Talib

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

    Re: Talib

    Back to the subject and not the crap you guys been talking about....

     

    http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots

     

    7. Dowling's length pays off. Here's what is unique about cornerback Ras-I Dowling: He's such a long defensive back that even when he doesn't necessarily extend his arms or blanket an opposing receiver, he can still maintain tight coverage. Dowling's length influences the window a quarterback has to throw into, and even when he stays within a half-stride of a wideout, it's difficult for receivers to out-leverage him at the point of catch. He had, in our estimation, his best practice session of camp. 

    8. Talib shines too. Dowling was good, but Aqib Talib was probably the best defensive back on the field tonight, as he recorded two interceptions, one of which he returned for a touchdown (thrown by Tom Brady, intended for Kenbrell Thompkins along the right sideline). Talib's ability to muscle up in competitive catch situations has led to a handful of breakups thus far in camp. 

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

    Re: Talib

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:

     

    Too bad our offense had to play great and peaking defenses in 07 and 11.  Our offense easily would of hung 40 against our chitty defense if they had the luxury of playing against them.  

    But why give any credit to the other team who came in both times with the superior defense and coaching.

    oh, by the way our offense got last minute leads against excellent defenses only to watch our crappy defense fold like origami both times......and that's a fact.



    You'll give credit to the Giant's defense but not our own.  The Giant's offense was superior, that's why they were able to score points in the 4th and even when they didn't score they could at least get first downs. Doesn't the door swing both ways?  The Patriot defense forced the Giants to punt more than the reverse, which means our D did their job.  

    Our defense stayed on the field all game because the Patriot offense suxed, they were soft, they choked in crunch time, they couldn't get first downs, they hung our defense out to dry by sending them out again and again until our defense finally broke.  

    But don't worry our offense had one last chance; one dropped pass to Hernanadez, one dropped pass by Branch and finally one dropped pass by Welker.  Game over.   Kind of the opposite of six straight completions by Brady and a game winning kick by Vinitari, but if you think that was good than it says more about you than it does our defense.

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

    Re: Talib

     

    But considering the Patriot offense scored a minute into the third than couldn't even convert a first down for the remainder of the 3rd quarter and THE ENTIRE 4TH QUARTER I guess it wouldn't have mattered.  

    The Patriots offense scored 14 points in 07' and 17 points in 2011... that sux, that was the offense's fault.  Period.

     

    Ummmmm they scored at 3:40 in the 3rd not one minute and they had 6 first downs in the 4th.  4 on their almost 6 minute drive and 2 in the last 57 seconds

    They also had a 8 pt lead until the D allowed 3 of 4 scores in the second half. 1 punt  and 3 scores in the second half...... Whooopeeee

    And that one hold after the int started from the 8 yard line and it was a 35 yard punt from the 43.  ANDDDDDDDD took 5 minutes off the clock!   VICTORY JINTS. UGH

    Is your memory failing or have you stooped to Rusty tactics? 

    Nothing you just described is true therefore your reason is also not true.

    Defenses fault PERIOD!

     


    "The worse New England has gotten on defense, the better Brady has been forced to become -- with 109 touchdowns, 20 interceptions and a 39-9 record the past three seasons. "

    CLARK JUDGE______7/13/13_____________________________________
                                  
                             

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Talib

    In response to Getzo's comment:

    Back to the subject and not the crap you guys been talking about....

     

    http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots

     

    7. Dowling's length pays off. Here's what is unique about cornerback Ras-I Dowling: He's such a long defensive back that even when he doesn't necessarily extend his arms or blanket an opposing receiver, he can still maintain tight coverage. Dowling's length influences the window a quarterback has to throw into, and even when he stays within a half-stride of a wideout, it's difficult for receivers to out-leverage him at the point of catch. He had, in our estimation, his best practice session of camp. 

    8. Talib shines too. Dowling was good, but Aqib Talib was probably the best defensive back on the field tonight, as he recorded two interceptions, one of which he returned for a touchdown (thrown by Tom Brady, intended for Kenbrell Thompkins along the right sideline). Talib's ability to muscle up in competitive catch situations has led to a handful of breakups thus far in camp. 



