The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12'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. : Im going higher on Nink's Offside. And after Eli Manning, the Giants Punter was the MVP in this game. Pinned us in bad field position all game. OK my friends Sox are just not getting it done, and were here for another season. Really HOPE everyone is doing well.
    Posted by bobbysu[/QUOTE]
    A bobbysu sighting!!  Hey buddy, how are you?  I agree, the punter is overlooked here, he did put the Pats back deep all game. 
     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  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 Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers. : 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...
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    Never said they didn't need more balance.
    However, I think the balance needs to be more between the O and the D.  You can't have 1 side of the ball carrying the other for years.  It catches up with you and frequently at the worse possible time.
    Look at the teams where the D carried the O.  Same results.

    The gints ran more and  had over-all more plays, because no one stopped them.  Period!  How is this even disputable?
    The failure to stop them in their own territory, failure to get a pick or a fumble recovery, untimely penalties, poor pass defense, ect, ect, ect, ..all prove that.
    The result was also less possessions for a normally high scoring O.
    When you are limited in time and possessions due to the other side of the ball eating up too much time, your possessions become less diverse.
    Think 2 minute drill.  How diverse are they?
    The idea is to score and score quickly when time and possessions are limited.
    Now, apply this to the whole game, because that's how it played out.
    The 1st quarter of the game was 11+ minutes  to 3+ minutes.
    Partially due to the safety and partially due to the D not getting off the field when an average D would be done in 5 minutes for both possessions.
    They wasted 6 minutes from the get go and that never, ever changed.

    Coughlin is more of an old school coach who sticks to fundamentals.
    BB is more of a read, adjust and react coach. As soon as he saw the D not getting off the field, he reacted by playing a more quick strike offense.

    Points per possessions are more than just a geek stat.  They are a good indication of who should win the game, depending on the average amount of possessions.  (12)  Take away possessions and the picture changes.
    Coaches use these stats all the time to help determine game plans.
    Handi-cappers and computer programs such as accu-score also use these stats to try and determine a winner. They are normally reliable stats but they are based on average possessions per game.  A drastic reduction of possessions can alter the results greatly.  That was the gints game plan.  No disputing that!
     
  5. 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. : Never said they didn't need more balance. However, I think the balance needs to be more between the O and the D.  You can't have 1 side of the ball carrying the other for years.  It catches up with you and frequently at the worse possible time. Look at the teams where the D carried the O.  Same results. The gints ran more and  had over-all more plays, because no one stopped them.  Period!  How is this even disputable? The failure to stop them in their own territory, failure to get a pick or a fumble recovery, untimely penalties, poor pass defense, ect, ect, ect, ..all prove that. The result was also less possessions for a normally high scoring O. When you are limited in time and possessions due to the other side of the ball eating up too much time, your possessions become less diverse. Think 2 minute drill.  How diverse are they? The idea is to score and score quickly when time and possessions are limited. Now, apply this to the whole game, because that's how it played out. The 1st quarter of the game was 11+ minutes  to 3+ minutes. Partially due to the safety and partially due to the D not getting off the field when an average D would be done in 5 minutes for both possessions. They wasted 6 minutes from the get go and that never, ever changed. Coughlin is more of an old school coach who sticks to fundamentals. BB is more of a read, adjust and react coach. As soon as he saw the D not getting off the field, he reacted by playing a more quick strike offense. Points per possessions are more than just a geek stat.  They are a good indication of who should win the game, depending on the average amount of possessions.  (12)  Take away possessions and the picture changes. Coaches use these stats all the time to help determine game plans. Handi-cappers and computer programs such as accu-score also use these stats to try and determine a winner. They are normally reliable stats but they are based on average possessions per game.  A drastic reduction of possessions can alter the results greatly.  That was the gints game plan.  No disputing that!
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    The Giant's had more possessions because our offense turned it over twice and they ran the ball more than us (even though they were less successful at it) and therefore controlled the time of possession. 

    Tell me where I'm wrong?
     
