Sums Up The Defense

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    YEAH!!! The new rules don't allow for a greater offensive output. Great work Pro????????

     

    The Golden Age (2004-present)
    As if quarterbacks hadn't been coddled enough by coaches and rulemakers over the past two decades, one profound game, and one very angry team executive, made their lives even easier in 2004.
    One, New England defenders pushed the bounds of pass interference rules in the 2003 AFC championship game, badly roughing up Indianapolis receivers and shutting down the Colts high-powered offense in a 24-14 Patriots victory.
    Two, Indy's powerful president, Bill Polian, complained to the league rather loudly in the wake of his team's loss.
    As a result, the NFL determined that its officials would "re-emphasize" pass interference rules in 2004 and beyond. Though not officially a rule change, the impact on the passing game was profound.

    The very next season, Indy quarterback Peyton Manning (pictured here) went out and rewrote the record books, with 49 TD passes and a 121.1 passer rating that was nearly 10 points better than any that had come before it. The league-wide passer rating, meanwhile, jumped from 78.3 in 2003 to a record 82.8 in 2004.

    The records have remained under assault since then: Tom Brady broke Manning's TD-toss record with 50 in 2007, while posting the second-highest passer rating in history (117.2). With less fanfare, Drew Brees set a record with 440 completions in 2007. And, as noted above, NFL quarterbacks are poised to rewrite the record books in countless categories here in 2008, while newcomers have bucked tradition by easily performing at high level.

    But today's high-flying newcomers and record-setting veterans aren't better quarterbacks than players of the past. They just have advantages their predecessors never enjoyed back before the Golden Age of the passing game.



    [object HTMLDivElement]

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Like I said. Sensationalism, and exaggeration. A typical tactic used when losing your footing in a discussion.  Now Wozzy and I are saying "the players don't matter and the coaching sucks". Yeah buddy that's really what were saying. 

    Why can't you acknowledge that losing almost an entire coaching staff can have a negative impact? There is a learning curve with new coaches. It doesn't mean the new coaches "suck" it means they are new!  It can hinder player development,  unless you think BB is the only guy coaching?  You should just drop it. It's a little embarrassing at this point.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Just to let you know True, I've saved this phrase as what you are saying Pro is doing is exactly what you have been doing for months now. Glad you finally admitted it.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    No, you have actually said BB should not have taken certain players and should have taken other players. Your reasoning behind this is because we haven't won a SB since 2004. You cite team building and personnel decisions as the reasons for coming up short. This notion is as ridiculous as it is ignorant. We have been 1 play away from 3 more super bowl titles in 3 separate games. That would have given us 6 championships in the 13 years BB has been building our football teams. 

    This entire debate is splitting hairs. We are spoiled Pats fans trying to assign blame as to why we haven't won another SB. I don't strongly believe one unit is responsible, I just strongly believe that anybody who thinks BB is the problem is an idiot and should have their heads examined.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In 2001 the number of defenses with 100+ penalties = ten

    Total number of defensive penalties = 2875

    *********************************************************

    In 2013 the number of defenses with 100+ penalties = fifteen

    Total number of defensive penalties = 3135

      *Six teams in 2013 had more penalty flags thrown against them then the league leader in 2001.

    *********************************************************

    260 more penalties thrown against defenses since the early 2000's, no Pro you're right, nothings changed.

    You're the only person in the world who thinks the NFL hasn't changed, it's all old school players talk about on radio sports talk, but in defense of an indefensible argument you'll insist that the sky isn't blue.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In 2001 the number of defenses with 100+ penalties = ten

    Total number of defensive penalties = 2875

    *********************************************************

    In 2013 the number of defenses with 100+ penalties = fifteen

    Total number of defensive penalties = 3135

      *Six teams in 2013 had more penalty flags thrown against them then the league leader in 2001.

    *********************************************************

    260 more penalties thrown against defenses since the early 2000's, no Pro you're right, nothings changed.

    You're the only person in the world who thinks the NFL hasn't changed, it's all old school players talk about on radio sports talk, but in defense of an indefensible argument you'll insist that the sky isn't blue.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    You really have a problem with putting things into context, don't you?

    There were 260 more penalties you say?  Do you know that there are 256 games played in the rs each year?

    Do you know that this means that the increase in penalties amounts to ONE PER GAME?  Or 1/2 per team per game??????

