Patriots-Bucs Video Breakdown of Key Plays

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

    Re: Patriots-Bucs Video Breakdown of Key Plays

    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. "

    CLARK JUDGE______7/13/13_____________________________________
                                  
                             

     

     



    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?

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

    Re: Patriots-Bucs Video Breakdown of Key Plays

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:

    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. "

    CLARK JUDGE______7/13/13_____________________________________
                                  
                             

     

     



    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?



    Uncle!  I admit, I don't know all the stats like you do and unfortunately don't often have the time to go and find them, so I will accept what you say there as fact.  However, in that last Super Bowl we had a team that had the most prolific scoring offense in the league.  I'm not arguing that the defense was awesome...it wasn't.  But the fact is, based on the two units' performances during the regular season, it was the offense that came up way short.  The defense lived up to it's expectations.  Like I said, in terms of points given up in the second half, that was the best performance produced by any of the Patriots' last five Super Bowl teams. 

    It's funny that you mention that safety.  The defense had just held against the Giants and on the first play from scrimmage not only does the offense give the ball right back (in excellent field position for the Giants, by the way), but they also provide the Giants with 2 points.  That's not about having to play perfect...that's about not playing to help your opponent.

    Hey, with any luck we will see improvement on both sides of the ball when they get themselves back into the playoffs.  I am nothing if not an eternal optomist.  Cool

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Section136. Show Section136's posts

    Re: Patriots-Bucs Video Breakdown of Key Plays

    In response to mrtm70's comment:

    In response to TFB12's comment:

    I agree, however we are all right around the same grade.  I would have graded TFB out as a B- on Sunday, I believe I also stated such in TP's thread.  I do feel like with what Brady was working with, which needs to be taken into consideration imo, that it was a bit better then average play.  I think he is taking the heat for the lack of chemistry of the offense to take some pressure off this young, inexperienced WR group.

     

    Agree...like I've mentioned before, it's a work in progress & it's looking like it's progressing in the right direction!




    +1

     

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

    Re: Patriots-Bucs Video Breakdown of Key Plays

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    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. "

    CLARK JUDGE______7/13/13_____________________________________
                                  
                             

     

     



    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?



    I love how a guy who can't even learn how to edit the posts he is responding to is explaining anything too us ^

    BTW this is the dumbest junk science since the "magic bullet" theory, both teams had nine possessions in the last Super Bowl, our offense turned it over twice, the Giants actually punted once more time than we did, the defense did their job, the offense didn't scoring less than half of their regualr season average that is why we lost. 

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

    Re: Patriots-Bucs Video Breakdown of Key Plays

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    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. "

    CLARK JUDGE______7/13/13_____________________________________
                                  
                             

     

     



    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?



    I love how a guy who can't even learn how to edit the posts he is responding to is explaining anything too us ^

     

    BTW this is the dumbest junk science since the "magic bullet" theory, both teams had nine possessions in the last Super Bowl, our offense turned it over twice, the Giants actually punted once more time than we did, the defense did their job, the offense didn't scoring less than half of their regualr season average that is why we lost. 



    That's what I remember seeing.  Well said.

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

    Re: Patriots-Bucs Video Breakdown of Key Plays

    BTW this is the dumbest junk science since the "magic bullet" theory, both teams had nine possessions in the last Super Bowl, our offense turned it over twice, the Giants actually punted once more time than we did, the defense did their job, the offense didn't scoring less than half of their regualr season average that is why we lost.

    Lack of possessions because the D couldn't get off the field is JunK science?

    So, tell me... why do teams try to keep Qb's on the bench?

    Is that Junk science?    Was Parcells and Coughlins and BB's plan against the Bills, junk science? 

    The Pats D , with immense ineptitude, kept it's own O on the bench.  This is fact

    Both teams had 8 real possessions a safety on the first play and a kneel down to end the half resulting in a total of 16 seconds, don't count in my book.  In fact, if anything possessions should have increased to 13 with no time off the clock for those, not 8.

    The Pats final drive was also limited to 57 seconds due to time.

    Each of the so called  terrific, punts took an average of 5 minutes off the clock, double the time for an average NFL defensive possession.

    The gints O  wanted to burn clock.  The pats didn't because of the position they were put in,  from the start..  Also not debatable.

    Do you have ANY idea that it is easier to make a stop than it is to score?

    Think about that.  From it's inception, NFL teams are stopped significantly more than they score.

    The ratio is 65/35 in favor of the D being successful.

    So, by that logic which is certainly not junk science, who failed?  Their ratio in the second half was 25/75 and 50/50 throughout the game.

    The Gints defensive was  62/38 in stops over scores, which puts O slightly better than average.  The Pats D, not so much.

