Sums Up The Defense

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:

    In response to Philskiw1's comment:

    I guess if it's a coaching problem you can blame Dante.  The O line has laid down in both super bowl losses. They never blocked effectively for Brady.  

     

     

    Now you got the easy part done telling me about it.

    Does that handshaped bruise on your back hurt?



    Excuse.  They blocked fine in SB 46.  Our offense needed to execute in perfect fashion, namely in 2007, for it to do what it would do on its predictability.

    That was that problem, which started showing up in the colder months later in the year. SB 42 was in a dome and they had 2 week to rest.

    In SB 46, Brady lazily took a Safety and lacked focus to start the game.  




    Rewatch Vollmer's blocking on that play.  Remember they were in max protect that play.  Watching the blocking on the safety will demonstrate exactly how wrong you are about both the blocking and about Brady. 

     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

     


    Anybody figure out how to use the post image function?  Can I use it with Dropbox?

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    I highlighted the point in yellow above.  I'll repeat the question here in red type:

    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.

    Note that I'm not saying anything about penalties or about single games like the Super Bowl.  I'm talking about overall quality of the offenses and defenses in the early 2000s and in the early 2010s.  The point is simply that the offenses have been much more productive recently and the defenses much less productive.  This is obvious from the stats.

    If the goal is to win Super Bowls, than no, it is not an improvement.

    If the offense blows up the Browns in the regular season to increase it's regular season average, in a modern NFL that is geared toward inflated scoring and ballooned scores than no, it's not an improvement.

    If the offense is feast or famine, does all its damage in the regular season or against sub par defenses only to throw up two touchdowns and two turnovers against superior playoff defenses, to the detriment of both the defense and special teams than no, it's not an improvement.

    I never cared back in the early 2000s that the offense was boring and methodical.  

    I never cared how much we won the game by, only that we won.

    I'll take the proven, ball control, clutch performing, run balanced offense's of the early 2000s every day of the week.  

    I want to win Super Bowls, not really interested in your fantasy team.  We've become the early 2000 Colts, great when it really doesn't matter.

    Points scored/points allowed and turnovers follows the most important stat of all; wins vs losses.  Those early teams were better in every phase, including offense.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:

     

    Dude, some of us watch without the quart of Everclear and the "I hate Brady agenda" eyeglasses you strap on every time you watch a Pats game.  


    False. I played that replay here last year and exposed you and your group.  SOmeone said he had like 2 or 3 seconds to throw and that was an outright lie.

    Yeah, about five seconds pass from snap to throw.  The first 1.5 to 2.0 seconds are used up executing the play-action fake.  From the time Brady sets in the pocket to when he throws is just over 3 seconds. So depends on how you count.  About five seconds overall, about three after the fake is over.  It's a max protect play, though, with just three receivers in patterns.  This was designed as a slower developing play. 

     

    What's more is, he had a completely open end zone to his right to run with the strong side pass rusher completely compromised by our OL. He could have easily run laterally to his right to get out of the box a bit and try for a completion or simply throw it away. We lost up to 2 minutes of clock on the drive and it would be one of the key series that would push the Giants momentum closer to keeping momentum.  Face it, it was brutal.  A terrible decision for a 1st play of a SB where you had 2 weeks to prepare.

    You are wrong in three ways.  First, Waters was struggling to hold his rusher to the right, so it's not clear Brady would have gotten free right.  Second, Tuck was coming unblocked at him and would have easily caught him anyway. Third, Tuck popped free quite suddenly and Brady had no time to react.  If he had tried to run, it would have been a sack in the end zone almost certainly.  You can deny this all you want (and of course you will), but in doing so you just show your complete ignorance of what it takes to be a good QB. Trying to run from an unlocked Tuck in the end zone would have been the epitome of stupid.  

    HE chose not to, decided to be lazy and recklessly launch the ball downfield thinking they wouldn't call him, Tom Brady, for an intentional incomplete pass to no man's land.