    Now, don't you feel silly?  You should.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

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

     

    Let me guess, more math explaining how nearly 300 more flags isn't a lot.  As if the final scores in the modern age aren't enough proof, we need pezz's advanced math.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    YEAH!!! The new rules don't allow for a greater offensive output. Great work Pro????????

     

    The Golden Age (2004-present)
    As if quarterbacks hadn't been coddled enough by coaches and rulemakers over the past two decades, one profound game, and one very angry team executive, made their lives even easier in 2004.
    One, New England defenders pushed the bounds of pass interference rules in the 2003 AFC championship game, badly roughing up Indianapolis receivers and shutting down the Colts high-powered offense in a 24-14 Patriots victory.
    Two, Indy's powerful president, Bill Polian, complained to the league rather loudly in the wake of his team's loss.
    As a result, the NFL determined that its officials would "re-emphasize" pass interference rules in 2004 and beyond. Though not officially a rule change, the impact on the passing game was profound.

    The very next season, Indy quarterback Peyton Manning (pictured here) went out and rewrote the record books, with 49 TD passes and a 121.1 passer rating that was nearly 10 points better than any that had come before it. The league-wide passer rating, meanwhile, jumped from 78.3 in 2003 to a record 82.8 in 2004.

    The records have remained under assault since then: Tom Brady broke Manning's TD-toss record with 50 in 2007, while posting the second-highest passer rating in history (117.2). With less fanfare, Drew Brees set a record with 440 completions in 2007. And, as noted above, NFL quarterbacks are poised to rewrite the record books in countless categories here in 2008, while newcomers have bucked tradition by easily performing at high level.

    But today's high-flying newcomers and record-setting veterans aren't better quarterbacks than players of the past. They just have advantages their predecessors never enjoyed back before the Golden Age of the passing game.



    [object HTMLDivElement]

    [/QUOTE]


    Dude, I showed you the actual scoring numbers: points per game and TDs scored.  Sure some offenses have great passing games.  But I define "offensive output" as points scored and points have increased by about 3 per game on average since 2000.  

    Some article you pull off the web which doesn't even address scoring is irrelevant. 

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:


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


     


    Let me guess, more math explaining how nearly 300 more flags isn't a lot.  As if the final scores in the modern age aren't enough proof, we need pezz's advanced math.





    [object HTMLDivElement]


    No, I don't consider half a penalty per team per game, increase, relevant.  Nor do I believe any one else would either.  That huge number you reference seems to become miniscule when you consider, it applies to 256 games,  not counting the play-offs, which would make it even more insignificant.


    Math is your friend!


    LOL


    Just curious, not that it matters considering the insignificance of it, but why did you only list those two years?  What were the differences in 2002-2009?  Why not list them all to show a progressive increase?  Was there one or was there a yearly fluctuation?  Did those penalties decrease after the initial rule changes?


    You didn't purposely leave them out, did you?


    Not only that, your premise that points per game have increased significantly are completely BOGUS, as pro has shown you.  Did it ever occur to you that the output of a handful of teams are responsible for the increase and not an irrelevant increase in penalties?  For example; Payton, scoring 17 points above the average per team, actually raised the average by more than half a point this year.. He wasn't the only one either.


    You do the math, if you can.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:



     




    In response to PatsEng's comment:




    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]




    Like I said. Sensationalism, and exaggeration. A typical tactic used when losing your footing in a discussion.  Now Wozzy and I are saying "the players don't matter and the coaching sucks". Yeah buddy that's really what were saying. 




    Why can't you acknowledge that losing almost an entire coaching staff can have a negative impact? There is a learning curve with new coaches. It doesn't mean the new coaches "suck" it means they are new!  It can hinder player development,  unless you think BB is the only guy coaching?  You should just drop it. It's a little embarrassing at this point.




     






    [object HTMLDivElement]


     


     


    Just to let you know True, I've saved this phrase as what you are saying Pro is doing is exactly what you have been doing for months now. Glad you finally admitted it.


     





    [object HTMLDivElement]


     


    No, you have actually said BB should not have taken certain players and should have taken other players. Your reasoning behind this is because we haven't won a SB since 2004. You cite team building and personnel decisions as the reasons for coming up short. This notion is as ridiculous as it is ignorant. We have been 1 play away from 3 more super bowl titles in 3 separate games. That would have given us 6 championships in the 13 years BB has been building our football teams. 