    It's only junk if you can't understand it.


    "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. "

    CLARK JUDGE______7/13/13_____________________________________
                                  
                             

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

    Re: Patriots-Bucs Video Breakdown of Key Plays

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:

    BTW this is the dumbest junk science since the "magic bullet" theory, both teams had nine possessions in the last Super Bowl, our offense turned it over twice, the Giants actually punted once more time than we did, the defense did their job, the offense didn't scoring less than half of their regualr season average that is why we lost.

    Lack of possessions because the D couldn't get off the field is JunK science?

    So, tell me... why do teams try to keep Qb's on the bench?

    Is that Junk science?    Was Parcells and Coughlins and BB's plan against the Bills, junk science? 

    The Pats D , with immense ineptitude, kept it's own O on the bench.  This is fact

    Both teams had 8 real possessions a safety on the first play and a kneel down to end the half resulting in a total of 16 seconds, don't count in my book.  In fact, if anything possessions should have increased to 13 with no time off the clock for those, not 8.

    The Pats final drive was also limited to 57 seconds due to time.

    Each of the so called  terrific, punts took an average of 5 minutes off the clock, double the time for an average NFL defensive possession.

    The gints O  wanted to burn clock.  The pats didn't because of the position they were put in,  from the start..  Also not debatable.

    Do you have ANY idea that it is easier to make a stop than it is to score?

    Think about that.  From it's inception, NFL teams are stopped significantly more than they score.

    The ratio is 65/35 in favor of the D being successful.

    So, by that logic which is certainly not junk science, who failed?  Their ratio in the second half was 25/75 and 50/50 throughout the game.

    The Gints defensive was  62/38 in stops over scores, which puts O slightly better than average.  The Pats D, not so much.

    It's only junk if you can't understand it.


    "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. "

    CLARK JUDGE______7/13/13_____________________________________
                                  
                             



    So who's fault were the safety and the interception?  Those were two opportunities to score where the offense ended up giving the ball right back to the opposing team.  In fact, the safety provided the opposing team two points, as well as excellent field position that resulted in a touchdown.  That responsibility lies at the feet of the offense.  Now, don't get me wrong, I do agree that it would have been helpful if the defense could have done a better job getting off the field on third downs, but the fact is that they did provide the offense time and opportunity to extend the team's lead in the second half.  It just didn't happen.

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

    Re: Patriots-Bucs Video Breakdown of Key Plays

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:

     

     

     

    BTW this is the dumbest junk science since the "magic bullet" theory, both teams had nine possessions in the last Super Bowl, our offense turned it over twice, the Giants actually punted once more time than we did, the defense did their job, the offense didn't scoring less than half of their regualr season average that is why we lost.

    Lack of possessions because the D couldn't get off the field is JunK science?

    So, tell me... why do teams try to keep Qb's on the bench?

    Is that Junk science?    Was Parcells and Coughlins and BB's plan against the Bills, junk science? 

    The Pats D , with immense ineptitude, kept it's own O on the bench.  This is fact

    Both teams had 8 real possessions a safety on the first play and a kneel down to end the half resulting in a total of 16 seconds, don't count in my book.  In fact, if anything possessions should have increased to 13 with no time off the clock for those, not 8.

    The Pats final drive was also limited to 57 seconds due to time.

    Each of the so called  terrific, punts took an average of 5 minutes off the clock, double the time for an average NFL defensive possession.

    The gints O  wanted to burn clock.  The pats didn't because of the position they were put in,  from the start..  Also not debatable.

    Do you have ANY idea that it is easier to make a stop than it is to score?

    Think about that.  From it's inception, NFL teams are stopped significantly more than they score.

    The ratio is 65/35 in favor of the D being successful.

    So, by that logic which is certainly not junk science, who failed?  Their ratio in the second half was 25/75 and 50/50 throughout the game.

    The Gints defensive was  62/38 in stops over scores, which puts O slightly better than average.  The Pats D, not so much.

    It's only junk if you can't understand it.


    "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. "

    CLARK JUDGE______7/13/13_____________________________________
                                  
                             

     

     



    So who's fault were the safety and the interception?  Those were two opportunities to score where the offense ended up giving the ball right back to the opposing team.  In fact, the safety provided the opposing team two points, as well as excellent field position that resulted in a touchdown.  That responsibility lies at the feet of the offense.  Now, don't get me wrong, I do agree that it would have been helpful if the defense could have done a better job getting off the field on third downs, but the fact is that they did provide the offense time and opportunity to extend the team's lead in the second half.  It just didn't happen.

     

     

     




    The safty and int are the offenses fault,  That's a given.  No one has denied that.