  6. 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. : The Giant's had more possessions because our offense turned it over twice and they ran the ball more than us (even though they were less successful at it) and therefore controlled the time of possession.  Tell me where I'm wrong?
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    The giants did not have more possessions.  They had an equal amount of possessions but had more plays per possession.
    Their possessions consisted of 10 plays or more because the D allowed them to run 10 plays or more per possession.
    The Pats were not trying to prolong drives, they were trying to score quickly due to the limited possessions and time to do it.
    That's where you are wrong.
    You can't eat up the clock on both O and D in a timed game. One of the 2 needs to be near the average 2 1/2 minutes per possession.
    The O was and the D wasn't. 
     It's that simple.
    Look! 2.5 minutes X 8 possessions = 20 minutes.. The O used 22+ minutes which is better than the average.
    The D used 37+ minutes for the same amount of drives.  37+ is much, much worse than the 20 minutes it should have taken to end the drives.  Almost double!  ugh.
    This is the reason there were only 8 possessions when the NFL average is 12.
    This killed the O's diversity that WE ALL crave.  With the exception of 3 possessions, the Pats were in quick strike/ 2 minute drill mode.
    It's been this way since 2009.  It has to change.
    Unless the Pats can trust the D to get off the field, make quick stops, preserve a lead, it cannot change.  That kind of O is the only way to make up for the D's deficiencies, where the D is causing limited time and limited possessions.
    The D has been at the bottom of the league in accomplishing those things for years.  The O has been in the quick strike mode and at the top of the league for the same years.
    One is caused by the other.  One stays on the field, the other has to score quickly.  This is where the balance is lacking.   
    You CAN NOT have both stay on the field.
    If the D gets off the field in an average amount of time then the O can be more diverse and take their time.  It's only logical.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

    Okay, I'll admit it. I googled what erudite means. Is that what you wanted, to make me feel stupid- well it worked. Maybe you should consider other peoples feelings. So now I know that if I was an erudite observer than I would have known what erudite means and therefore as a nonerudite observer I'm not allowed to understand and agree with any erudite observations
     
  8. 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. : The Pats were not trying to prolong drives, they were trying to score quickly due to the limited possessions and time to do it.
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    I don't mean to be insulting here but that's just stone dumb.

    You think the team was conscious of this the entire game and that's why they had so many three and out's?

    This is why the Pat's only TD's came in the no huddle offense not because their set offense could do nothing and using Brady calling plays from the "hurry up" was their only recourse, but rather they chose to because they were counting the length of possessions?

    Have you noticed how I can state my point easily without complex mathematical equations?  

    There's nothing "logical" about what you're saying at all, it's a convoluted mess, it's circular logic that leads back to your own wrong conclusions.

    Don't take my word for it, go back over 100 years of football history. To win in the playoff's you need to run the ball and stop the run. The Giant's had more plays per possession because they ran more, thus converted more first downs; it's simple.

    If your saying the Pat's game planned for their offense to be stuffed over and over again and that's why they ran the offensive game plan they did, then my next question would be, how is it not the offenses fault they only scored 17 points again? 




     
  9. 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]they ran the ball more than us (even though they were less successful at it) and therefore controlled the time of possession.  Tell me where I'm wrong?
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]


    Their backs averaged 4.25 yac, ours 3.6 yac. Get a clue wozzydoo.
     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. 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 don't mean to be insulting here but that's just stone dumb.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    Really wozzydoo, you are the absolutely the LAST person here that should be calling anybody else dumb. You are the gold medalist in a very strong field. Your only real competition is the other three of The Four Imbeciles. There are a very few others that orbit that level of dense but they fall far short of your cluelessness.
     
  12. 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]Hey Wozzy - how's Laurence Maroney doing?
    Posted by Mighty2013[/QUOTE]

    What does Maroney have to do with anything?
     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.



    Here's the Super Bowl highlights, you can watch the final offensive drive over again with all the dropped passes that would have ended the game.  Couple that with 17 points scored and tell me again what a great offensive showing we had. Talking with some of you is like peeing into a strong wind.
     