    At the practice monday night as group the corners were very physical with the recievers. Talib more than the others, he man handled evey reciever that lined up on his side.

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

    Re: Talib

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:

     

    But considering the Patriot offense scored a minute into the third than couldn't even convert a first down for the remainder of the 3rd quarter and THE ENTIRE 4TH QUARTER I guess it wouldn't have mattered.  

    The Patriots offense scored 14 points in 07' and 17 points in 2011... that sux, that was the offense's fault.  Period.

     

    Ummmmm they scored at 3:40 in the 3rd not one minute and they had 6 first downs in the 4th.  4 on their almost 6 minute drive and 2 in the last 57 seconds

    They also had a 8 pt lead until the D allowed 3 of 4 scores in the second half. 1 punt  and 3 scores in the second half...... Whooopeeee

    And that one hold after the int started from the 8 yard line and it was a 35 yard punt from the 43.  ANDDDDDDDD took 5 minutes off the clock!   VICTORY JINTS. UGH

    Is your memory failing or have you stooped to Rusty tactics? 

    Nothing you just described is true therefore your reason is also not true.

    Defenses fault PERIOD!

     


    "The worse New England has gotten on defense, the better Brady has been forced to become -- with 109 touchdowns, 20 interceptions and a 39-9 record the past three seasons. "

    CLARK JUDGE______7/13/13_____________________________________
                                  
                             



    Great post because you are not clouding it with only opinion - you provided time and facts - rusty and wooz seem to of forgoten what happened in those games. Rusty actually changes the score whe discussing Super Bowl 46...he eliminates points. Amazing. And we're supposed to believe this guy? 

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

    Re: Talib

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     

    In response to Getzo's comment:

     

    Back to the subject and not the crap you guys been talking about....

     

    http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots

     

    7. Dowling's length pays off. Here's what is unique about cornerback Ras-I Dowling: He's such a long defensive back that even when he doesn't necessarily extend his arms or blanket an opposing receiver, he can still maintain tight coverage. Dowling's length influences the window a quarterback has to throw into, and even when he stays within a half-stride of a wideout, it's difficult for receivers to out-leverage him at the point of catch. He had, in our estimation, his best practice session of camp. 

    8. Talib shines too. Dowling was good, but Aqib Talib was probably the best defensive back on the field tonight, as he recorded two interceptions, one of which he returned for a touchdown (thrown by Tom Brady, intended for Kenbrell Thompkins along the right sideline). Talib's ability to muscle up in competitive catch situations has led to a handful of breakups thus far in camp. 

     



    At the practice monday night as group the corners were very physical with the recievers. Talib more than the others, he man handled evey reciever that lined up on his side.

     

     



    Nice to hear!

     

    Talib will make the defense better (so will Dennard) - these two will also make our receivers understand what they will be facing when the real games start. In recent years our receivers got no competition going against Whilite, Butler, Hobbs, Arrington, Springs, Wheatley, Merriweather, Chung, McGowen, Bodden, Moore, Ihedigbo, Sergio Brown (now he may of been the worst)...on and on and on. Imagine our receivers going against those corners and then going aganst safeties that were out of position and too small? No wonder we were never ready for Baltimore's secondary.  

    I watched the Jets have no pass rush over the last four year (and average run defense), but be able to stop people with their corners and cohesive secondary play. They were able to blitz more because of it. They were able to change their schemes weekly if they needed to, and they were able to take specific receivers out of the game plan....to think we may be able to do that now! I've watched the Dolphins do that (late 90's/early200's) and the Ravens...we used to be like that too.   

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

    Re: Talib

     

    Super Bowl 46 was  what it was because on offense we were down a key piece (Gronk) and, once again, the Giants' Defensive front beat our O line too many times; and on defense, we let them mount long drives that too frequently gave them either points or left us in terrible field position (their punter desrves a game ball) and, at the critical point at the end of the game, our pass defense did what it's done so often in recent years, collapsed.  Team loss for the Pats.  Team win for the Giants.

     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Talib

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Super Bowl 46 was  what it was because on offense we were down a key piece (Gronk) and, once again, the QGiants' Defensive front beat our O line too many times; and on defense, we let them mount long drives that too frequently gave them either points or left us in terrible field position (their punter desrves a game ball) and, at the critical point at the end of the game, our pass defense did what it's done so often in recent years, collapsed.  Team loss for the Pats.  Team win for the Giants.