     

    My point is that the lost 4 -6 possessions hurt more,

    Two opps squandered by the O compared to at least twice as many lost possessions by the D.

    My point is, the 2 screw-ups by the O might have been overcome with 10 more opportunities to score as apposed to 6 more opportunities to score.

    A turn-over or 3 and out would have helped too.

    So would a goal-line stand. 

    It's really not uncommon for a team not to score in 3 possessions.  In fact, it's the norm.

    It is UNCOMMON for a team to score in 3 out of 4, that is certainly not the norm.

    That's why more possessions would have been nice.

     

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

    Re: Patriots-Bucs Video Breakdown of Key Plays

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:

     

     

     

    BTW this is the dumbest junk science since the "magic bullet" theory, both teams had nine possessions in the last Super Bowl, our offense turned it over twice, the Giants actually punted once more time than we did, the defense did their job, the offense didn't scoring less than half of their regualr season average that is why we lost.

    Lack of possessions because the D couldn't get off the field is JunK science?

    So, tell me... why do teams try to keep Qb's on the bench?

    Is that Junk science?    Was Parcells and Coughlins and BB's plan against the Bills, junk science? 

    The Pats D , with immense ineptitude, kept it's own O on the bench.  This is fact

    Both teams had 8 real possessions a safety on the first play and a kneel down to end the half resulting in a total of 16 seconds, don't count in my book.  In fact, if anything possessions should have increased to 13 with no time off the clock for those, not 8.

    The Pats final drive was also limited to 57 seconds due to time.

    Each of the so called  terrific, punts took an average of 5 minutes off the clock, double the time for an average NFL defensive possession.

    The gints O  wanted to burn clock.  The pats didn't because of the position they were put in,  from the start..  Also not debatable.

    Do you have ANY idea that it is easier to make a stop than it is to score?

    Think about that.  From it's inception, NFL teams are stopped significantly more than they score.

    The ratio is 65/35 in favor of the D being successful.

    So, by that logic which is certainly not junk science, who failed?  Their ratio in the second half was 25/75 and 50/50 throughout the game.

    The Gints defensive was  62/38 in stops over scores, which puts O slightly better than average.  The Pats D, not so much.

    It's only junk if you can't understand it.


    "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. "

    CLARK JUDGE______7/13/13_____________________________________
                                  
                             

     

     



    So who's fault were the safety and the interception?  Those were two opportunities to score where the offense ended up giving the ball right back to the opposing team.  In fact, the safety provided the opposing team two points, as well as excellent field position that resulted in a touchdown.  That responsibility lies at the feet of the offense.  Now, don't get me wrong, I do agree that it would have been helpful if the defense could have done a better job getting off the field on third downs, but the fact is that they did provide the offense time and opportunity to extend the team's lead in the second half.  It just didn't happen.

     

     

     




    The safty and int are the offenses fault,  That's a given.  No one has denied that.

     

    My point is that the lost 4 -6 possessions hurt more,

    Two opps squandered by the O compared to at least twice as many lost possessions by the D.

    My point is, the 2 screw-ups by the O might have been overcome with 10 more opportunities to score as apposed to 6 more opportunities to score.

    A turn-over or 3 and out would have helped too.

    So would a goal-line stand. 

    It's really not uncommon for a team not to score in 3 possessions.  In fact, it's the norm.

    It is UNCOMMON for a team to score in 3 out of 4, that is certainly not the norm.

    That's why more possessions would have been nice.

     



    I'm not going to argue with you there.  More possessions would have been helpful.  Actually, a healthy Gronkowski would have been even more helpful!

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

    Re: Patriots-Bucs Video Breakdown of Key Plays

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:

     

    I'm not going to argue with you there.  More possessions would have been helpful.  Actually, a healthy Gronkowski would have been even more helpful!

    Arguing with this guy is like peeing into the wind, yeah more possessions would have helped, if the Pat's offense didn't turn it over twice, there are two more possessions, two less points you have given up via a safety, there is better field possession.  

    The end all be all is that the offense didn't score in the entire 4th quarter despite having an equal amount of possessions as the Giants, they didn't score for the second half of the 3rd quarter either, so after scoring minutes into the 3rd quarter, they went the remainder of the game without scoring.  This is the polar opposite of two last minute drives to end the Super Bowls for wins, this is the opposite of clutch.

    Its the offense's job to score points, its the defense's job to stop the opposing team from scoring.  Even after Brady threw the INT to start the 4th with the slimmest of leads, our defense held the Giants and forced them to punt, our offense punted, punted, and then failed (three straight incompletions) with a minute left.  That is the definition of sux.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share