  15. 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. : I don't mean to be insulting here but that's just stone dumb. You think the team was conscious of this the entire game and that's why they had so many three and out's? This is why the Pat's only TD's came in the no huddle offense not because their set offense could do nothing and using Brady calling plays from the "hurry up" was their only recourse, but rather they chose to because they were counting the possessions? Have you noticed how I can state my point easily without complex mathematical equations?   There's nothing "logical" about what you're saying at all, it's a convoluted mess, it's circular logic that leads back to your own wrong conclusions. Don't take my word for it, go back over 100 years of football history. To win in the playoff's you need to run the ball and stop the run.  If your saying the Pat's game planned for their offense to be stuffed over and over again and that's why they ran the offensive game plan they did, then my next question would be, how is it not the offenses fault they only scored 17 points again? 
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    good grief.  Not saying they planned to go three and out, only that they planned to try and score quickly, as in 2 minute drill quickly.  There's a huge difference.  How do you get they planned for the 3 and outs from that?
    They tried and failed.  That simple!  No planning to fail involved.
    Not trying to be insulting, but your conclusion  from what I said, is well......
    Not what I meant or said, at all.
    They were trying to extend the lead, not sit on it.
    You can't try and sit on a lead when the D is giving up points on 3 of 4 possessions in the second half. You try to make it harder for them to catch up by extending the lead.  That would force the jints to actually stop taking their time on possessions and go into their own quick strike mode.
    Do you think the gints would be happy to sit on the ball and take their own sweet time if they were 15 points behind.  I don't.
    One score (8pts) gave them the opportunity to do so, 3 scores (15 pts) would have squashed that in a heart beat.
    That is why the Pats went for some of those higher % long throws instead of merely going for a safer 5 yrd throw or a 3.8 yrd run.  They didn't want to extend the drive they wanted to go for the kill shot.
    Limited time and limited possessions will do that to a team.
    They were playing like they were behind (even though they weren't) because they knew THE D WOULDN'T HOLD AS USUAL and they figured they would only have the ball 4 TIMES IN THE SECOND HALF.  They were right in doing so.
    That's how they won most of their games for the last 3 years.
    They EXTENDED their lead ( quick strike) so that it didn't matter that the D couldn't hold or get off the field.  Do you watch the Patriots?  Really?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp'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. : good grief.  Not saying they planned to go three and out, only that they planned to try and score quickly, as in 2 minute drill quickly.  There's a huge difference.  How do you get they planned for the 3 and outs from that? They tried and failed.  That simple!  No planning to fail involved. Not trying to be insulting, but your conclusion  from what I said, is well...... Not what I meant or said, at all. They were trying to extend the lead, not sit on it. You can't try and sit on a lead when the D is giving up points on 3 of 4 possessions in the second half. You try to make it harder for them to catch up by extending the lead.  That would force the jints to actually stop taking their time on possessions and go into their own quick strike mode. Do you think the gints would be happy to sit on the ball and take their own sweet time if they were 15 points behind.  I don't. One score (8pts) gave them the opportunity to do so, 3 scores (15 pts) would have squashed that in a heart beat.

    I can't help it.

    That is why the Pats went for some of those higher % long throws instead of merely going for a safer 5 yrd throw or a 3.8 yrd run.How does this previous sentence make sense to you? Seriously? long throws are not higher %! Safe plays are a good thing when you are winning. Taking chances with a lead = bad thing! But I'm sure you have concocted a scenario where that is not true. 

    They didn't want to extend the drive they wanted to go for the kill shot.Hence the problem. "They didn't want to extend drives"!!!! This says it all. This offense needs to go for the kill shot less and go with the real "higher %" plays more often. If we don't throw the 40 yard kill shot bomb to Gronk ON 1ST DOWN, or the 28 yard 2nd n 11 loft to WW then we probably win this SB. 

     Limited time and limited possessions will do that to a team.  They were playing like they were behind (even though they weren't) because they knew THE D WOULDN'T HOLD AS USUAL and they figured they would only have the ball 4 TIMES IN THE SECOND HALF. So to counter our weaker defense the offense used a game plan that would put the defense back on the field at a higher rate? Great. Perfect.