     


    This entire debate is splitting hairs. We are spoiled Pats fans trying to assign blame as to why we haven't won another SB. I don't strongly believe one unit is responsible, I just strongly believe that anybody who thinks BB is the problem is an idiot and should have their heads examined.


     


    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]


    You say my notion is ridiculous when you yourself has said we have been 1 play and those I've mentioned we shouldn't have picked up made no difference in SB's yet those I said we should have had better overall seasons that year.... Yeah.... better players or even ones that would be on the field during the SB couldn't make a single play as you put it. Then why did we pay Revis, or TB, or any of our higher priced guys? Because they have better talent and can make those 1 plays! How is that ridiculous in the least? Saying a better player wouldn't make a difference is only a statement you would make. True you are so blind you are talking out both sides with hypocrite tattoo'd across your forehead. but as you said:


    "Sensationalism, and exaggeration. A typical tactic used when losing your footing in a discussion"


    So go ahead and go to extremes and call me names because by your own words you're loosing your footing

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:



     




    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     




    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]




    Like I said. Sensationalism, and exaggeration. A typical tactic used when losing your footing in a discussion.  Now Wozzy and I are saying "the players don't matter and the coaching sucks". Yeah buddy that's really what were saying. 




    Why can't you acknowledge that losing almost an entire coaching staff can have a negative impact? There is a learning curve with new coaches. It doesn't mean the new coaches "suck" it means they are new!  It can hinder player development,  unless you think BB is the only guy coaching?  You should just drop it. It's a little embarrassing at this point.




     






    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

     

     

     

    Just to let you know True, I've saved this phrase as what you are saying Pro is doing is exactly what you have been doing for months now. Glad you finally admitted it.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

     

     

    No, you have actually said BB should not have taken certain players and should have taken other players. Your reasoning behind this is because we haven't won a SB since 2004. You cite team building and personnel decisions as the reasons for coming up short. This notion is as ridiculous as it is ignorant. We have been 1 play away from 3 more super bowl titles in 3 separate games. That would have given us 6 championships in the 13 years BB has been building our football teams. 

     

     

     

    This entire debate is splitting hairs. We are spoiled Pats fans trying to assign blame as to why we haven't won another SB. I don't strongly believe one unit is responsible, I just strongly believe that anybody who thinks BB is the problem is an idiot and should have their heads examined.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    You say my notion is ridiculous when you yourself has said we have been 1 play and those I've mentioned we shouldn't have picked up made no difference in SB's yet those I said we should have had better overall seasons that year.... Yeah.... better players or even ones that would be on the field during the SB couldn't make a single play as you put it. Then why did we pay Revis, or TB, or any of our higher priced guys? Because they have better talent and can make those 1 plays! How is that ridiculous in the least? Saying a better player wouldn't make a difference is only a statement you would make. True you are so blind you are talking out both sides with hypocrite tattoo'd across your forehead. but as you said:

     

    "Sensationalism, and exaggeration. A typical tactic used when losing your footing in a discussion"

     

    So go ahead and go to extremes and call me names because by your own words you're loosing your footing

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Suggesting that a player YOU said we should have signed would have been the difference maker  in winning another super bowl is arrogant. I can make the case that if we had signed player A, B, or C that you said we should have signed then we might not have made it to 3 straight afc championship games, and not even had the opportunity to play for another Super Bowl. Nothing about that is sensationalism.

    Sensationalism is when you said BB needs to sign more mid level receivers who always get you 1,200 yards, 10 tds a season and never have a down game no matter who is covering them. That might soumd like I exaggerated your words but no, that is what you actually said Belichick needs to do. Mid level my azz bud, especially when you had Gronk, Hern and Welker catching over 70% of their targets for over 20 tds a year. Not much room for your sensational mid level receiver catching 1,200 yards and 10 tds every year is there?

    You realize 13-3 average every year is really good right? 3 plays away from 6 championships in 13 years. Put your feet up and enjoy the ride dude.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    YEAH!!! The new rules don't allow for a greater offensive output. Great work Pro????????

