Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...
posted at 7/6/2013 1:33 AM EDT
In response to wozzy's comment:
There were an equal amount of possessions in the game in question,
It's not about equality. Why do you keep foisting this on the people who discuss this? You are the only person discussing equal or unequal numbers of possessions.
The total possessions for BOTH teams was incredibly low.
So ... citing 17 as a low score for an offense and 19 as a good showing for a defense is the real bullcr@ap move if you forget to mention how short the game was in terms of actual chances for the Giants and Patriots to score.
NEITHER team had a good amount of chances.
Hence 19 and 17 are both good scores.
The Giants scored on 50% of their drives. It doesn't matter that they punted more than NE .... that is a garbage stat that means nothing. If they punted once, and NE punted zero times, it would be the same stat, and the game would have had a much higher score. The stat is meaningless when discussing defensive performance without mentionting this:
neither NE nor the Giants punted very often at all.
They BOTH scored on a very good amount of their total possessions.
The average NFL team scores on about 30% of their total possessions, short and kneeling possesions subtracted.
NE scored on 37% in that game and the Giants scored on 50%. Both of those are very, very good to excellent figures.
If the game had a larger number of possessions it would have likely been equal as well (you can't have more than ONE more possession than an opponent, and to do that you need to manage gettting the final possession in both halves) but BOTH teams would have likely scored more.
Get it? So there is no need to mention equality of possessions. You can just give that a rest, it's a complete non-sequitur in the conversation.
Giving up 19 points in 8 real possessions is BAD.
Scoring 17 in 8 real possesions is pretty good, though not truly great.
In an average game (~12 possessions) scoring at that rate would lead to a NE 26 NY 29 score.
Hence, both offenses actually played pretty well. Neither defense was great, though NE's was markedly worse.
The low score for both teams was an ARTIFACT of the GIANTS' offensive game plan to limit NE's chances on offense, which was executed with zero resistance from NE's defense.
NE running more doesn't fix that ... NE's defense preventing the Giants from getting a first down on at least one or two of their drives or possibly even forcing a turnover, however, may have.
If not ... please refute the numbers. But don't switch it up and counter a false argument no one is making but you.
And yes, running more doesn't necessarily mean that you score less ... but it generally does mean you score less. In the playoff and in the regular season, passing usually results in more scoring and better scoring efficiency.
I think what you are trying to argue, even though you won't utter the words per-drive or efficiency, is that running more doesn't necessarily make you less efficient. That is true it doesn't, but statistically it almost always has in the last 30-40 years of football.
Running more, even though it will tend to make you less efficient overall, can be a good idea if you have a great defense because it LIMITS the CHANCES the opponent has.
But if you are an offensive ballclub ... you need those chances.