The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

    We can leave the other discussion to the most challenged among us so they can have their quick reference.


    1. The first offensive play call of the game was dreadful. A 30 yard pattern out of your endzone against a team you have had protection problems with the last several times you played them was ill advised at best, especially since your defense had just been on the field for 6 minutes and needed a blow.

    2. Regardless of #1 above, it is the quarterbacks responsibility to do anything except get called for intentional grounding from in the endzone.

    3. The Giants held the ball for a full 11 minutes of the first quarter, and had a 37-23 overall time of possession advantage for the game.

    4. Pats had one drive of over 5 minutes and one drive over four minutes. The Pats offense could not sustain enough drives to help the defense out.

    5. The Giants had 3 drives of over 5 minutes and 3 drives over four minutes. The Pats defense could not help the offense by getting the ball back for them.

    6. The Pats turned the ball over (OK only once, but it ended a potential drive), the Giants kept the ball even though they fumbled three times (one negated by a penalty on the Pats).

    7. Tom Brady made a couple of very uncharacteristic plays on the safety, the interception and the bad pass to Welker.

    8. In the Super Bowl, those plays are critical. If the Giants had not got the 2 points on the safety, the Pats would have only needed a field goal or the win in the end, rather than having to desparately go for a touchdown.

    9. Add up all of the above, and the bottom line is that the Giants made more plays and fewer mistakes, which usually leads to winning.
     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

    This thread was fair and balanced (unlike the biased mind numbing propaganda of Fox and some "guy" here whose name I forget because I put him on ignore a long time ago.... )
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

    In Response to Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to The Super Bowl for more erudite observers. : Tears!!! Absolutely priceless.  His thread is like a Fox News broadcast or ESPN's coverage of the witch hunt known as Spygate. Leave out facts, contexts and every important note available to protect the agenda-driven post. Nice thread, man.
    Posted by CliffordWasHere[/QUOTE]

    Why is this so funny to you?
    Babe makes a lot of the same points but leaves out TB's errors.
    You emphasize TB's errors and leave out the rest.

    It is a fair evaluation with problems on both side of the ball.
    The only thing I would dispute is that I don't think the Pats were incapable of sustaining long drives.  IMO they were forced to go to more of a quick strike O due to the D already eating up the clock and their desire to widen the score as  the lead was rapidly dwindling. You cant have both the D & O eating clock in a timed game.  Unfortunately they weren't as successful as they needed to be.
     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

    Well said, BostonSportsFan.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

    Yeah but look at the number of possessions...
     
    ..overlook the score, the 2 point gift by O'Brien to start the game and 2 turnovers total by our offense, that the Giant's ran ten more times and controlled the time of possession with both teams throwing the same amount of passes, or that we lost the previous Super Bowl against this same Giant's team using the same flawed game plan without learning even an iota from the previous experience. Especially overlook that we attempted to execute a pass heavy offense against the best pass rushing team in the league.

    Because it's all about the league average of possessions that result in scoring...

    Laughable, the score doesn't matter, just convoluted stat's that lead you to the flawed conclusions of a few posters here steeped in fantasy football.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

    In Response to The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.:
    [QUOTE]7. Tom Brady made a couple of very uncharacteristic plays on the safety, the interception and the bad pass to Welker.
    Posted by BostonSportsFan111[/QUOTE]


    Wrong. Right. WRONG.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

    In Response to Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to The Super Bowl for more erudite observers. : Wrong. Right. WRONG.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    You're bordering on confrontational here. Actually, you're already there. I'm trying to discuss this rationally with you. Don't press your luck.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnHannahrulz. Show JohnHannahrulz's posts

    Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

    Giants played better on both sides of the ball in the second half than Pats. Time to get over it and start looking forward, not backward.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

    In Response to Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.:
    [QUOTE]Yeah but look at the number of possessions...   ..overlook the score, the 2 point gift by O'Brien to start the game and 2 turnovers total by our offense, that the Giant's ran ten times more and controlled the time of possession with both teams throwing the exact same amount of passes, or that we lost the previous Super Bowl against this same Giant's team using the same flawed game plan without learning even an iota from the previous experience. Especially overlook that we attempted to execute a pass heavy offense against the best pass rushing team in the league. Because it's all about the league average of possessions that result in scoring... Laughable, the score doesn't matter, just convoluted stat's that lead you to the flawed conclusions of posters steeped in fantasy football.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    Not overlooking anything, but you are.
    Scores (the most important factor)
    are determined by what transpired in the game.  Possessions are a huge part of the game.  You have to have them to be able to score.

