Talib

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Talib

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    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.

     



    This is junk science, it's really not this difficult, the offense's job is to score points, the defenses job is to prevent points.  If both teams had 9 chances and the score was low (it was) than the offense that asserts itself wins.  

    14-17 points in today's NFL stinks.  You can't blame the defense because the offense did nothing with it's oppourtunities, there is no mathmatical equation that excuses them for sucking an egg.  I can imagine you trying to explain this garbage to Belichick followed by him smacking you upside your head and calling you a twit.

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

    Re: Talib

     

     Number of possessions does matter.  In fact, ball control is totally about reducing number of possessions.  I know traditionally coaches haven't described it that way--they talk about slowing the game down, keeping the ball away from the other team, etc.--but what really happens with ball control is that you extend the time of your drives (usually by running shorter yardage plays, working slowly, and not stopping the clock), which reduces total possessions in the game and therefore reduces total scoring chances.  

     

    Talking about "reducing possessions" is just old-fashioned football wisdom described in more mathematically precise terms.  

     

    Wozzy has a point that even in low possession games, both teams (typically) have equal chances to score and so the one that scores more performs better.  But ball control isn't "junk science"--it's a time-honored approach for a team with a weaker offense and a stronger defense to try to beat a team with a better offense.  You reduce the number of possessions (or "time") for the better offense so they can't score enough.  There are two ways to counter a ball control strategy by your opponent:

    • First, on offense, you have to score with every chance you get.  The Pats offense didn't do that.
    • Second, on defense, you have to make stops and force the other team to punt early in their drives.  The Pats defense didn't do that. 
    You can blame the offense or you can blame the defense, but both deserve responsibility.  The offense not scoring hurt.  But the defense allowing the Giants to successfully run ball control hurt too. 

     

    I will say in an eight possession game, scoring 28 points would be a tremendous feat.  It would require a touchdown on every other drive, something that no team regularly does.  The low score in Super Bowl 46 (for both teams) represents about the expected scoring in a game that was "slowed down" to the extent that game was.  The Pats did worse than the Giants, but the low score was mostly the result of the Giants being able to successfully execute a "keep-away" strategy. 

     

     
     
  5. 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:

     

     

     

    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.

     

     

     



    This is junk science, it's really not this difficult, the offense's job is to score points, the defenses job is to prevent points.  If both teams had 9 chances and the score was low (it was) than the offense that asserts itself wins.  

     

     

    14-17 points in today's NFL stinks.  You can't blame the defense because the offense did nothing with it's oppourtunities, there is no mathmatical equation that excuses them for sucking an egg.  I can imagine you trying to explain this garbage to Belichick followed by him smacking you upside your head and calling you a twit.

     




    Well I think BB would smile as he remembered using the very same principle in the Gints/Bills SB.  You remember.  The D that is in the HoF as his lowly Gints beat the high flying, high scoring Bills...... by reducing possessions.

     

    It's also pretty comical that his partner in crime, Coughlin, beat him the very same way.

    TWICE!  Actually 3 times if you count the RS game.

    Oh and you remember last years SB, right?  High scoring game right?

    Well, guess what.  Both teams combined,  scored 58 points on offense and that was with 13 possessions.  How high do you think the score would have been with 8?

    Take away the last 5, meaningless, irrelevant, possessions and the ST TD and Flacco scores 13 points....

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

    Re: Talib


    For all this time of possesion discussion that is going on, I never really witnessed the effects of it more than the day of SB 46. Watching your defense not getting off the field - allowing the offense to drive deep and gain the battle of field position...it was text book. Almost every drive we had (off a punt) resulted in us having to start behind our 20. Starting that deep against a Giant D was a very frustrating thing to watch, because you knew how hard it was going to be to move the ball 90 yards on them - yet we did do that a few times. All I kept hoping for was field position at our 35 or 40, but the defense was never able to stall their offense from moving far into our half of the field - they were always able to pin us back with their punts/field position.

    That game was won with field positon, time of possesion, good defense...anyone that can't see that doesn't really understand football. I mean that IS football, that is how you win. That is how good teams are built - they are built to win field positon battles and time of possesion. They are built to play defense....we weren't. We were lucky as hell to even get there, a drop in the endzone, a missed chip shot field goal and Tim Tebow are to thank for that. 