     

     

    [/QUOTE

    the O line couldn't run block so it made it a lot easier on the Giants D. We became one dimensional   

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Talib

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     

    In response to Getzo's comment:

     

    Back to the subject and not the crap you guys been talking about....

     

    http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots

     

    7. Dowling's length pays off. Here's what is unique about cornerback Ras-I Dowling: He's such a long defensive back that even when he doesn't necessarily extend his arms or blanket an opposing receiver, he can still maintain tight coverage. Dowling's length influences the window a quarterback has to throw into, and even when he stays within a half-stride of a wideout, it's difficult for receivers to out-leverage him at the point of catch. He had, in our estimation, his best practice session of camp. 

    8. Talib shines too. Dowling was good, but Aqib Talib was probably the best defensive back on the field tonight, as he recorded two interceptions, one of which he returned for a touchdown (thrown by Tom Brady, intended for Kenbrell Thompkins along the right sideline). Talib's ability to muscle up in competitive catch situations has led to a handful of breakups thus far in camp. 

     



    At the practice monday night as group the corners were very physical with the recievers. Talib more than the others, he man handled evey reciever that lined up on his side.

     

     



    Nice to hear!

     

    Talib will make the defense better (so will Dennard) - these two will also make our receivers understand what they will be facing when the real games start. In recent years our receivers got no competition going against Whilite, Butler, Hobbs, Arrington, Springs, Wheatley, Merriweather, Chung, McGowen, Bodden, Moore, Ihedigbo, Sergio Brown (now he may of been the worst)...on and on and on. Imagine our receivers going against those corners and then going aganst safeties that were out of position and too small? No wonder we were never ready for Baltimore's secondary.  

    I watched the Jets have no pass rush over the last four year (and average run defense), but be able to stop people with their corners and cohesive secondary play. They were able to blitz more because of it. They were able to change their schemes weekly if they needed to, and they were able to take specific receivers out of the game plan....to think we may be able to do that now! I've watched the Dolphins do that (late 90's/early200's) and the Ravens...we used to be like that too.   




    I know it is early and only practice but i was very impressed with how physical the entire secondary was. Especially the corners led by Talib.

    A Wilson is a big man for a safety.

    I would say the one thing i can take away from last night practice is that it looks as though the secondary is much, much improved. Perhaps it could be due to the inexperience of the WR's but it just seemed the secondary is physical and quick to the ball. In the live drills there were a ton of break-ups and a few interceptions.

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

    Re: Talib


    I just remeber that Giant line dominating (more so in SB42), but they gained an advantage and came on strong in the second half of 46. Big line...athletic guys with length...they were built for games like that. Had a friend who went to both games, he said Light was dominated in the first one and he said Brady took a pounding (just a beating) in the second one...I remember that...he got hammered in the second half.

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

    Re: Talib

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     Ummmmm they scored at 3:40 in the 3rd not one minute and they had 6 first downs in the 4th.  4 on their almost 6 minute drive and 2 in the last 57 seconds

    Sorry, but did the Patriot offense score in the remaining 12 minutes of the third quarter or the entire 4th quarter; no they didn't.  There's no points awarded for good intentions.

    All they did from that last score on was punt, throw an interception, punt, then throw three straight incompletions to end the game... brilliant, they crossed the 50 yard line once and had to punt, just an offensive juggernaut.

     

     

    "Well, the most important thing to me is scoring points on offense. I don’t really care how we score them. We’ve thrown the ball a lot. We’ve run it a lot. We’ve been balanced. I think in the end, you have to be able to execute the plays that are the most advantageous to you based on your personnel and what the defense is doing. As long as we’re moving the ball and scoring points, then we’re doing well offensively. If we’re not, then we’re not. It doesn’t make any difference what we’re doing. That’s the only reason that unit goes out on the field is to score. If we just wanted to run three plays and punt, we could find a lot of guys to do that. Their job is to move it." - Bill Belichick

     http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/09/bills_take_101.html

     

    You obviously can't do simple addition, the Patriot's offense scored less then the three previous Super Bowls and the defense held to the lowest of the three Super Bowl totals.  It doesn't take Albert Einstein...