    Top directly influence the number of possessions.   In this case,  the lopsided ToP was a direct result of the D not being able to stop the jints from imposing their will. (see your example of the jints rushing 10 more times and having 10 more plays).

    Lower possessions mean mistakes are magnified.
     Two turn overs in a 12 possession games still give you 10 more possessions to overcome them.
    2 mistakes in a 8 possessions game only give you 6 possessions to overcome them.  This fcks the O.  Yes, it would be better not to make them, but that's easier to do when you are playing a crappy D. (see Eli didn't commit a pic or safety nor did he lose a fumble recovery). It's the D's job to make sure he does.

    Teams on the low end of the Top, are forced to go to a quick strike offense in order to NOT waste more time.  This limits play calling and also fks the O.   

    It's also harder for an O that spends enormous amounts of time on the sidelines to get in a rhythm or get hot.  ( See BB's simulation of the longer half time)


    Convoluted stats and complex formulas, no...not really.  Common sense, yes!
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from tanbass. Show tanbass's posts

    Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

    My guess is that the horse meat should be mighty tender right about now.....

    My God people....the Gmen made more plays than we did. Both our O & D made mistakes. We lost. Perhaps it's time to get over it?

    I swear some of you are happier when you are arguing over the same thing day after day after day.....truly amazing.
     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

    In Response to Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.:
    [QUOTE]My guess is that the horse meat should be mighty tender right about now..... My God people....the Gmen made more plays than we did. Both our O & D made mistakes. We lost. Perhaps it's time to get over it? I swear some of you are happier when you are arguing over the same thing day after day after day.....truly amazing.
    Posted by tanbass[/QUOTE]

    Agreed on this.  It was a game that, despite some interesting statistical arguments that have been made for months, really came down to the Giants making more plays and the Patriots making costly errors on both O and D that are not typical of that team.

    The Patriots could've won both Superbowls against the Giants and the Giants would have had a legit claim that the better team (on that day) lost.  That's the NFL. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

    In Response to Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.:
    [QUOTE]My guess is that the horse meat should be mighty tender right about now..... My God people....the Gmen made more plays than we did. Both our O & D made mistakes. We lost. Perhaps it's time to get over it? I swear some of you are happier when you are arguing over the same thing day after day after day.....truly amazing.
    Posted by tanbass[/QUOTE]

    Just killing time until the season starts, and getting real itchy for some football... Sox sukk, and I'm not really a big hot weather fan. I am on vacation next week and am going out to Saratoga Aug. 16-19. By then we should have some real topics to discuss. Roster spots, injuries, trades, other teams cuts etc...
     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from NCPatsFan1971. Show NCPatsFan1971's posts

    Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

    I improved my vocabulary by one word today.

    er·u·dite

     adj \ˈer-ə-ˌdīt, ˈer-yə-\

    Definition of ERUDITE

    : having or showing knowledge that is gained by studying :possessing or displaying erudition <an erudite scholar>

    And you demonstrated a well balanced display of how I remember that game.  
    That said, it is with a great deal of excitement that I welcome the beginning of training camp.   
    GO PATS!
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

    In Response to Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers. :  
    Convoluted stats and complex formulas, no...not really.  Common sense, yes!
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    Junk science, flawed logic.

    Please respond to the "the Giant's ran ten more times and controlled the time of possession with both teams throwing the same amount of passes" part of my post and give me a logical reason as to why running the ball played no part in the loss and we'll have something to talk about.

    Possessions don't explain why, possessions are a result of.
     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

    [QUOTE]Agreed on this.  It was a game that, despite some interesting statistical arguments that have been made for months, really came down to the Giants making more plays and the Patriots making costly errors on both O and D that are not typical of that team. The Patriots could've won both Superbowls against the Giants and the Giants would have had a legit claim that the better team (on that day) lost.  That's the NFL. 
    Posted by CablesWyndBairn[/QUOTE]
    If the Patriots make those same mistakes in the 01, 03 and 04 super bowls, they lose.
     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

    In Response to Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers. : Junk science, flawed logic. Please respond to the " the Giant's ran ten more times and controlled the time of possession with both teams throwing the same amount of passes " part of my post and give me a logical reason as to why running the ball played no part in the loss and we'll have something to talk about. Possessions don't explain why, possessions are a result of.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    What is it you don't understand?  I did answer it?  The Gints ran more plays period and controlled the clock because no one stopped them from doing it.
    Did they run more in the 1st half than the second?   How many times did they run on their last drive???  Oh yeah, the one time they were practically pushed in the end zone, so that the drive wouldn't eat up the last 3 1/2 minutes of the game.
    You are right, possessions are a result of.......not getting off the field.
    They do however effect the game in the ways I previously described.
    Instead of whining about "junk science", prove me wrong.
    You can't.  These things are not exclusive to the Pats, they have been used for years as a way to stop  high scoring teams because they work.
    Keep the high scoring QB on the bench and you got a chance.  It's much easier to do when that teams D stinks because who is going to stop them from doing it?  NO one is and no one did, because they were powerless to stop it.
    Last time the gints got into a high scoring (high possession) shoot out with the Pats, they lost.  They weren't going there again because chances are, they would  have lost again.