    It was probably the safest thing to do, though.  This could easily be seen as an extremely smart play because there was at least a chance it wouldn't be called.  Taking the sack in the end zone could have resulted in something worse than 2 points.  A fumble and TD was a possibility as well as an injury.  Getting away from Tuck at that point was almost impossible. You'll deny that too, of course, but then it only demonstrates how ignorant of football you really are. 

    He was wrong.

     

    If he does not have a perfect pocket, he is prone to making terrible decisions or poor throws.

     

    Finally, Welker was actually WIDE open into the flat, about 10 yards down field.  I'll be happy to post that again to expose you, if need be.

    Welker gets open about 4.5 seconds into the play 15 yards from the LOS on the right side (having crossed the field from the left)  At that point Brady was looking back at Branch on the left side and Tuck breaks free. He has no time to get his head back around and find Welker.  The reality was this was a max protect play that requires time for receivers to get free when seven defenders drop into coverage and only four rush.  The line with extra blockers absolutely has to hold against a four man rush for more than four seconds, especially given the play action fake, which eats up two seconds.  The line failed miserably.  Both Vollmer and Connolly got killed on that play by Tuck.  He easily beat their double team. Vollmer was still hurt, but Connolly showed very poor lateral movement as Tuck moved from the right side of the O line to the left.  Connolly just was helpless against that speed.  It's a problem with Connolly.  

    You and your group are pathetic with this quest to do anything to protect Brady's reputation.

     

    Unlike you, I don't have any agendas.  I just want to understand what really happened.  




    [object HTMLDivElement]

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    I highlighted the point in yellow above.  I'll repeat the question here in red type:

    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.

    Note that I'm not saying anything about penalties or about single games like the Super Bowl.  I'm talking about overall quality of the offenses and defenses in the early 2000s and in the early 2010s.  The point is simply that the offenses have been much more productive recently and the defenses much less productive.  This is obvious from the stats.

    If the goal is to win Super Bowls, than no, it is not an improvement.

    If the offense blows up the Browns in the regular season to increase it's regular season average, in a modern NFL that is geared toward inflated scoring and ballooned scores than no, it's not an improvement.

    If the offense is feast or famine, does all its damage in the regular season or against sub par defenses only to throw up two touchdowns and two turnovers against superior playoff defenses, to the detriment of both the defense and special teams than no, it's not an improvement.

    I never cared back in the early 2000s that the offense was boring and methodical.  

    I never cared how much we won the game by, only that we won.

    I'll take the proven, ball control, clutch performing, run balanced offense's of the early 2000s every day of the week.  

    I want to win Super Bowls, not really interested in your fantasy team.  We've become the early 2000 Colts, great when it really doesn't matter.

    Points scored/points allowed and turnovers follows the most important stat of all; wins vs losses.  Those early teams were better in every phase, including offense.

    Dude, they lost the Super Bowl for a multitude of reasons in 2011. The biggest problems were Gronk's injury, which unfortunately changed the offense from a productive one to a much less productive one and the continuing struggles in pass defense.  But that one game doesn't mean that the offense overall was worse in 2011 than it was in say 2003.  The 2011 offense gained 428.0 yards per game (2nd in the league), scored 57 TDs and 483 points, gave up 12 interceptions and 32 sacks.  In 2003, the offense gained 314.9 yards per game (17th in the league), scored 32 TDs and 299 points, gave up 13 interceptions and 32 sacks.  There's just no way you can argue that the 2003 offense was more productive than the 2011 unless you resort to voodoo.  "Feast or famine" isn't an argument.  It's voodoo.   The reality is that in 2003, the team (offense and defense) scored 0, 31, 23, 17, 38, 17, 19, 9, 30, 12, 23, 38, 12, 27, 21, 31 in the regular season and 17, 24, and 32 in the playoffs.  In 2011 they scored 38, 35, 31, 31, 30, 20, 17, 20, 37, 34, 38, 31, 34, 41, 27, 49 and 45, 23, 17 in the playoffs.  Looking at those outputs, 2003 was clearly more famine and less feast, while 2011 was mostly feast.  Yes, the Pats had a low score in the SB, but Gronk was hurt so the offense changed (and, though you think it's unimportant, the defense allowed the Giants' offense to keep the Pats offense off the field).  