     

    The Golden Age (2004-present)
    As if quarterbacks hadn't been coddled enough by coaches and rulemakers over the past two decades, one profound game, and one very angry team executive, made their lives even easier in 2004.
    One, New England defenders pushed the bounds of pass interference rules in the 2003 AFC championship game, badly roughing up Indianapolis receivers and shutting down the Colts high-powered offense in a 24-14 Patriots victory.
    Two, Indy's powerful president, Bill Polian, complained to the league rather loudly in the wake of his team's loss.
    As a result, the NFL determined that its officials would "re-emphasize" pass interference rules in 2004 and beyond. Though not officially a rule change, the impact on the passing game was profound.

    The very next season, Indy quarterback Peyton Manning (pictured here) went out and rewrote the record books, with 49 TD passes and a 121.1 passer rating that was nearly 10 points better than any that had come before it. The league-wide passer rating, meanwhile, jumped from 78.3 in 2003 to a record 82.8 in 2004.

    The records have remained under assault since then: Tom Brady broke Manning's TD-toss record with 50 in 2007, while posting the second-highest passer rating in history (117.2). With less fanfare, Drew Brees set a record with 440 completions in 2007. And, as noted above, NFL quarterbacks are poised to rewrite the record books in countless categories here in 2008, while newcomers have bucked tradition by easily performing at high level.

    But today's high-flying newcomers and record-setting veterans aren't better quarterbacks than players of the past. They just have advantages their predecessors never enjoyed back before the Golden Age of the passing game.



    [object HTMLDivElement]

    [/QUOTE]


    Dude, I showed you the actual scoring numbers: points per game and TDs scored.  Sure some offenses have great passing games.  But I define "offensive output" as points scored and points have increased by about 3 per game on average since 2000.  

    Some article you pull off the web which doesn't even address scoring is irrelevant. 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    What the hell is your point? Are you trying to sell us that this new post 2004 league is not geared towards greater offensive output? Really?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Suggesting that a player YOU said we should have signed would have been the difference maker  in winning another super bowl is arrogant. I can make the case that if we had signed player A, B, or C that you said we should have signed then we might not have made it to 3 straight afc championship games, and not even had the opportunity to play for another Super Bowl. Nothing about that is sensationalism.

    Sensationalism is when you said BB needs to sign more mid level receivers who always get you 1,200 yards, 10 tds a season and never have a down game no matter who is covering them. That might soumd like I exaggerated your words but no, that is what you actually said Belichick needs to do. Mid level my azz bud, especially when you had Gronk, Hern and Welker catching over 70% of their targets for over 20 tds a year. Not much room for your sensational mid level receiver catching 1,200 yards and 10 tds every year is there?

    You realize 13-3 average every year is really good right? 3 plays away from 6 championships in 13 years. Put your feet up and enjoy the ride dude.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Sensationalism - the use or effect of sensational subject matter or treatment

    Kind of like sensationalizing a point to prove someone wrong like you have done here and continue to do to prove your points. Like making it seem a poster thinks they are smarter than BB as a whole picture even though they never actually said such instead of focusing on the individual statement as a microcasm. As you said True:

    "Sensationalism, and exaggeration. A typical tactic used when losing your footing in a discussion"

    But, you are right someone who had a better year and actually played on the field during games would have no impact to say a player who's only stat was 1 drop or wasn't on the field to begin with at all........ but since it's not sensationalism I guess you're smarter than BB, you should call him and tell him not to waste his money on durable high talent players you don't need them because they won't make a difference for 1 play and while you are at it tell him he's outdated and a product of the assistant coaches he lost.... hypocrite

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:


    What the hell is your point? Are you trying to sell us that this new post 2004 league is not geared towards greater offensive output? Really?


     


     


    Are you an idiot?  My point very simply was that in recent years the Pats offense scores roughly 20 more TDs per season than it did in the Weis years, while their defense gives up about 15 more TDs per season.  Wozzy responded that that was just because offensive output increased leaguewide. I never disagreed that offensive output has increased, but simply stated that the increase was on the order of about 3 or 4 TDs per season per team, so the big swings in the Pats numbers are not explained simply by general changes in scoring across the league.  They reflect real changes in the productivity of those units over time.  The offense has gotten much more productive and the defense much less. 


    Now if you want to respond, please try to stay on topic and explain why an increase from ~35 offensive TDs per season to ~55 is not an improvement in offensive output and why an increase in TDs given up by the defense from ~22 to about ~37 is not a decrease in defensive productivity.  