     They were right in doing so. That's how they won most of their games for the last 3 years. They EXTENDED their lead ( quick strike) so that it didn't matter that the D couldn't hold or get off the field  Do you watch the Patriots?  Really?
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]
     
  17. 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. :
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    Higher % as in higher percentage of difficulty. Higher risk and greater reward.  Maybe that's not clear, but....
     That should have been obvious as I listed the safer play as the alternative. 
    They didn't want to extend plays with the short stuff, they wanted to score with the long, kill shots.  They wanted to move down the field QUICKLY! 
    That's the opposite of slow and methodical.  WOW
    Get it?
     
  18. 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. : good grief.  Not saying they planned to go three and out, only that they planned to try and score quickly, as in 2 minute drill quickly.  There's a huge difference. 
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    They didn't "plan" the two minute drill, that is the sign of a team that can't get anything going offensively.  It's a gimmick, unless of course you're the Buffalo Bills from the early 90's.  

    The only reason we scored any TD's at all was because Brady found a mismatch in personnel and went to the no huddle to exploit it.  This wasn't premeditated, your wildly off base conjecture has now taken a quantum leap toward being farcical...


     
  19. 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. : They didn't "plan" the two minute drill, that is the sign of a team that can't get anything going offensively.  It's a gimmick, unless of course you're the Buffalo Bills from the early 90's.   The only reason we scored any TD's at all was because Brady found a mismatch in personnel and went to the no huddle to exploit it.  This wasn't premeditated, your wildly off base conjecture has now taken a quantum leap toward being farcical...
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    NE's scores were 4 minutes and 3:40 in the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd quarter. 
    Both those drives were well under the jints average time of possession.  
    They were trying to score quickly.
    That "gimmick" is how the Pats scored in most of their games. 
    Short and sweet!
    As evidenced by the poor defensive ToP for the past few years.
    The D has been consistently on the field more than the O.  How many times has the O been on the field longer than the D in that time period?  Any?
    Do you know that the Pats average possessions per game are well below the league average.?
    Do you know that there are teams where the O is actually on the field longer than the D? (NYG)  Those are the ones with the good defenses, not the crappy ones.
    Last year (2010) when the pass/run ratio was better, the D had the worst ToP in the league by a wide margin.  Dead last..... How do you explain that?  How do you explain that the O with a better pass/run ratio had the least ToP in the league??? 
    Your failure to see the obvious is disturbing.

    Today on Reis's chat , there was a poster adement that the recent failures were a result of Brady's play and not the D"s.  Was that you?  LOL
    While Reis conceded that Brady's play hasn't been up to his usual standard, he said that he had to place the emphasis on the D.
    Why is it the whole world can see this minus a few.
    Are you really one of the contrarian's many handles?  Seems like it.
    Should we now refer to you as wozzy's cc.? or CC's wozzie? 
    Which do you prefer?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

    I'm inclined to agree with several of the earlier posters in this thread.  The Giants outplayed our beloved Patriots and, in so doing, scored more points thereby winning the game.  Not particularly incisive, analystical or erudite but I'm afraid that's the best I can do 6 months after the fact.  Is that the PETA Rapid Response Team I hear knocking on the door?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33'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. :   How many times has the O been on the field longer than the D in that time period?  Any? 
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    They had more TOP in 6 games last season. 
    1st Bills game
    Jets twice
    Philly
    1st Denver game
    Miami

    In the first Jets game Green-Ellis got the bulk of the carries (27) and had a great game. In the second game they divied up the carries between 5 guys and were pretty inefective but they stuck with it. This plays right into Rusty's point about subbing backs too often. He's 100% correct, I'm hoping they use Ridley early and often this year. Let him get into a rhythm before bringing in the other guys. Look at how efficient Brady was in those two games against a pretty solid defense. He was sacked 4 times and threw an interception (remind you of a certain playoff game?) in the first game but still finished the game very strongly due to the great balance. They can win most games with Brady throwing 40+ times but against the cream of the crop defenses it rarely works. Unfortunately its been proven time and time again.
     