    Say what you want, the data shows the 2011 offense was far more productive than the 2003.  The big difference between the two teams is the Pats could actually win low-scoring games in 2003 because the defense was good.  In 2003, the defense gave up just 291.6 yards per game (7th), just 22 TDs and 229 points, got 29 interceptions and 41 sacks.  In 2011, the defense gave up a whopping 411.1 yards per game (31st), 39 TDs and 333 points, got 23 interceptions and 41 sacks. In the Super Bowl, when the offense wasn't great with an injured Gronk, the defense needed to step up. They didn't give up a ton of points, but they gave up too many long drives which allowed the Giants to play keep away.  And when they needed a tough stand at the end of the game to protect a slim lead, they couldn't do it.  The offense didn't play well--that's clear.  But there's some truth to the old cliche that defenses win championships and in no way was the 2011 defense championship calibre. 

     

     

     



    [object HTMLDivElement]

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Actually the offensive gains weren't larger than the D, loss.  In fact the % of increase/ decrease is identical. It's because the D had a lower point per game to begin with.

    OK, say the O averaged 28 points per game and the D averaged 17 points a game.

    Then the O averaged 34 points per game and the D averaged 21 points a game.

    They both increased their points per game by approx., 20%

    Only that 20% increased points per game for the O by 6 points and only increased it for the D by 4 points.

    That accounts for for the difference in the TD's scored and td's given up.  (about 2 points a game or approx 5 TD's per season)   These numbers are not exact but you get the idea.

    However, that comes out to a 20% increase in efficiency for the O and a 20% DECREASE in efficiency for the D, and you don't want your D giving up 20% more points..

    It's also means that if the defense is on the field too long and decreasing possessions, The O will lose points per possessions (lost) at a higher rate than the D will, because they score at a higher rate than the D allows.



    Taking into account the improvements of the O and the decreased efficiency of the D the overall team performance was an additional 2+ points per game.  I'm not worried about percentages of gains versus losses.  It's the final result that is most important.  And, the final result is an overall gain of 2+ points, nearly a field goal per game.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Well because we are talking about averages, you just can't look at the bottom line.

    Points per game is an average.  It's the # of points scored divided by the number of games.

    It does not mean the team is scoring 34 points  or giving up 21 points every game.

    It means they can score 34 points one game and 20 the next and 48 the next (or any variation of).

    Same with the D.  They can give up 21 points one game or 28 the next and 14 the game after, to achieve their average.

    The Points per O and D are not equal.  On average the O is scoring 13 points more than the D is giving up.

    But that's just an average.  Remember, each game is independent of the average but creates the average.

    Because the D's average points per game is disproportionately lower by 13 points, it creates issues.

    Basically the O is spotting the D 13 points on average per game but for every point lost (for what ever reason, usually loss of possessions)  AFTER those 13 points are lost, the D must decrease their average by an equal number of points.

    Example:  The O only scores 17 points  in a game(remember points can fluctuate greatly to achieve their average) the D only has to decrease their average points per game by 5 (not 17) to win the game. 

     O, 34-17=17 points scored.

    D, 21-5= 16 points allowed  The difference is the spotted 13 points for a tie and 1 less for a win.

    The D only has to allow 5 less points to make up for a 17 point offensive deficit. (disproportionate)

    That's why there is an imbalance in points scored and points given up and a net gain of 2 points (which can also fluctuate per game) won't always help

    Then there are also the games where the O scores their 34 points and the D allows 14 more than their average.  Those are awesome!