    Super Bowl scores              

               Patriots      -     Opponents     

    2001:  20 points   -       17 points    = WIN

    2003:  32 points   -       29 points    = WIN   (some killer defense there)

    2004:  24 points   -       21 points    = WIN

    2007:  14 points   -       17 points    = LOSS

    2011:  17 points   -       21 points    = LOSS 

     

    Yeah from the looks of that you can easily determine that the offense was wonderful but the defense was terrible.  Wake up, we've been the Peyton Manning Colts since 2009, great in the regular season, inept in the playoffs.

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

    Re: Talib

    Couple weeks off. Rusty still derailing threads with his agenda....smh

     

    Back to the cabins I go

     

     

    "Take care of my B*tch, I may need her back in a couple years"

    Brady to Manning after Wes signed with Denver

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

    Re: Talib

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

     

     

     Ummmmm they scored at 3:40 in the 3rd not one minute and they had 6 first downs in the 4th.  4 on their almost 6 minute drive and 2 in the last 57 seconds

     

     

     

     

    Sorry, but did the Patriot offense score in the remaining 12 minutes of the third quarter or the entire 4th quarter; no they didn't.  There's no points awarded for good intentions.

    All they did from that last score on was punt, throw an interception, punt, then throw three straight incompletions to end the game... brilliant, they crossed the 50 yard line once and had to punt, just an offensive juggernaut.

     

     

    "Well, the most important thing to me is scoring points on offense. I don’t really care how we score them. We’ve thrown the ball a lot. We’ve run it a lot. We’ve been balanced. I think in the end, you have to be able to execute the plays that are the most advantageous to you based on your personnel and what the defense is doing. As long as we’re moving the ball and scoring points, then we’re doing well offensively. If we’re not, then we’re not. It doesn’t make any difference what we’re doing. That’s the only reason that unit goes out on the field is to score. If we just wanted to run three plays and punt, we could find a lot of guys to do that. Their job is to move it." - Bill Belichick

     http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/09/bills_take_101.html

     

    You obviously can't do simple addition, the Patriot's offense scored less then the three previous Super Bowls and the defense held to the lowest of the three Super Bowl totals.  It doesn't take Albert Einstein...

    Super Bowl scores              

               Patriots      -     Opponents     

    2001:  20 points   -       17 points    = WIN

    2003:  32 points   -       29 points    = WIN   (some killer defense there)

    2004:  24 points   -       21 points    = WIN

    2007:  14 points   -       17 points    = LOSS

    2011:  17 points   -       21 points    = LOSS 

     

    Yeah from the looks of that you can easily determine that the offense was wonderful but the defense was terrible.  Wake up, we've been the Peyton Manning Colts since 2009, great in the regular season, inept in the playoffs.

     




    Ummmm, you said they scored 1 minute into the 3rd (not true) and the had NO 1st downs for the remainder of the 3rd and WHOLE 4th qtr.  (also not true)

     

    The difference in the last 2 SB's on that list is the absence of 4-6 possessions, naturally (but unnaturally)  making the score lower.  The low possessions were 100% the fault of the D and should not be celebrated but BERATED!

    ie, the D only had to make 8 stops, not 12-14

    ie, the O only had 8 opportunities to score, not 12-14.

    You are not going to score your average in points with 4-6 LOST POSSESSIONS!

    Funny thing about possessions.  It's impossible to SCORE without them.

    ie, of you lose 33% of your possessions, you have to increase your scoring efficiency by the same 33% to achieve a similar score to your average.

    Is scoring on 76% of your drives realistic for any team?

    Guess so.  The gints did it in the second half, with ease.

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

    Re: Talib

    Sorry, I can't argue with someone who pretends to know complex mathmatical equations that somehow reveal the 14-17 points the Pat's offense scored is actually a good thing.  I'd suggest you start counting on your fingers.

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

    Re: Talib

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    Sorry, I can't argue with someone who pretends to know complex mathmatical equations that somehow reveal the 14-17 points the Pat's offense scored is actually a good thing.  I'd suggest you start counting on your fingers.




    Yes, I guess it is futile to argue with someone that can't see that limited possessions are going to limit scores.

