Sums Up The Defense

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:


     




    Way to really tell it like it isn't, after all the dancing you've done above you should be exhausted.  


     


     


    Play calling is a talent, creating mismatches is a talent.  


    Sure . . . I just think that O'Brien and McDaniels have that talent.  I think it is pretty evident given all the great seasons the Pats have had since Weis left. It's not like all season they play high school teams.  They win against very good opponents.  They win in the playoffs.  They just haven't gone all the way.  And it's not because all of a sudden the rules of football change and the Pats coaching staff can't keep up.  That's absurd, but it's basically your argument: football transforms into a completely different game in the playoffs.  It doesn't.    


     


    We acknowledge the defense was entirely average and lacked "talent" whereas you would have us think the offense was great and only didn't score points because it was the defenses fault.  


    I think the offense wasn't talented enough either.  Please, see my list of receivers--the one you keep ignoring.  I've never said the offense played well.  


    The defense did it's job, it gave us a chance to win, the offense blew it by not scoring.  You couldn't have asked an average collection of defensive talent to do anymore, the onus was on the amazing offense to win the game and they couldn't.


    The defense did not do its job.  I can't help it if you don't get that giving up long drives, half of which ended in points, is not good.  But believe me, it's not.   The offense didn't  have the talent to win without Gronk.  Seriously, Welker, Branch, BJGE, Ochocinco, Woodhead and the murderer were not an elite offense.  Combine that with bad blocking and a stupid decision by Brady and you get bad talent and bad execution.  There wasn't some way to coach yourself out of that, though.  That's where you get it all wrong.  You think handing the ball to BJGE more times would have changed the game.  It would have--it would have meant more punts. 


    A maxim gets thrown around all too often that defense wins championships and while it's true, there have been offenses that won Super Bowls that were the most dominant side of the ball in the past, Mark Rypien's Redskins come to mind.


     


    i call them like I see them, I don't judge an offense based on what they did in the past or the regular season.


     


    You can't explain how the 49ers went from worst to first with entirely the same collection of talent, that's why this conversation is over.   Coaching matters, play calling is most definitely a talent, The proof is three rings, all three of which were won with situational, high stress offensive execution, something that has obviously missing of late.


     


    I never said coaching doesn't matter.  My point is our coaching is good.  You seem to think it isn't good enough to win.  We disagree.  Belichick is a brilliant coach--and his staff is good enough too.  


     


    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    Just out of curiosity, who's the best OC out of Weis, O'Brien, or McDaniels?

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    So to summarize, Champ and Wozzy think the players don't matter, but the coaching sucks.  Rusty thinks the only thing that matters is Brady, and he thinks Brady sucks.

     

     

     

    I think Brady is great.  I think the coaching is great.  I think the players are mostly very good.  However, I don't think the teams of the past few years have had quite enough horses to get them over the hump.  Just as one example, in the Broncos game I saw a defense that couldn't get pressure on Manning and couldn't disrupt his timing.  I saw mediocre pass coverage.  On offense, I saw a running game that was stuffed in large part because Denver was able to focus on the running game and use single coverage effectively against our receivers.  I guess I'm supposed to believe that this was all the fault of the coaches, miscalling the defensive and offensive plays.  What I thought I saw, though, was an offense missing it's best weapon (Gronkowski) and a defense missing guys like Mayo and Wilfork and Talib.  To me that's a talent issue.  Mind you, there's no blaming Bill Belichick's team-building here.  Most of the talent issues were caused by injury.  But the issue was still talent.  It wasn't play calling. 

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

    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]

    They don't get that team continuity is vital in the greatest team sport on the planet. It's why I can tell which teams who swap out coaches or players in large numbers, will feel it in the upcoming season.

     

    The fans here that drool over teams signing a ton of FAs all at once, simply don't get it. They just want to follow the dumb media and run into to update their Madden video game rosters, while sitting here mocking BB.  You want to use FA to infuse the roster with quality additions at weak spots or bolster a spot that needs some additional improvement.

     

    Same deal with the coaching staff situation or key coaches who leave.  Obviously, losing Scarnecchia could be a big thing here this season. We shall see.

     

    Denver is all in there this year and I am not sure they are better built than NE is. THe Ward, Ware and Talib moves completely overshadow the idea that's a lot of new bodies on defense all at once who will be counted on as being the base of a D that is supposed to be better than ours, which clearly is not the the case on paper.

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    By continuity do you mean the 80+ different receivers Brady has thrown balls to over his 11 years of playing (mostly garbage in, garbage out) or the revolving doors in the backfield and on the line since 2005?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    He had a lot of WRs in the SB years, too.  Branch and GIvens were rookies in 2002 and an unknown going into 2003. It's not like Fred Coleman, Dedric Ward or even David Patten were gamechanging Pro Bowl WRs.