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    It's worth repeating the original post in this thread.  This indeed sums up the difference in the defense between the championship seasons and recent years.  Even in the 2011 Super Bowl, the defence's inability to make the plays in the passing game was a huge reason we lost.  I'm not saying the offense was blameless. Far from it.  But the fact that Manning had a 75% completion rate and was able to make the big plays in the passing when they needed them was a huge issue.  The defense needs to be better against the pass.  It explains why BB finally is making strong moves to improve the secondary and trying to get more athletic up front.  We need better pass defense, both in the backfield and among the pass rushers.  

     

    Sums Up The Defense
    posted at 6/9/2014 12:21 PM EDT

    OnlyDaTruth
    Posts: 303
    First: 2/23/2014
    Last: 6/22/2014

    "The defense, once the heart of a team that won three Super Bowls between 2001 and 2004, became less dominant as the pass rush evaporated and the secondary became a revolving door for defensive backs. Until cornerback Aqib Talib joined the Patriots after a trade midway through the 2012 season, there really hadn't been much confidence in how the team defended the pass."


    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11045782/darrelle-revis-cornerback-huge-year

     
  • This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:


    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    It's worth repeating the original post in this thread.  This indeed sums up the difference in the defense between the championship seasons and recent years.  Even in the 2011 Super Bowl, the defence's inability to make the plays in the passing game was a huge reason we lost.  I'm not saying the offense was blameless. Far from it.  But the fact that Manning had a 75% completion rate and was able to make the big plays in the passing when they needed them was a huge issue.  The defense needs to be better against the pass.  It explains why BB finally is making strong moves to improve the secondary and trying to get more athletic up front.  We need better pass defense, both in the backfield and among the pass rushers.  


     


    Sums Up The Defense
    posted at 6/9/2014 12:21 PM EDT


    OnlyDaTruth
    Posts: 303
    First: 2/23/2014
    Last: 6/22/2014


    "The defense, once the heart of a team that won three Super Bowls between 2001 and 2004, became less dominant as the pass rush evaporated and the secondary became a revolving door for defensive backs. Until cornerback Aqib Talib joined the Patriots after a trade midway through the 2012 season, there really hadn't been much confidence in how the team defended the pass."



    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11045782/darrelle-revis-cornerback-huge-year" rel="nofollow">http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11045782/darrelle-revis-cornerback-huge-year" rel="nofollow">http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11045782/darrelle-revis-cornerback-huge-year" rel="nofollow">http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11045782/darrelle-revis-cornerback-huge-year" rel="nofollow">http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11045782/darrelle-revis-cornerback-huge-year




    An issue, but clearly not a big one if you are holding to FGs.  13 points allowed is in no way a "huge issue" in a SB in this day and age.  Ludicrous premise.


    It's so arrogant to pretend the offense had no responsibility to kill some clock on 3 drives in the 4th and just get into FG range with our kicker in a dome in an offensive era like the one Goodell has served up.


    THe D also caused two fumbles, that unfortunately did not bounce favorably.  Two forced fumbles, a bunch of sacks and 13 points allowed?


    If you had told me that was the defensive contributions pregame, I would have said we'd have won.





    [object HTMLDivElement]


    19 points is not 13.


    Both teams had 2 TD's.  The field goals were the difference.  Rusty thinks FG's aren't scores.  He said so.


    The O had a 6 minute drive in the 4th.  The other drive was the 57 seconds that beebee bought with a gifted TD, or else there would have been only 7 possessions instead of 8 in the game,  just like the game this year.


    Normal NFL games are not 7-8 possessions., they are 12.  The D ate 5 possessions per game.


    Normal offenses score TD's on about 20% of their drives  (a little lower)and another approx 20% in F'g.


    This averages (last year) equals about 23.6 points per team per game in a normal 12 possession game, with approx, 2 points per possession.


    In an 8 possession game, the points per game/per team drops to 16 per, with 2 points per possession, 14 with 7 possessions.