  22. 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. : They had more TOP in 6 games last season.  1st Bills game Jets twice Philly 1st Denver game Miami In the first Jets game Green-Ellis got the bulk of the carries (27) and had a great game. In the second game they divied up the carries between 5 guys and were pretty inefective but they stuck with it. This plays right into Rusty's point about subbing backs too often. He's 100% correct, I'm hoping they use Ridley early and often this year. Let him get into a rhythm before bringing in the other guys. Look at how efficient Brady was in those two games against a pretty solid defense. He was sacked 4 times and threw an interception (remind you of a certain playoff game?) in the first game but still finished the game very strongly due to the great balance. They can win most games with Brady throwing 40+ times but against the cream of the crop defenses it rarely works. Unfortunately its been proven time and time again.
    Posted by CaptainZdeno33[/QUOTE]

    Thanks fot the info.  I actually did not know the answer,  I thought maybe the miami game because it was a complete blow out on O but didn't look it up.
    The Bills game I can see because they had a 21 pt lead until Brady went pick crazy, so that ones on him but it would also be nice to not let the other team score on those picks,
    Jet's games the D did step up because there was no way they were letting them beat them.   No way!   Edelman was the hero in the second game. LOL
    Philly and Miami had back up QB's and Denver had TEbow.
    None of those D's were especially good which makes it easier to control Top.
    They did win all those games except the Bills.
    So, that leaves 13 games they didn't win the Top.  Not against the Clots, Chiefs or skins, the worst in the league.  Two of those were too close for comfort.

    Statistically the team with the higher ToP wins most of the time.
    The fact that they only lost 3 of the 13 games is amazing.
    They had a disadvantage in all those 13 games with an advantage in 6.
    To me, that had more to do with the 2nd ranked O, rather than the 2nd to the last ranked D.
    Winning the big one usually takes both being effective. (like in the winng years)
    It's too hard battling your own teams deficiencies while battling the best NFC team too.
    The Jints had a game plan to use the Pat's D against them by reducing possessions.  It worked.
    Luckily there aren't many teams that can do that.
    Hopefully this year there will be even less teams that can, because the D is improved enough to prevent it. 
    That seems to be the plan going forward.
    P.S. the lead back that was hurt half the year and was substituted too much, is no longer with us.  The second round pic was out most of the year. The rookies had to get reps to get experience.  The substitutions were necessary.
    Pretty sure the coaches did the best they could with what they had to contend with. (2 rooks, a 3rd down back and injuries.)
    It was not an ideal situation by any means, but it didn't stop them from being one of the best offenses in the league.  Did it? 
     
  23. 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. : NE's scores were 4 minutes and 3:40 in the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd quarter.  Both those drives were well under the jints average time of possession.   They were trying to score quickly. That "gimmick" is how the Pats scored in most of their games.  Short and sweet! As evidenced by the poor defensive ToP for the past few years. The D has been consistently on the field more than the O.  How many times has the O been on the field longer than the D in that time period?  Any? Do you know that the Pats average possessions per game are well below the league average.? Do you know that there are teams where the O is actually on the field longer than the D? (NYG)  Those are the ones with the good defenses, not the crappy ones. Last year (2010) when the pass/run ratio was better, the D had the worst ToP in the league by a wide margin.  Dead last..... How do you explain that?  How do you explain that the O with a better pass/run ratio had the least ToP in the league???  Your failure to see the obvious is disturbing. Today on Reis's chat , there was a poster adement that the recent failures were a result of Brady's play and not the D"s.  Was that you?  LOL While Reis conceded that Brady's play hasn't been up to his usual standard, he said that he had to place the emphasis on the D. Why is it the whole world can see this minus a few. Are you really one of the contrarian's many handles?  Seems like it. Should we now refer to you as wozzy's cc.? or CC's wozzie?  Which do you prefer?
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    First of all the answer to all your questions above has the same answer; better play calling, be unpredictable, run the ball.

    Second I have never said a disparaging thing about Tom Brady, lumping me in with Rusty, CC or whomever is dismissive or an attempt to discredit me somehow. 