     

    They were not considered "garbage" back then, were they? Or, are you a newer fan? LOL

     

    Dobson and Thompkins both played better than Branch and Givens combined as rookies in 2002.  

     

    The only real argument for garbage was in 2006 or 2009. Every other year, Brady has either had good or great receiving options, some of them Hall of Famers or Hall of Fame caliber options to throw to.

     

    I'll take your weak retort above as a sign you've been bludgeoned by facts, knowing you have nowhere to go. 

     

    LMAO

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Well, no.  You've been bludgeoned by facts.  He played with mostly the same group during the SB years.

    Brown, Givins Faulk, Pass Patten and a year later Branch, were the core.   Most of the receivers including backs and TE's, since those years were garbage and replaced regularly as broken parts usually are.

    Who has been the core since 2007?  Moss and Welker and Welker and what ever TE was healthy and now Edelman 3 rookies and what ever tight end was healthy or what ever RB didn't fumble that day.  AWESOME!

    Hence, the huge turn-over.  More than any other team.

    Even Peyton, who played 2 more years and even changed teams resulting in a whole new set of receivers, doesn't come close.  Sad, really.

    Most of the D has been garbage since then. GARBAGE!.  Hence the huge turn-over and their bottom feeder D.

    Thank God for TB!!!!!!!  Long live TB!!!!!!!!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Peyton Manning only has 1 ring due to BB's superior and proven teambuilding philosophy over Polian or now Elway.

    Did you watch last year's SB? LOL

    Good thing Gomie had all his stats in the regular season, right JizzyDispenser? Right?  What good is it? What good are Pro Bowl WRs who are finesse bums when the chips are on the table? Marvie Harrison is one of the worst postseason WRs I'v ever seen. Ever.  Wes Welker is another. Randy Moss, another.

    What do they all have in common? Finesse.

    So, what good is all of that, stability or not, if it doesn't get you what you need in January or February?

    Givens, Patten, or even Troy Brown as underrated as Brown was, did not put the fear of god into a defense. Those were the best WRS in the system BB had here, that were available at the time and Brady's TEs were average at best with Wiggins and later Graham. Graham was really known for blocking and helping the run game.  So, Brady had little to work with at TE at the time.  

    Fast forward to 2010-2012, and it has been more so built through the TEs.

    So, enough with this argument that Brady has been compromised due to lack of talent at the WR position. The only argument would be since 2002 when he didn't have a strong cast around him, or it would have been 2006 or 2009. That's it.

    For you and anyone else to arrogantly think that BB needs to somehow acquire 3 HOF WRs and 2 HOF TEs for Brady to feel good about himself on game days is a joke of epic proportions.

    This whole mantra started in 2007 when Brady had every possible high caliber WR available with a various array of skill sets and he still choked it down all cocky before SB 42.

    Enough.  It's 2014, 7 years later, and you still try to justify it.  You  lost.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Cept Brady and the O didn't choke.  They had the LEAD until the last 57 seconds in another low possession game.   Brady took the lead in his last full possession, in 42, and the D lost a 2 score lead in 4 possessions, in 46.

    The D choked allowing ELI f'n Manning to march down the field like it was their SB parade.

    Ever notice how these low possession games all turn out the same? 

    Low scoring losses.   Yup.

    There's a reason for that and it's NOT because the coaches just forgot about the run game or TB wanted to pad his stats and selfishly wanted to throw the ball all day. 

    If true, we are talking about gross coaching incompetence.  GROSS!!!

    Nope, that's not it at all.

    It's that the coordinators and coaches were put in a drastic situation by the gross incompetence of the DEFENSE and had to deal with it the only way that made sense.

    They were FORCED to not play their game and the only real option they had was TB's arm.

    It worked up until the last 57 and 38 seconds.   Unfortunately the suck azz D who robbed them of possessions, time and plays, and gave the gints plenty of time and plays, also gagged it up at the end.  TWICE!

    Brady is the MVP in both games.  The don't call him "the QB that does more with less"  for nothing.

    They call him that because it's true.

    Yes, it is 7 years later and 10 years since a SB win.

    Bout GD time beebee, or someone, fixes that D.

    We'll never see another SB win until that happens.

    Bet on it!  Bet every dime you own.

     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yeah you're right, the playoffs aren't different at all, the teams aren't better, the intensity isn't heightened and the refs don't call the games looser.

    Also the defense, even though they gave up fewer points in two Super Bowl losses than they did in two of the three that they won, didn't do their job.

    All coaches are built the same, a 20+ year old McDaniels or 5th on the coaching depth chart OBrien are just as talented as Weis who was part of a championship winning Giants team prior to the Patriots.  

    Play calling isn't a talent, they just need hyper talented QB's and to shut their mouth.  Tom Brady at 21 was as good as he is in his 30's.  