    POSSESSIONS........ You can't score without them.

    Is that too mathematically complex?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: Talib


    Without all the "math"... if the D can't get one 3 and out in a game... your team is  most likely going to lose TOP and then they are forced to become even more one dimentional because they have to try and score fast.... Wozzy you know that and  are just playing dumb . It was a team loss.  It was not like the d kept getting 3 and outs and were waiting for the O to move the ball.  The O wasn't perfect and had turn overs... but what did the D do so well that they helped the O? Not once did they put the O in position to score once or get a key turn over.  They let the giants win in war of field position.   If you place that all on the O your being as bias as Rusty. There was no complimentry football and the O could not carry the game. Team loss.

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

    Re: Talib

    Pezz, in 2011 the Patriots and Giants both had 9 possessions in that Super Bowl.  That is a fact, look it up.  

    The Giants offense punted 4 times and didn't turn it over, the Patriots offense punted 3 times but turned it over twice with no help from the Giant defense whatsoever, the safety could have been avoided had Brady slid a foot to his right and the interception came with the slimmest of leads on a first down to start the 4th... our defense held them, that was our moment to make a stand, to define the entire season in a time consuming offensive drive like the early 2000's, our offense punted instead.  

    It doesn't matter if the defense forced them for a 3 and out or a 7 and out, they prevented points from being scored and forced them to punt more than they did to us.  This defense has always been bend don't break, yards be damned.

    CSylvia I agree completely that all three phases of the game lost it for us, but since we spent 2/3rds of our payroll on offense, we decided to go with a feast or famine style offense and the binkies here blame everybody but the offense for these Super Bowl losses, it is up to some of us to interject when these people say it was all the defense's fault.  

    The Giants and Patriots had an equal amount of possessions, it was a low scoring game which is a sure indicator that both defenses came to play, the onus was on the offense to win those games.  

    To put it simply, the Patriots defense gave up 21 ppg in the regular season, they gave up 21 to the Giants that day, the offense averaged 32.1 points per game in the regular season, they scored 17...  

    So who underachieved again?

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

    Re: Talib

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    Wow. I said nothing wrong in defense of myself and they deleted the comments again. Sick.

    Absolutely sick.




    Considering you have been banned 25+ times by them, you're lucky they don't delete not only every single one of your posts, but you as well whenever you rear your ugly head.

    Their tolerance of you is actually, astonishing.

     

     

     

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

    Re: Talib

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    the safety could have been avoided had Brady slid a foot to his right

     



    The safety could have been avoided had 7 blockers on 4 rushers given more than 4 seconds for 3 receivers on 7 defenders to get open.

    Not to mention that there was no chance to slide any foot when Vollmer launched the rusher right into Brady.

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

    Re: Talib

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    Pezz, in 2011 the Patriots and Giants both had 9 possessions in that Super Bowl.  That is a fact, look it up.  

    The Giants offense punted 4 times and didn't turn it over, the Patriots offense punted 3 times but turned it over twice with no help from the Giant defense whatsoever, the safety could have been avoided had Brady slid a foot to his right and the interception came with the slimmest of leads on a first down to start the 4th... our defense held them, that was our moment to make a stand, to define the entire season in a time consuming offensive drive like the early 2000's, our offense punted instead.  

    It doesn't matter if the defense forced them for a 3 and out or a 7 and out, they prevented points from being scored and forced them to punt more than they did to us.  This defense has always been bend don't break, yards be damned.

    CSylvia I agree completely that all three phases of the game lost it for us, but since we spent 2/3rds of our payroll on offense, we decided to go with a feast or famine style offense and the binkies here blame everybody but the offense for these Super Bowl losses, it is up to some of us to interject when these people say it was all the defense's fault.  

    The Giants and Patriots had an equal amount of possessions, it was a low scoring game which is a sure indicator that both defenses came to play, the onus was on the offense to win those games.  

    To put it simply, the Patriots defense gave up 21 ppg in the regular season, they gave up 21 to the Giants that day, the offense averaged 32.1 points per game in the regular season, they scored 17...  

    So who underachieved again?




    Technically, yes there were 9 but one (the safety) took no time off the clock and the gints had a 8 second kneel down to end the half.  The Pats also had their final possession in the second half restricted by time. 