    There's no QB I'd rather have than Tom Brady, but if he makes a poor decision I don't duck my head in the sand either or create endless threads dissecting a single throw and catch... that's booobish.

    Any issues I have with the offense have been with the coordinator position, I've stated ad nauseum that the NFL is a coaches league. We've had our team stripped of it's talent in the management ranks, this isn't arguable is it?  

    Josh McDaniel in my eyes was the only one who really picked up Weis's system, not simply picking plays but really understanding that the goal was to convert first downs efficiently, be automatic on third and short, in the red zone and under duress.  That it's easier to convert a third and inches instead of a third and long especially with the world's best QB, that's why you need balance.

    Granted he made mistakes (2007 SB) but one could watch the evolution of his play calling, 2008 was especially eye opening for a guy his age.  His return marks the return to glory, yeah the D will be better, and most will look at the personnel on the field, but the main reason will be because Belichick can now focus on his strengths, defense and special teams because the offensive side of the ball is handled.

    "Bend don't break" only works with a ball control offense, McDaniels understands this, this is why uses runningbacks as more than just blockers.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: The Super Bowl for more erudite observers.

    I'll confess right off the bat to having only read the original post, so if somebody else already did this I apologize in advance, but does the OP know what "erudite" means?

     
  25. 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. : First of all the answer to all your questions above has the same answer; better play calling, be unpredictable, run the ball. Second I have never said a disparaging thing about Tom Brady, lumping me in with Rusty, CC or whomever is dismissive or an attempt to discredit me somehow.  There's no QB I'd rather have than Tom Brady, but if he makes a poor decision I don't duck my head in the sand either or create endless threads dissecting a single throw and catch... that's booobish. Any issues I have with the offense have been with the coordinator position, I've stated ad nauseum that the NFL is a coaches league. We've had our team stripped of it's talent in the management ranks, this isn't arguable is it?   Josh McDaniel in my eyes was the only one who really picked up Weis's system, not simply picking plays but really understanding that the goal was to convert first downs efficiently, be automatic on third and short, in the red zone and under duress.  That it's easier to convert a third and inches instead of a third and long especially with the world's best QB, that's why you need balance. Granted he made mistakes (2007 SB) but one could watch the evolution of his play calling, 2008 was especially eye opening for a guy his age.  His return marks the return to glory, yeah the D will be better, and most will look at the personnel on the field, but the main reason will be because Belichick can now focus on his strengths, defense and special teams because the offensive side of the ball is handled. "Bend don't break" only works with a ball control offense, McDaniels understands this, this is why uses runningbacks as more than just blockers.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    Fair enough and all good points.
    I'm not trying to diminish the importance of those aspects.   Any time you have a balance, whether it be run/pass ratio, less turn overs or better coaching, it's an advantage.
    My problem is that the O is constantly having to overachieve, because the D is  constantly underachieving.   Way to much pressure.
    O constantly has to score more because the D is giving up way more than the average and usually takes more time than acceptable to do it.. Ya they are averaging 21 points which is middle of the pack, but, the truth is, that is the equivelant of about 50% of the other teams possessions being scores. 
    Way too high!  If they got off the field quicker that % would drop to more normal averages.
    That puts the O in the situation where they either have to score way more TD's than FG's  (the ratio should be 3/2, not the 4/1 that the Pat's have had to maintain to win)  or score more than 50% of the time.  Pick your poison.
    That's difficult to do consistently, as it is not the norm by any stretch.
    But, yet, that is what a lot of fans expect of them.

    M point is that the D underachieving is creating a scenario where the O has to become one dimensional in order to overcome that. ie, having to score quickly because of time and possession restraints, having to score way more TD's than FG's and having to score more than 50% of the time and not being able to trust that the D can hold the lead.

    You see all the things you mention as a cause (and you are correct) but I see that the D is causing at least some of those same problems.  That is all.
    We both want the same thing.  Balance.
    But, I think the balance between the O and D is going to have to be improved before the other things can fall in line.
    Good news is, they seem to be well on their way to achieving that. (barring major injuries of course)
     

Share