    Why do you think they track things like points per possession?  Hmmm
    When one team has a higher ppp%, possessions matter.
    Keep Tb of the field for 4 possessions, it matters, because all those chances to score......just disappear.
    Not Rocket or "junk" science.  It's just the way it is.  Cause and effect.
    Prove it wrong!
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Giants to beat the Bills vaulted No Huddle, Parcells devised a plan of ball control and limiting the time the Bills had the ball. Ball control was the name of the game and the Giants offense had the ball for 40 minutes, and 33 seconds in this Super Bowl XXV. This broke a record for time of possession in the SB. For a period of 13 straight minutes, beginning near the end of the first half and continuing into the second half for 9 ½ minutes, the Giants rammed the ball down the Bills throats. If you include the 25-minutes for halftime, the Bills offense didn't take the field for a stretch of over an hour.

    "Our whole plan was to try to shorten the game for Buffalo," Parcells said after the game. "We wanted the ball and we didn't want them to have it. That was our whole plan. I thought if we did that, we'd have a shot to win and we did
    Junk science.....LOL

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

    Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

    In Response to Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.:
    [QUOTE] I'm an idiot for potining out bad game management by our QB
    Posted by CliffordWasHere[/QUOTE]


    You have never made a more truthful statement here lamebrain.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

    In Response to Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers. : What is it you don't understand?  I did answer it?  The Gints ran more plays period and controlled the clock because no one stopped them from doing it. Did they run more in the 1st half than the second?   How many times did they run on their last drive???  Oh yeah, the one time they were practically pushed in the end zone, so that the drive wouldn't eat up the last 3 1/2 minutes of the game. You are right, possessions are a result of.......not getting off the field. They do however effect the game in the ways I previously described. Instead of whining about "junk science", prove me wrong. You can't.  These things are not exclusive to the Pats, they have been used for years as a way to stop  high scoring teams because they work. Keep the high scoring QB on the bench and you got a chance.  It's much easier to do when that teams D stinks because who is going to stop them from doing it?  NO one is and no one did, because they were powerless to stop it. Last time the gints got into a high scoring (high possession) shoot out with the Pats, they lost.  They weren't going there again because chances are, they would  have lost again. Why do you think they track things like points per possession?  Hmmm When one team has a higher ppp%, possessions matter. Keep Tb of the field for 4 possessions, it matters, because all those chances to score......just disappear. Not Rocket or "junk" science.  It's just the way it is.  Cause and effect. Prove it wrong! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Giants to beat the Bills vaulted No Huddle, Parcells devised a plan of ball control and limiting the time the Bills had the ball. Ball control was the name of the game and the Giants offense had the ball for 40 minutes, and 33 seconds in this Super Bowl XXV. This broke a record for time of possession in the SB. For a period of 13 straight minutes, beginning near the end of the first half and continuing into the second half for 9 ½ minutes, the Giants rammed the ball down the Bills throats. If you include the 25-minutes for halftime, the Bills offense didn't take the field for a stretch of over an hour. " Our whole plan was to try to shorten the game for Buffalo," Parcells said after the game. "We wanted the ball and we didn't want them to have it. That was our whole plan. I thought if we did that, we'd have a shot to win and we did Junk science.....LOL
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    So you pull up the prototypical example for why we should run the ball more to prove what?  

    We need balance, I have no point beyond that.

    "They" track points per possession so stat geeks who choose to have tunnel vision and focus on stat's that suit their preconceived conclusions can point to them and say "I told you so."

    You're the pass happy contingent, I tell you the Giants controlled the TOP by running the ball more, pointing out that both teams passed an even number of times, and still you don't get it.  

    You think they ran more because they had more possessions, dumb, they had more possessions because they ran the ball and were more efficient converting first downs because a run is more efficient than a pass. Period. 

    You're putting the horse before the cart.

    Thank god camp has started...

     

Share