    Even though two slot receivers and David Givens led our team in receptions during the Super Bowl seasons they were so much more talented than Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Gronkowski, Hernandez and the rest, I don't know how we got to the playoffs in the first place.

    Yeah maybe our offense scored in the teens, punted too much, turned the ball over numerous times, scored half of their regular season average and had the ball last yet still couldn't execute like the early 2000's in crunch time, but they played really well.

    This conversation is nonsense.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    Back in the day when the offense needed a crucial third down, the offense made the play whether it was Kevin Faulk, Troy Brown, Daniel Graham or Patrick Pass.


    If not then explain to me how the offense could drive the length of the field and score a winning field goal in not one but two Super Bowls.


    Yes, it was play calling.


    They ran out of time wozzy. The Patriots lost late leads in 4 of the last 5 super bowls.


    vs Rams Patriots had a 17-3 lead in the 4th quarter. The Rams tied it 17-17 leaving Brady and the Patriots 1:21 to win it.


    vs Panthers Patriots had a 21-10 lead in the 4th quarter. The Panthers tied it 29-29 leaving Brady and the Patriots 1:08 to win it.


    vs Giants07 Patriots had a 14-10 lead in the 4th quarter. The Giants went ahead 17-14 leaving Brady and the Patriots 0:29 to win it.


    vs Giants11 Patriots had a 17-15 lead in the 4th quarter. The Giants went ahead 21-17 leaving Brady and the Patriots 0:57 to win it.


    The difference between winning and losing wasn't talent or coaching, it was a few measly seconds.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to digger0862's comment:
    [QUOTE] 


    Agreed, then again good in game coaching is playing the clock as well as your opponent.  The Weis teams were superior because they created 3rd and inches instead of 3rd and longs, and they had the muscle to pound it inside for those inches or the guile to set up a pass to the least likely receiver.  They were a joy to watch.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    They certainly were a joy to watch. They were mostly dominant and a true dynasty.

    Today's Patriots are not quite as talented as those previous but comparatively today's champions are not as talented as those previous either. (Due to parity)

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to OnlyDaTruth's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Just out of curiosity, who's the best OC out of Weis, O'Brien, or McDaniels?

    [/QUOTE]


    It's an interesting question and not really an easy one to answer.  If you go by the major offensive statistics, here's what you get:

    Weis Years

    2000--285.7 yards per game (22nd), 270 offensive points (27 TDs, 27 FGs), 15 interceptions, 48 sacks

    2001--305.1 yards per game (19th), 324 offensive points (36 TDs, 24 FGs), 15 interceptions, 46 sacks

    2002--317.8 yards per game (21st), 340 offensive points (37 TDs, 27 FGs), 14 interceptions, 31 sacks

    2003--314.9 yards per game (17th), 299 offensive points (32 TDs, 25 FGs), 13 interceptions, 32 sacks

    2004--357.6 yards per game (7th), 401 offensive points (44 TDs, 31 FGs), 14 interceptions, 26 sacks

     

    McDaniels Years (first stint)

    2005--352.0 yards per game (7th), 368 offensive points (44 TDs, 20 FGs), 15 interceptions, 28 sacks

    2006--335.6 yards per game (11th), 375 offensive points (45 TDs, 20 FFs), 12 interceptions, 29 sacks

    2007--411.2 yards per game (1st), 532 offensive points (67 TDs, 21 FGs), 9 interceptions, 21 sacks

    2008--365.4 yards per game (5th), 402 offensive points (42 TDs, 36 FGs), 11 interceptions, 48 sacks

     

    O'Brien Years

    2009--397.3 yards per game (3rd), 407 offensive points (47 TDs, 26 FGs), 13 interceptions, 18 sacks

    2010--363.8 yards per game (8th), 458 offensive points (56 TDs, 22 FGs), 5 interceptions, 25 sacks

    2011--428.0 yards per game (2nd), 483 offensive points (57 TDs, 28 FGs), 12 interceptions, 32 sacks

     

    McDaniels Years (second stint)

    2012--427.9 yards per game (1st), 500 offensive points (59 TDs, 29 FGs), 9 interceptions, 27 sacks

    2013--384.5 yards per game (7th), 422 offensive points (44 TDs, 38 FGs), 11 interceptions, 40 sacks

     

    Wozzy and True Champ will tell you these stats don't matter and it's obvious Weis was far superior to O'Brien and McDaniels.  The stats, however, show pretty clearly which offenses were the most productive--and they weren't Weis's offenses.  Whether offensive productivity is a good judge of an offensive coordinator's success is maybe hard to say.  There are lots of factors that can influence results.  But everything other than statistical productivity gets very subjective.  The stats, at least, are facts which no one can deny. 

