their first 5 possessions, resulting a "L". How about the D NOT allowing scores on 3 of those 4 final drives (75%)?
50% is way above the norm, but 50% would have won it. WOW!
The Gints D did their job by keeping the Pats to under 50% scoring in the second half.
The Pats D did not.
Inexcusable from the Defensive genius, who beat the Bills by keeping their O off the field!
Looks like Coughlin learned more from that game than BB.
Or maybe the Pats were just lacking the talent on defense to do it. Ya think?