    In those losses, the O got their 2 points per possession (slightly better) but the D gave up far beyond the 2 point average.  Nearly 4 points per possession against the Broncs.  DOUBLE THE AVERAGE!!!!!!!


    Even if the difference was just FG's, it was 4 Fg's in 7 possessions and a whopping 60%. or 3x's the average..


    Their average ToP was ALSO DOUBLE the average per possession of a normal team, which was the cause of the missing possessions.


    Double Whammy to  their own O.  I guess beebee forgot to tell them not to restrict their own O's scoring chances while allowing significantly more to the opposition..


    Boy did they ever suck!

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:


    IMHO for me it is more of game planning/scheme in big games that I feel could be questioned. For me the 2 that jump out at me was SB 42 where they didn't make the needed adjustments along the O-line to combat the Giants stunting on the pass rush and last years playoff game I felt they tried to stay with the run longer than they should have. I think they got caught up in the success the run game had at the end of the year and the previous playoff game.

    As you mentioned being critical of individual play calls is difficult without knowing all the variables at that moment.

     



    funny that you mention SB 42.  It was a while ago, but from what I remember - the Pat barely beat the Giants in regular season.  IMO, BB didn't have a good game plan going in.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to OnlyDaTruth's comment:

    During those games, what were the reasons why the Patriots couldn't get points on the board.  Was it all the QBs fault like one person says? Was it because the OL couldn't keep opponents from getting to Brady? Was it because the WR and TE had a bad game? Was it because the RBs couldn't get the run game going? Was it because the Coaches abandoned the run?

    On the other side of the field - was it because a key defensive player went out and the pass defense resorted to almost the bottom for pass defense? Was it because the defense simply could not make the one stop where it was needed the most? Could the defense get off the field?

     



    My only point on yet another thread blaming the defense for all our Super Bowl woes is that neither the offense, defense or special teams were good enough to win.

    The offense was a paper tiger, finesse, feast or famine and needed improving as well.  Or else maybe somebody can explain to me why BB has actively improved the interior of the O Line, the running back corps, the WR's and reintroduced the fullback position to the team as well improving as the defense?



    oh, I wholeheartedly agree with you.  I think it was all 3 phases of the game AND coaching.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In three Super Bowls our offense brought us back from behind to win.  That is the biggest, noticeable difference between that offense and our recent offense.  I do find it funny that you laud the Giants for using the same style and system of offense on us that we used to run though.


    The defense in the last two Super Bowls have given up fewer points than all but one of the three that we won, the Giants punted more than the Patriots did.  While I don't claim the present day defenses are as good, 2001 wasn't great, the reality is that doesn't absolve the offense for turning it over twice, only scoring in the teens and having the ball with a minute left then throwing three straight incompletions.


    Slowly but surely you are backtracking on how great our offense has been of late, I don't have to back off that the defense was average and played average.  When you can finally admit this offense has been anemic against powerful physical defenses like the giants, Ravens, Jets when they were good and the Broncos then maybe this conversation will finally be over.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In three Super Bowls our offense brought us back from behind to win.  That is the biggest, noticeable difference between that offense and our recent offense.  I do find it funny that you laud the Giants for using the same style and system of offense on us that we used to run though.

     

    The defense in the last two Super Bowls have given up fewer points than all but one of the three that we won, the Giants punted more than the Patriots did.  While I don't claim the present day defenses are as good, 2001 wasn't great, the reality is that doesn't absolve the offense for turning it over twice, only scoring in the teens and having the ball with a minute left then throwing three straight incompletions.

     

    Slowly but surely you are backtracking on how great our offense has been of late, I don't have to back off that the defense was average and played average.  When you can finally admit this offense has been anemic against powerful physical defenses like the giants, Ravens, Jets when they were good and the Broncos then maybe this conversation will finally be over.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    Pretty much all non-sense or untrue.

    They situations was reversed in the first 3 SB's.  TB had the lead up until the last 57 and 35 seconds of both games.