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

    Re: Talib

    It's all ancient history guys. This year's D is gonna be killer.

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

    Re: Talib

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Number of possessions does matter.  In fact, ball control is totally about reducing number of possessions.  I know traditionally coaches haven't described it that way--they talk about slowing the game down, keeping the ball away from the other team, etc.--but what really happens with ball control is that you extend the time of your drives (usually by running shorter yardage plays, working slowly, and not stopping the clock), which reduces total possessions in the game and therefore reduces total scoring chances.  

     

    Talking about "reducing possessions" is just old-fashioned football wisdom described in more mathematically precise terms.  

     

    Wozzy has a point that even in low possession games, both teams (typically) have equal chances to score and so the one that scores more performs better.  But ball control isn't "junk science"--it's a time-honored approach for a team with a weaker offense and a stronger defense to try to beat a team with a better offense.  You reduce the number of possessions (or "time") for the better offense so they can't score enough.  There are two ways to counter a ball control strategy by your opponent:

    • First, on offense, you have to score with every chance you get.  The Pats offense didn't do that.
    • Second, on defense, you have to make stops and force the other team to punt early in their drives.  The Pats defense didn't do that. 

    You can blame the offense or you can blame the defense, but both deserve responsibility.  The offense not scoring hurt.  But the defense allowing the Giants to successfully run ball control hurt too. 

     

    I will say in an eight possession game, scoring 28 points would be a tremendous feat.  It would require a touchdown on every other drive, something that no team regularly does.  The low score in Super Bowl 46 (for both teams) represents about the expected scoring in a game that was "slowed down" to the extent that game was.  The Pats did worse than the Giants, but the low score was mostly the result of the Giants being able to successfully execute a "keep-away" strategy. 

     

     



    Which, if you know me at all, is my point entirely, we never should have strayed from our ball control offense... ever.  

    2007 was a good example of the best a balanced, ball control offense can be, it doesn't mean less points, it means you try to score on every down and don't take your foot off the gas, it means you are efficient on every play, every down, every first down.  You stay on the field and/or come away with points every time down the field, you control the clock. 

    I'll bet many of you don't know this but the average Patriot drive in 2007 lasted 3:07 minutes which ranked them #1 in the entire NFL, they were 2nd overall in TOP.  

    Saying that the Patriot safety in the 2011 Super Bowl shouldn't count is baloney, it's not simply the amount of possessions it's what you do with those possessions.  If the offense could have sustained some time consuming drives (run more?) our defense probably could have shaved some points off the 21 they gave up, or got some turnovers because they wouldn't have been gassed.  

    Neither team ran well, in fact the Patriots ran a smidge better than the Giants, but NY was more persistent, running ten carries more than we did... and now we wonder how they controlled the clock?

    All these years since 07' posters here have been fighting the notion that running actually matters, this thread pretty much proves that if one waits long enough, the truth will reveal itself eventually.

    In the NFL you have to be able to pass the ball, but running matters, our offense works best when the run sets up the pass or vice versa, take one element out of the equation and you have a flawed result.  

    I swear Prolate I never thought this day would come, all it took was 5 years or more for you to agree with me that a ball control offense doesn't have to be a bad thing.

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

    Re: Talib

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

    Number of possessions does matter.  In fact, ball control is totally about reducing number of possessions.  I know traditionally coaches haven't described it that way--they talk about slowing the game down, keeping the ball away from the other team, etc.--but what really happens with ball control is that you extend the time of your drives (usually by running shorter yardage plays, working slowly, and not stopping the clock), which reduces total possessions in the game and therefore reduces total scoring chances.  

     

    Talking about "reducing possessions" is just old-fashioned football wisdom described in more mathematically precise terms.  

     

    Wozzy has a point that even in low possession games, both teams (typically) have equal chances to score and so the one that scores more performs better.  But ball control isn't "junk science"--it's a time-honored approach for a team with a weaker offense and a stronger defense to try to beat a team with a better offense.  You reduce the number of possessions (or "time") for the better offense so they can't score enough.  There are two ways to counter a ball control strategy by your opponent:

    • First, on offense, you have to score with every chance you get.  The Pats offense didn't do that.
    • Second, on defense, you have to make stops and force the other team to punt early in their drives.  The Pats defense didn't do that. 