    So they both only had 8 real drives with the Pats being restricted on the final one.

    Neither possession resulted in anything other than the initial first down.

    The gints D had EVERY THING to do with the turn overs.  How do you make such a statement?  The Pats D did NOTHING to do with any turn overs.  The one they did get was negated by 12 men on the field.

    Please stop with the D held their own and held them to their average.  With normal possessions they would not have and with more possessions the O likely would have scored more.  The limited possessions helped the D to keep the score down despite allowing 50% scoring in the game and 75% in the second half.  You don't win games by allowing the opposition to score on 75% of their drives and eat clock when they aren't scoring.

    The gints 4 punts took a whopping 19 minutes off the clock.  It should have taken HALF that

    That time wasted was time  taken away from the O.  That's time and possessions they could have used to score more points.

    There scoring drives ALSO took 19 minutes.  Again time and possessions stolen from the O.

    Without confusing you with more math, that's 19 minutes and 4 possessions lost, as each possession should average 5 minutes total (for both the O and D.)

    Realistically with the both teams having a possession with no time being used, it should have been a 13 possession game.

    The D lost 4 possessions PERIOD!  4 less possessions means 4 less stops and 4 less opportunities to score.

    Please show me a regular season game where 4 possessions were KILLED and the D got zero 3 & outs and zero turn overs and made zero stops in enemy territory.  They played worse than their regular season 31st ranking.

    The only game close was the steeler game and they even had 3 & outs in that one, but with similar results.

    Just for grins, here are the Post season stats for the 04 and 11, D.  Same amount of games.

    04:   PD 46,   INTS 7,  TD 1,  FF 6,  REC 4

    11:   PD 13,   INTS 1,   TD 0,   FF 6,   REC 1

    YOU DON'T SEE A PROBLEM HERE?


    YOU DON'T SEE A PROBLEM HERE?

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

    Re: Talib

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    Technically, yes there were 9 but one (the safety) took no time off the clock and the gints had a 8 second kneel down to end the half.  The Pats also had their final possession in the second half restricted by time. 

    So they both only had 8 real drives with the Pats being restricted on the final one.

    Neither possession resulted in anything other than the initial first down.

    The gints D had EVERY THING to do with the turn overs.  How do you make such a statement?  The Pats D did NOTHING to do with any turn overs.  The one they did get was negated by 12 men on the field.

    Please stop with the D held their own and held them to their average.  With normal possessions they would not have and with more possessions the O likely would have scored more.  The limited possessions helped the D to keep the score down despite allowing 50% scoring in the game and 75% in the second half.  You don't win games by allowing the opposition to score on 75% of their drives and eat clock when they aren't scoring.

    The gints 4 punts took a whopping 19 minutes off the clock.  It should have taken HALF that

    That time wasted was time  taken away from the O.  That's time and possessions they could have used to score more points.

    There scoring drives ALSO took 19 minutes.  Again time and possessions stolen from the O.

    Without confusing you with more math, that's 19 minutes and 4 possessions lost, as each possession should average 5 minutes total (for both the O and D.)

    Realistically with the both teams having a possession with no time being used, it should have been a 13 possession game.

    The D lost 4 possessions PERIOD!  4 less possessions means 4 less stops and 4 less opportunities to score.

    Please show me a regular season game where 4 possessions were KILLED and the D got zero 3 & outs and zero turn overs and made zero stops in enemy territory.  They played worse than their regular season 31st ranking.

    The only game close was the steeler game and they even had 3 & outs in that one, but with similar results.

    Just for grins, here are the Post season stats for the 04 and 11, D.  Same amount of games.

    04:   PD 46,   INTS 7,  TD 1,  FF 6,  REC 4

    11:   PD 13,   INTS 1,   TD 0,   FF 6,   REC 1

    YOU DON'T SEE A PROBLEM HERE?

    YOU DON'T SEE A PROBLEM HERE?



    This looks like an illiterate attempt to excuse the offense from laying an egg... I don't understand this psycho babble, nevermind see the problem here.  

    The only stats that matter are points scored vs points against... all the rest of this stuff is excuses.