    They score less because they had less chances to score.  The scoring efficiency was higher in the last 2 SB's

    3 scores in 7 or 8 attempts is better than 4 scores in 12 or 13 attempts.

    The D gave up less points while only having to make 7 or 8 stops instead of 12 or 13 stops.   Their efficiency was much lower than the winning 3.

    There were not 3 straight incompletions in that last drive.  There was a first down and 3 drops with 6 passes..

    Did you expect them to run in a 38 or 57 second possessions???  Both were under a minute, not a minute.

    In each of the other SB's they had more than a minute and only needed a FG to win or tie.

    Who cares if they punted one more time, they scored more points and more often. They scored on half their drives and on all but one in the second half and we lost the lead because of it.

    The gints were able to run the same ball control offense because the D sucked.  Offenses play defenses.

    Their defense played 100 times better than ours.  They actually got turn overs, stopped 3rd down conversions, got 3 and outs. stoped us before the 50 and made plays when they needed to.  Ours did none of that or was Eli so good that no one could stop him?  Funny, he didn't complete 75% of his passes, have the ball for nearly 5 minutes every possession against the 9rs, in fact he only scored 10 points in a 12 possession game.  He didn't win that game, the ST rookie lost it.  Not so much the case in our games.

    It is a lot easier to win against a D that is not even doing as much as the worst D in the NFL (oh wait, that was them) than it is against a D that is actually doing their jobs.  It's much harder to win if your O is on the bench for 2/3rds  of the game, because of that sucky D.

     

     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In three Super Bowls our offense brought us back from behind to win.  That is the biggest, noticeable difference between that offense and our recent offense.  I do find it funny that you laud the Giants for using the same style and system of offense on us that we used to run though.

     

    The defense in the last two Super Bowls have given up fewer points than all but one of the three that we won, the Giants punted more than the Patriots did.  While I don't claim the present day defenses are as good, 2001 wasn't great, the reality is that doesn't absolve the offense for turning it over twice, only scoring in the teens and having the ball with a minute left then throwing three straight incompletions.

     

    Slowly but surely you are backtracking on how great our offense has been of late, I don't have to back off that the defense was average and played average.  When you can finally admit this offense has been anemic against powerful physical defenses like the giants, Ravens, Jets when they were good and the Broncos then maybe this conversation will finally be over.




    I'm quite sure you're right Wozzy.  An offense that gains 315 yards per game and scores 32 TDs and 299 points over the season is clearly better than one that gains 428 yards per game and scores 57 TDs and 483 points over the season.  The sun rises in the West too, the Earth is flat, and little green men wander around on Mars.

     

     

     
  • This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In three Super Bowls our offense brought us back from behind to win.  That is the biggest, noticeable difference between that offense and our recent offense.  I do find it funny that you laud the Giants for using the same style and system of offense on us that we used to run though.

     

    The defense in the last two Super Bowls have given up fewer points than all but one of the three that we won, the Giants punted more than the Patriots did.  While I don't claim the present day defenses are as good, 2001 wasn't great, the reality is that doesn't absolve the offense for turning it over twice, only scoring in the teens and having the ball with a minute left then throwing three straight incompletions.

     

    Slowly but surely you are backtracking on how great our offense has been of late, I don't have to back off that the defense was average and played average.  When you can finally admit this offense has been anemic against powerful physical defenses like the giants, Ravens, Jets when they were good and the Broncos then maybe this conversation will finally be over.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    Pretty much all non-sense or untrue.

    They situations was reversed in the first 3 SB's.  TB had the lead up until the last 57 and 35 seconds of both games.

    They score less because they had less chances to score.  The scoring efficiency was higher in the last 2 SB's

    3 scores in 7 or 8 attempts is better than 4 scores in 12 or 13 attempts.

    The D gave up less points while only having to make 7 or 8 stops instead of 12 or 13 stops.   Their efficiency was much lower than the winning 3.