    You can blame the offense or you can blame the defense, but both deserve responsibility.  The offense not scoring hurt.  But the defense allowing the Giants to successfully run ball control hurt too. 

     

    I will say in an eight possession game, scoring 28 points would be a tremendous feat.  It would require a touchdown on every other drive, something that no team regularly does.  The low score in Super Bowl 46 (for both teams) represents about the expected scoring in a game that was "slowed down" to the extent that game was.  The Pats did worse than the Giants, but the low score was mostly the result of the Giants being able to successfully execute a "keep-away" strategy. 

     

     

     



     

     

    Which, if you know me at all, is my point entirely, we never should have strayed from our ball control offense... ever.  

    2007 was a good example of the best a balanced, ball control offense can be, it doesn't mean less points, it means you try to score on every down and don't take your foot off the gas, it means you are efficient on every play, every down, every first down.  You stay on the field and/or come away with points every time down the field, you control the clock. 

    I'll bet many of you don't know this but the average Patriot drive in 2007 lasted 3:07 minutes which ranked them #1 in the entire NFL, they were 2nd overall in TOP.  

    Saying that the Patriot safety in the 2011 Super Bowl shouldn't count is baloney, it's not simply the amount of possessions it's what you do with those possessions.  If the offense could have sustained some time consuming drives (run more?) our defense probably could have shaved some points off the 21 they gave up, or got some turnovers because they wouldn't have been gassed.  

    Neither team ran well, in fact the Patriots ran a smidge better than the Giants, but NY was more persistent, running ten carries more than we did... and now we wonder how they controlled the clock?

    All these years since 07' posters here have been fighting the notion that running actually matters, this thread pretty much proves that if one waits long enough, the truth will reveal itself eventually.

    In the NFL you have to be able to pass the ball, but running matters, our offense works best when the run sets up the pass or vice versa, take one element out of the equation and you have a flawed result.  

    I swear Prolate I never thought this day would come, all it took was 5 years or more for you to agree with me that a ball control offense doesn't have to be a bad thing.

     



    Wozzy, I've never disagreed that ball control can be good.  Heck, I like the running game and some of my favorite Pats memories involve Corey Dillon bulldozing down the sideline blowing DBs and LBs up with his stiff arm.  Patrick Pass and Heath Evans and Marc Edwards were all guys I liked a lot.

     

    But that doesn't necessarily mean that the right strategy is always to run more. I think in 2011 the Pats weren't really built for run-based ball control and I think BB knew that and that's why his strategy was different.  If they rebuild to be able to pound the ball more ala the Corey Dillon year, will I be disappointed?  If they stop passing so much, will I get depressed and give up my tickets? Heck no.  But I do think that BB has been making the right strategic decisions year after year, and I don't think he's made big mistakes in running the kind of offense he's run given the teams he's had.

     

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

    Re: Talib

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    the binkies here blame everybody but the offense for these Super Bowl losses



    Not me. I blame the defense for choking at the end of 2 SBs. I blame them for an assortment of defensive deficiencies in both games, including dropping game winning INTs or simply not even getting INTs and not getting off the field at even an average NFL level of competency.

    But I also lay some blame on the offense. Poor running, poor blocking and dropped passes all contributed to placing the defense on the spot to get a stop on the last drive to win the game.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Talib


    Well we had one INT late in the game, in Giants territory, but it was negated thanks to Dink or should I say Vrabel Jr. jumping off sides.

     

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

    Re: Talib

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:


    Well we had one INT late in the game, in Giants territory, but it was negated thanks to Dink or should I say Vrabel Jr. jumping off sides.

     




    Not to mention the too many men penalty negating a turnover that would have saved a TD. There is no forgiveness to be found in Heaven or on Earth for a defense being that bush league stupid in a SB. That's almost as embarrassing as having Rusty call himself a Pats' fan.

     

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

    Re: Talib

    Is it better to have loved and lost? Or is it better to be the Dolphins, Bills and Jets?

     

Share