     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to OnlyDaTruth's comment:

    always fun to watch.  They have very much changed from decade to decade...even from year to year. I would say they're 3-4 players away from being really really good

    This is where we differ. They are already really really good. They're 3-4 players away from being dominant.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to digger0862's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to OnlyDaTruth's comment:

    [QUOTE]always fun to watch.  They have very much changed from decade to decade...even from year to year. I would say they're 3-4 players away from being really really good
    [/QUOTE]
    This is where we differ. They are already really really good. They're 3-4 players away from being dominant.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I guess it depends on one's perspective.  At the very minimum, we can probably agree that they're good.....lol

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to OnlyDaTruth's comment:

    I guess it depends on one's perspective.  At the very minimum, we can probably agree that they're good.....lol

    Tom Brady puts them in with the elite. Without him they are still good as long as the defense keeps improving and as long as the young offense matures a bit.


    By the way, you remind me of anonymous, a poster I sparred with last year. lol

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from OnlyDaTruth. Show OnlyDaTruth's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to digger0862's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to OnlyDaTruth's comment:

    [QUOTE]I guess it depends on one's perspective.  At the very minimum, we can probably agree that they're good.....lol
    [/QUOTE]
    Tom Brady puts them in with the elite. Without him they are still good as long as the defense keeps improving and as long as the young offense matures a bit.

    By the way, you remind me of anonymous, a poster I sparred with last year. lol

    [/QUOTE]

    Dunno who that is.  No need to spar - just some friendy discussions about the Patriots :)

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In 2001 the number of defenses with 100+ penalties = ten

    Total number of defensive penalties = 2875

    *********************************************************

    In 2013 the number of defenses with 100+ penalties = fifteen

    Total number of defensive penalties = 3135

      *Six teams in 2013 had more penalty flags thrown against them then the league leader in 2001.

    *********************************************************

    260 more penalties thrown against defenses since the early 2000's, no Pro you're right, nothings changed.

    You're the only person in the world who thinks the NFL hasn't changed, it's all old school players talk about on radio sports talk, but in defense of an indefensible argument you'll insist that the sky isn't blue.

    [/QUOTE]


    old school players talk about because they are OLD and wearing rose-colored glasses...this whining and glorifying the past is such bs.. Today's athletes would embarrass most of the "greats" from the past that's how much better they are and it's not rule changes and some money-driven plot it's simple evolution

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    YEAH!!! The new rules don't allow for a greater offensive output. Great work Pro????????

     

    The Golden Age (2004-present)
    As if quarterbacks hadn't been coddled enough by coaches and rulemakers over the past two decades, one profound game, and one very angry team executive, made their lives even easier in 2004.
    One, New England defenders pushed the bounds of pass interference rules in the 2003 AFC championship game, badly roughing up Indianapolis receivers and shutting down the Colts high-powered offense in a 24-14 Patriots victory.
    Two, Indy's powerful president, Bill Polian, complained to the league rather loudly in the wake of his team's loss.
    As a result, the NFL determined that its officials would "re-emphasize" pass interference rules in 2004 and beyond. Though not officially a rule change, the impact on the passing game was profound.

    The very next season, Indy quarterback Peyton Manning (pictured here) went out and rewrote the record books, with 49 TD passes and a 121.1 passer rating that was nearly 10 points better than any that had come before it. The league-wide passer rating, meanwhile, jumped from 78.3 in 2003 to a record 82.8 in 2004.

    The records have remained under assault since then: Tom Brady broke Manning's TD-toss record with 50 in 2007, while posting the second-highest passer rating in history (117.2). With less fanfare, Drew Brees set a record with 440 completions in 2007. And, as noted above, NFL quarterbacks are poised to rewrite the record books in countless categories here in 2008, while newcomers have bucked tradition by easily performing at high level.

    But today's high-flying newcomers and record-setting veterans aren't better quarterbacks than players of the past. They just have advantages their predecessors never enjoyed back before the Golden Age of the passing game.



    [object HTMLDivElement]

    [/QUOTE]

    oh no nothing today can be better than the "good ol' days"...nonsense today's players are better and so is the game

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to cousteau's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 42AND46's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Different eras of football, brought on mainly by the Patriot's dominance, the man handling of the Rams in 2001, slapping the Colts and the overall desire of the league to emphasize offense because it sells tickets.  

     

    Are we really going to argue that the league hasn't changed or that the Earth is round or that black is the absence of light now as well?

     

    When you double the amount of yellow flags in a decade there tends to be an increase in scoring, notice how it rises on both sides of the aisle.