    There were not 3 straight incompletions in that last drive.  There was a first down and 3 drops with 6 passes..

    Did you expect them to run in a 38 or 57 second possessions???  Both were under a minute, not a minute.

    In each of the other SB's they had more than a minute and only needed a FG to win or tie.

    Who cares if they punted one more time, they scored more points and more often. They scored on half their drives and on all but one in the second half and we lost the lead because of it.

    The gints were able to run the same ball control offense because the D sucked.  Offenses play defenses.

    Their defense played 100 times better than ours.  They actually got turn overs, stopped 3rd down conversions, got 3 and outs. stoped us before the 50 and made plays when they needed to.  Ours did none of that or was Eli so good that no one could stop him?  Funny, he didn't complete 75% of his passes, have the ball for nearly 5 minutes every possession against the 9rs, in fact he only scored 10 points in a 12 possession game.  He didn't win that game, the ST rookie lost it.  Not so much the case in our games.

    It is a lot easier to win against a D that is not even doing as much as the worst D in the NFL (oh wait, that was them) than it is against a D that is actually doing their jobs.  It's much harder to win if your O is on the bench for 2/3rds  of the game, because of that sucky D.

     

     



    Their D seemingly played better because Brady sucked. This is what you don't get, comically so.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    The D played better because they didn't suck.  That makes the whole team better.

    The O has had to win because the D in the past 6 years did suck.  That makes the whole team worse.

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

    OT--Posting Pictures

     

    I've noticed a few posted pictures recently.  I can't seem to get posting to work.  Simple copy and paste doesn't do it.  I've also tried to upload images to Dropbox then provide a Dropbox link in the window that opens when you click the "insert/edit picture" icon.  Neither approach seems to work.  

    Those who have posted pictures, how are you getting it to work?

     

     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    I'm quite sure you're right Wozzy.  An offense that gains 315 yards per game and scores 32 TDs and 299 points over the season is clearly better than one that gains 428 yards per game and scores 57 TDs and 483 points over the season.  The sun rises in the West too, the Earth is flat, and little green men wander around on Mars. 



    The goal is to win rings.  Stats are for losers.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    I'm quite sure you're right Wozzy.  An offense that gains 315 yards per game and scores 32 TDs and 299 points over the season is clearly better than one that gains 428 yards per game and scores 57 TDs and 483 points over the season.  The sun rises in the West too, the Earth is flat, and little green men wander around on Mars. 



    The goal is to win rings.  Stats are for losers.




    What was missing was a healthy Gronk and a defense that could get off the field.  The offense (with Gronk) was one of the best in the league.  

     

     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    What was missing was a healthy Gronk and a defense that could get off the field.  The offense (with Gronk) was one of the best in the league.  

      



    on the offensive side of the ball, it was unlucky that the Patriots could never field Gronk and AH at the same time during playoff games.  In the same vein, it was unlucky that the pass defense resorted back to the bottom  two in the NFL when Talib went out (also happening in playoff games).

     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    Oh, and Belichick was trying to deflect questions about Moss's stats when he famously said "stats are for losers."  But int a less contentious situation, he said what he really believes:

    Q: Did you know you guys are 19th in total offense but then first or second in scoring? Does that speak to your point that it’s difficult to look at numbers and know if they have meaning or not?
    BB: Well, I think they all have meaning; it’s just the priority of the stats. Wins is number one. Points is number two, because that correlates to winning. And then you get to the things that correlate to scoring, which [are] red area, big plays, and third down becomes a part of that because of being able to sustain drives and that type of things. But if you make big plays, then third down becomes less important. You can offset any good numbers with bad numbers. You can offset bad numbers with good numbers, but in the end, it’s about getting points on the board and keeping them off. You always want to improve on the things that you’re doing in all areas of the game. You want to run for more yardage, run for more consistent yardage, pass for more consistent yardage, defend it, all those things - get more negative plays, turnovers, on and on. You’re always striving to improve in every one of those areas. I’m not saying they’re not significant, they are, but the ones that correlate the highest to winning, you still have to consider them as the most important.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Oh, and Belichick was trying to deflect questions about Moss's stats when he famously said "stats are for losers."  But int a less contentious situation, he said what he really believes:

