In response to DougIrwin's comment:
In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:
In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
Another way to make the argument (and maybe it's the start of a mathematical proof) is that if your defense is poor, the average score to win the game will be higher than if your defense is good. If you assume that the variance around the average is the same percentage in both scenarios, then the actual absolute variance in scoring needed is smaller in the first scenario than the last. (I know that's not very clearly written.)
Put simply--if your defense is good so that the winning score is usually about 20 points and the variance around the average is 50%, then your offense is almost certain to win if it scores 30 points (about one TD and one FG above the league average). If your defense is poor so that the winning score is usually around 28 points and the variance around the average is still 50%, then your offense isn't certain to win unless it scores 42 points i(which is three TDs above the league average, and pretty hard to do in games where teams typically only have 11 scoring chances)
But, isn't that obvious? I mean, if a team's D only gives up, say, 17 or 19 points, then all it needs on O is 18 or 20 points. Conversely, if the D gives up, say, 28 points, then the O needs to score 29 points.
The problem has been that even though the Patriots' D has held the opposition to less than 20 points in their last two Super Bowls, the O has not been able to score over 17 points. Seems to me, the way to go is to improve the D even further to try to limit teams to less than two TDs. Hard to do, but it might prove easier than getting this O to become more productive.
We used to have joe cool at qb in super bowls, but maybe there is time for him to recapture his old glories.
The fact these idiots cannot comprehend that wildly underperforming in the biggest game hurts the team is bordering on being deranged.
The only team in the modern era to score 17 and win a sb was the giants and that took an act of god.
Brady destroyed sb 46 with 3 egregious errors which in turn affected clock by 5 minutes or more.
Great 3rd qtr. Awful 4th qtr, obviously.
I'm just surprised that "Mr. Know It All Team Builder" shows time and time again that a team built well doesn't need one person to win a game for you. Especially an expert like you, who should clearly be able to look at that defense (instantly) and be able to see they weren't good. Instead you overvalue average, to below average players and make countless excuses for them. And you actually discredit players around the league who are similar - or better. You don't understand football if you think our third down defense is good. Or that our pass rush is good. You don't understand today's football if you can't comprehend the value of pass defense and pass rush...you just don't. And another thing, you don't understand football if you can sit there and say BJGE is a high quality running back capable of carrying a ground attack against a very good defensive front. If you say/think that, you are a moron.
You will argue the quarterback is the most important position on the field and I will say yes!! And it's why we have won so much! And I will also say Brady would of easily won the Super Bowl MVP award had we won that game, because he was BY FAR the best player on that field for our team that day. Nobody came close, in fact he may of been the best player on that field for both teams.
I'm stunned you run around here all day spreading your gospel when you don't understand even the simplest concepts of football. It's embarrassing.