      

     

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    dunno.  why is there just one d*** in this forum?? LOL!! :)

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    Just for kicks, here is the difference between TDs scored by the offense and TDs given up by the defense in all of the Belichick years.  After the year, the first number is the TDs scored by the offense and the second number is the TDs given up by the defense; the number in parentheses is the differential (TDs scored by offense minus TDs given up by defense). 


    Best years for each side are in green, worst in red.  Does this suggest that defense really does win championships?


     


    2000  27-35  (-8)


    2001  36-22  (+14)


    2002  37-40  (-3)


    2003  32-22  (+10)


    2004  44-27  (+17)


    2005  44-36  (+8)


    2006  45-21  (+24)


    2007  67-30  (+37)


    2008  42-35  (+7)


    2009  47-31  (+16)


    2010  56-35  (+21)


    2011  57-39  (+18)


    2012  59-37  (+22)


    2013  44-36  (+8)


     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    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.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    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]

    all good points.....but our pass rush still needs to be better if we're to compete w/ the likes of the Broncos, Seahawks, and 49ers.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    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.  

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    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]


    I know, the numbers can be inconvenient.  

    NFL.com is a good place to start, but for season scoring summaries this will do:

    http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/NFL/team_stats.htm#season_totals" rel="nofollow">http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/NFL/team_stats.htm#season_totals

     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    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]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    Scoring increased by 1.8 points a game per team.  That was in 2010.  It remained basically the same since 2000 to 2010.

    Allowing 21 points a game is good if you are playing 12 possessions .  That is the average possessions per game,  not so  good if you are only playing 8 possessions.

    21 in 12 possessions ='s 1.75 points per possessions.

    21 in 8 possessions ='s  2.625 points per possession.  That's nearly a point per possession higher.

    The carolina game where they gave up 29 points was 13 possessions.  that ='s 2.2 points per possession which means they gave up nearly half a point per possession less and were much more efficient than the 11, D.

    You can't just look at scores and say they allowed less points.  The circumstance was not the same.  They had to make 4-5, less stops so the points were less, but the points per possession were very high.

    You also cannot expect an offense to score as much as they normally would with 4-5 less chances to score.

    How many times do I have to explain that to you before it sinks in?

    Do I need to dumb it down, so you can understand?

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    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?

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    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.  

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    LMAO. You're the ONLY person who thinks everything is ONLY Brady's fault. That's why NOONE listens to your babble and makes fun of you!! :)

    I see your delusions are in full force :)

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to digger0862's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They certainly were a joy to watch. They were mostly dominant and a true dynasty.

    Today's Patriots are not quite as talented as those previous but comparatively today's champions are not as talented as those previous either. (Due to parity)

    [/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

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    Since Wozzy is now claiming that the increase in scoring by the Pats offense and the increase in points given up by the Pats defense is merely a result of changes to the game, it's worth showing the actual scoring averages by season since Belichick became coach.  Here are the numbers (from Pro Football Reference for Rusty), with the Patriots' Super Bowl years in red:


    Year         AVG TDs per season per team          AVG Pts per Game


    2000                  33.8                                                20.7


    2001                  32.3                                                20.2


    2002                  36.1                                                21.7


    2003                  33.7                                                20.8


    2004                  35.9                                                21.5


    2005                  33.6                                                20.6


    2006                  33.6                                                20.7


    2007                  34.6                                                21.7


    2008                  35.1                                                22.0


    2009                  35.6                                                21.5


    2010                  36.0                                                22.0


    2011                  35.8                                                22.2


    2012                  36.2                                                22.8


    2013                  37.9                                                23.4


    As you can see, there has been an increase in scoring, but it's on the order of 3 points per game and 3 or 4 TDs per season per team.  When the Pats' defense is giving up an extra 15 TDs a season (mid to high 30s instead of low 20s) and the Pats' offense scoring an extra 20 TDs per season (mid 50s versus mid 30s), you can't write that off as just the result of changing eras.  Those numbers are significant and represent a real difference in the productivity of the offensive and defensive units.  


    So nice try Wozzy, but the numbers don't back you up . . . 


     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    On the increase in penalties, probably also worth pointing out the actual stats. Here are the season total penalties called against the Pats' defense since BB has become head coach (Super Bowl years in red, source for Rusty is NFL.com):


    2000--95 for 897 yds


    2001--93 for 839 yds


    2002--99 for 928 yds


    2003--107 for 845 yds


    2004--118 for 1,014 yds


    2005--132 for 1,068 yds


    2006--102 for 918 yds


    2007--96 for 764 yds


    2008--81 for 636 yds


    2009--91 for 780 yds


    2010--84 for 687 yds


    2011--115 for 907 yds


    2012--101 for 932 yds


    2013--110 for 951 yds


    Are we seeing a trend toward twice the penalties being called as Wozzy claims?  Not really, at least not against the Pats' defense.    

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    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.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share