    Q: Did you know you guys are 19th in total offense but then first or second in scoring? Does that speak to your point that it’s difficult to look at numbers and know if they have meaning or not?
    BB: Well, I think they all have meaning; it’s just the priority of the stats. Wins is number one. Points is number two, because that correlates to winning. And then you get to the things that correlate to scoring, which [are] red area, big plays, and third down becomes a part of that because of being able to sustain drives and that type of things. But if you make big plays, then third down becomes less important. You can offset any good numbers with bad numbers. You can offset bad numbers with good numbers, but in the end, it’s about getting points on the board and keeping them off. You always want to improve on the things that you’re doing in all areas of the game. You want to run for more yardage, run for more consistent yardage, pass for more consistent yardage, defend it, all those things - get more negative plays, turnovers, on and on. You’re always striving to improve in every one of those areas. I’m not saying they’re not significant, they are, but the ones that correlate the highest to winning, you still have to consider them as the most important.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    RUN THE BALLWASHERS EXPOSED!

     

    How passing and rushing affect winning in the NFL
    January 10, 2014 By Ed Feng 10 Comments

    bill_belichickBefore the Super Bowl,

    Bill Belichick told his Giants defense to let Thurman Thomas rush for 100 yards.

    As David Halberstam writes in Education of a Coach, it was a tough sell before the 1991 Super Bowl against Buffalo. The New York Giants played a physical defense that prided itself on not allowing 100 yard rushers.

    No matter, the short, stout coach looked straight into the eyes of Lawrence Taylor and Pepper Johnson and said, “You guys have to believe me. If Thomas runs for a hundred yards, we win this game.”

    Just in case his players didn’t listen, Belichick took it upon himself to ensure Thomas got his yards. He took out a defensive lineman and linebacker and replaced these large bodies with two defensive backs. In football lingo, the Giants played a 2-3-6 defense designed to struggle against the run.

    Did Bill Belichick go insane? I certainly thought so when I first read this story years ago.

    However, analytics is on Belichick’s side. Let me explain.

    http://thepowerrank.com/2014/01/10/which-nfl-teams-make-and-win-in-the-playoffs/

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In three Super Bowls our offense brought us back from behind to win.  That is the biggest, noticeable difference between that offense and our recent offense.  I do find it funny that you laud the Giants for using the same style and system of offense on us that we used to run though.

     

    The defense in the last two Super Bowls have given up fewer points than all but one of the three that we won, the Giants punted more than the Patriots did.  While I don't claim the present day defenses are as good, 2001 wasn't great, the reality is that doesn't absolve the offense for turning it over twice, only scoring in the teens and having the ball with a minute left then throwing three straight incompletions.

     

    Slowly but surely you are backtracking on how great our offense has been of late, I don't have to back off that the defense was average and played average.  When you can finally admit this offense has been anemic against powerful physical defenses like the giants, Ravens, Jets when they were good and the Broncos then maybe this conversation will finally be over.




    I'm quite sure you're right Wozzy.  An offense that gains 315 yards per game and scores 32 TDs and 299 points over the season is clearly better than one that gains 428 yards per game and scores 57 TDs and 483 points over the season.  The sun rises in the West too, the Earth is flat, and little green men wander around on Mars.

     

     




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    No, but the offense that scores 15.5 points per game in its last 6 straight playoff losses surely didn't compare to the dynastys ball control offense that won 3 Superbowls in 4 years.

    Am I right? Or was the defense the reason we scored more and played better in all 3 phases of the game, and the defense is also now the reason our offense cant get 1st downs, extend drives, eat clock and score points in the biggest games of the year?

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share