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

    Re: Talib

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

     

     

     

    Technically, yes there were 9 but one (the safety) took no time off the clock and the gints had a 8 second kneel down to end the half.  The Pats also had their final possession in the second half restricted by time. 

    So they both only had 8 real drives with the Pats being restricted on the final one.

    Neither possession resulted in anything other than the initial first down.

    The gints D had EVERY THING to do with the turn overs.  How do you make such a statement?  The Pats D did NOTHING to do with any turn overs.  The one they did get was negated by 12 men on the field.

    Please stop with the D held their own and held them to their average.  With normal possessions they would not have and with more possessions the O likely would have scored more.  The limited possessions helped the D to keep the score down despite allowing 50% scoring in the game and 75% in the second half.  You don't win games by allowing the opposition to score on 75% of their drives and eat clock when they aren't scoring.

    The gints 4 punts took a whopping 19 minutes off the clock.  It should have taken HALF that

    That time wasted was time  taken away from the O.  That's time and possessions they could have used to score more points.

    There scoring drives ALSO took 19 minutes.  Again time and possessions stolen from the O.

    Without confusing you with more math, that's 19 minutes and 4 possessions lost, as each possession should average 5 minutes total (for both the O and D.)

    Realistically with the both teams having a possession with no time being used, it should have been a 13 possession game.

    The D lost 4 possessions PERIOD!  4 less possessions means 4 less stops and 4 less opportunities to score.

    Please show me a regular season game where 4 possessions were KILLED and the D got zero 3 & outs and zero turn overs and made zero stops in enemy territory.  They played worse than their regular season 31st ranking.

    The only game close was the steeler game and they even had 3 & outs in that one, but with similar results.

    Just for grins, here are the Post season stats for the 04 and 11, D.  Same amount of games.

    04:   PD 46,   INTS 7,  TD 1,  FF 6,  REC 4

    11:   PD 13,   INTS 1,   TD 0,   FF 6,   REC 1

    YOU DON'T SEE A PROBLEM HERE?

    YOU DON'T SEE A PROBLEM HERE?

     

     



    This looks like an illiterate attempt to excuse the offense from laying an egg... I don't understand this psycho babble, nevermind see the problem here.  

     

     

    The only stats that matter are points scored vs points against... all the rest of this stuff is excuses.

     




    I would think the illiterate one would be the one unable to read and comprehend a simple concept, in this case.

     

    Points (for and against) come from possessions. Possessions include both defensive and offensive play.

    The amount of possessions are determined by how long it takes to complete a possession in a 60 minute game.  ie 5 minute possessions = 12 per game and 7.5 minute possessions =8 per game and 4.5 minute possessions = 13 per game. 

    8 possessions games are extremely rare.

    Things that shorten the time of possession are 3 & outs, turn overs, limiting plays per possessions,  passes defended, stopping 3rd down conversions and of course, scoring.

    Limited possessions = limited points (for and against)

    Possessions are very important because it's impossible to score without them.

    No QB in the history of the NFL has ever scored while his D was on the field.

    Points ( for and against) are influenced by possessions.  You can't score 59 points in a 8 possession game but you can in a 12 possession game.  In fact, it would be extremely difficult for BOTH TEAMS COMBINED, to score 59 points in an 8 possession game.

    That's a combined total of 8 TD's and 1 FG in 8 possessions, each.

    The average points combined in a game, normally total around 44, WITH 12 possessions.

    That's nowhere near 59 points in 8 possessions and highly unlikely.

    Not many 12 possession games have a total of 8 TD's aND 1 FG, NEVER MIND 8.

    Pretty simple stuff here.

     

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

    Re: Talib

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    That's some good news.  What the "Run at any cost'ers" don't understand is without a Super Star RB in the back field, and we haven't had a Super Star since Dillon in 04, you need outside the numbers WR's to keep the Safety honest.

     



    We won two Super Bowls with slot guys as our leading receivers (Brown, Branch) and the other with David Givens.  

     

    What the "lack of balance guys" don't seem to understand is that receivers get open because of play action, not because they're incredibly gifted and the rest just sux because Belichick can't draft receivers... whine, moan, cry in beer

    Play action only works when you run.

    [/QUOTE]

    Having a good defense helps, run or pass....

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share