     

    Also are you also really standing by the silly idea that a 21 year old Tom Brady is as good as 30+ year old Tom Brady?

     

    Giving up 21 points in the last Super Bowl is pretty impressive for an average defense, the Patriot's vaunted offense turning the ball over twice, scoring 17 points and not scoring at all in the final quarter and a half, not so much.

    [/QUOTE]

    I know numbers don't matter to you, but the average offensive TDs scored per season per team has increased by about 3 since 2000, from about 33 to about 36.  The variances in the Pats numbers are too great to be explained by the general trend.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Please stop.

    Also, source your data.

    [/QUOTE]

    twice Eli went down the field and scored on the "Genius's" defense when it counted most and they were TDs not FGs...how are those sources?

    [/QUOTE]

    it was "luck" or "some Goodell-led conspiracy" or some other "world wide anti patriots hatred" that led their D to  losses in both SB's. Crusty is so lost in his tin foil hat world that he can't see..BB IS NOT INFALLIBLE!! He is NOT the D genius that everyone makes him out to be.  But the trombone will still come up with his stupid comments no matter what. And BTW Mr trombone... Bustchise is someone else..dont care who, but someone else.  

    [/QUOTE]


    BRAVO! ENCORE ENCORE! (stands and applauds)

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    The 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012 Patriots offense is on this list of offensive failures compiled by Cold Hard Football Facts...


    It turns out historically elite offenses are no different than your junior prom date: a sexy little vixen dolled up for the big dance and busting out all over – but with no intent of fulfilling your teenage fantasies.


    But I guess True and I were just imagining the whole thing.


    http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/big-tease-2012-new-england-patriots-and-nfls-history-offensive-failures/21442/?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012 Patriots offense is on this list of offensive failures compiled by Cold Hard Football Facts...

     

    It turns out historically elite offenses are no different than your junior prom date: a sexy little vixen dolled up for the big dance and busting out all over – but with no intent of fulfilling your teenage fantasies.

     

    But I guess True and I were just imagining the whole thing.

     

    http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/big-tease-2012-new-england-patriots-and-nfls-history-offensive-failures/21442/?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/big-tease-2012-new-england-patriots-and-nfls-history-offensive-failures/21442/?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    Maybe you should read your own article when

    1, he describes the end of the dynasty in 2006, because of the D

    And there's this Gem:  In reality, they should have double-downed on defense. The offense that day proved it could put up points, even with in offense largely devoid of big names outside Tom Brady. It was the defense that failed them that day

    OR this:

    This once dynastic team all but perfected smart, efficient football that was strong in all phases of the game. They rode that strategy go three Super Bowl victories in four years. To put it in terms of physical training, the Super Bowl-winning Patriots had a strong core. The more recent Patriots are merely built for show: big biceps, but weak inside.

    Which phase of the game has been really the weak link?

    Einstein, he's saying a dynamic offense isn't enough, which is what we've been telling you for years now.

    You are only as strong as your weakest link.

    DUH!

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    The dynastic Patriots were the last team that was strong in all phases of the game. That's why they were a dynasty.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to digger0862's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The dynastic Patriots were the last team that was strong in all phases of the game. That's why they were a dynasty.

    [/QUOTE]

    I noticed you used the past tense.  When did that dynasty end? :)

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012 Patriots offense is on this list of offensive failures compiled by Cold Hard Football Facts...

     

    It turns out historically elite offenses are no different than your junior prom date: a sexy little vixen dolled up for the big dance and busting out all over – but with no intent of fulfilling your teenage fantasies.

     

    But I guess True and I were just imagining the whole thing.

     

    http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/big-tease-2012-new-england-patriots-and-nfls-history-offensive-failures/21442/?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/big-tease-2012-new-england-patriots-and-nfls-history-offensive-failures/21442/?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com

    [/QUOTE]


    Read the conclusion of your article. It will help:

     

    Cleary, it's better to have a great offense than to have a bad offense. Scoring a lot of points is never a bad thing in and of itself. But the history of the league is pretty clear: building a prolific offense at the expense of your defene, and still hoping to score a ring, is much like your chances of scoring big after the prom. It's a delusional fantasy, men. Those offenses are just a Big Tease.

     

     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to digger0862's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The dynastic Patriots were the last team that was strong in all phases of the game. That's why they were a dynasty.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Amen! 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share