These are the facts

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:

     

    Eli Manning 2011 - Regular Season 92.9 / Post Season 103.3

    Aaron Rodgers 2010 - Regular Season 101.2 / Post Season 109.8

    Drew Brees 2009 - Regular Season 109.6 / Post Season 117.0

    Roethlisberger 2008 - Regular Season 80.1 / Post Season 91.6

    Eli Manning 2007 - Regular Season 73.9 / Post Season 95.7

    All of these guys played better in the post-season.



    And Brady had a 100.4 in this last post-season. But you don't think that is comparable to these numbers? And he did this despite having to play the NFL's best pass D - the Ravens - 68.8 DPR.

    How much better did you think he should have done in 2010 than his 89 against the Jets' 77 DPR while he was getting sacked 5 times?

    In the 2007 SB he was sacked 5 times as well. Not to mention getting slammed another nearly 15 times.

    Learn the game.

     




    Not to mention they are comparing stats in a 16 game regular season to a (in TB's case, 1-3 game post season) or in Eli, Brees.  ect 3 game season.  One bad game in a 16 game regular season will not necessarily skew those stats but one bad game in a 1-3 game postseason will greatly reduce QBR.

    And yes, the D's play in limiting possessions greatly decreased QBR as did the 8 dropped passes in the SB.  Passes completed and yards gained would have INCREASED dramatically, without those.

    In other words, it takes a village.




    What is especially irritating is that not a one of the very few Brady bashers EVER gives an iota of slack to the fact Gronk was virtually KOd for the last SB.

    They act as if that dynamic in the game didn't exist and we should have scored 28-30 points on a hot Giants' team that was keeping our D on the field all day.

    It is pure incompetence as a fan to harbor such dunderheaded notions. Brady played a fabulous game considering the lack if effective running, the lack of a normal number of possessions and the many dropped passes. In fact, if not for his excellence.... the Giants probably would have won a laugher.




    I do. I just wouldn't have thrown the ball short to the guy on one leg.

    YOU and your fellow BB bashers don't give one iota of slack to the D losing Andre Carter, a fantastic FA signing by BB off the lockout.

    He led the team with what, 10 sacks and was a very good edge player for us.

    Caught in the act again, Babe.  Caught in the act.




    Are you really trying to compare Carter's impact to that of Gronk? Gronk had one of the greatest seasons as a receiver in history, and the greatest by a TE ever.

    Instead of constantly crying about Brady's one INT, why not try hammering the D for their IDIOTIC 12 man penalty? There's you SB loss right there.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    You keep changing your tune Wozzy.  Now TOP doesn't matter, just points and turnovers?  You've been arguing ground and pound to control clock, and talking about an "offense designed to win low scoring games" (a hilarious concept, by the way--and bordering on absurd if now you don't think TOP matters either), and now when shown how running the ball isn't always the way to control TOP, you back track. 

    Sorry, Bill Belichick knows how to win football games . . . you guys act like he's been a screw-up since 2004 who went all soft and "finesse."  He hasn't gone soft or forgotten the basics of the game.  He's just trying to win with the talent he has given years of having to try to build a team with low draft picks . . . 

     



    Of course TOP matters, hence why we feel running it more will HELP TOP.

    Ever notice we lose the TOP battle against good Ds. Why do you think that is?  LMAO

    Get over it. Brady isn't as good as he thinks he is in his preferred shotgun spread base.




    Dumb, dumb, dumb.  They lose TOP every time when the Defense never leaves the field and limits possessions. , as was the case in both SB's and the Steeler and gints game.

    This year it wasn't really an issue because opposing offenses easily threw TD passes over the D's heads for 4 play and  less than 2 minute scores which got the D off the field in a hurry.

    You can't win ToP when the defense is gobbling up minutes'

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to JohnHannahrulz's comment:

    If the Pats win the TO battle they will win the game. This is why the too many men call in SB on the fumble recovery was huge. This year the Pats have a better running game and a better defense (if everyone is healthy).




    That is the bottom line JHR.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:

    Back from your weekly electro-shock therapy session so soon, crusty?

     

    Michael Rosenberg >INSIDE THE NFL More Columns Email Michael Rosenberg Brady's performance in Super Bowl adds a lot to his legacy. Really Story Highlights Tom Brady didn't win his fourth Super Bowl on Sunday, but he played very well Had Wes Welker not dropped catchable pass, we might be calling Brady best ever Fact is, Brady led nondescript team with terrible defense to brink of championship <iframe src="//www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fsportsillustrated.cnn.com&send=false&layout=box_count&width=49&show_faces=false&action=like&colorscheme=light&font=verdana&height=62" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border:none; overflow:hidden; width:49px; height:62px;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe> 3
    inShare
    Share

    Email Print <iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fsportsillustrated.cnn.com%2F&layout=button_count&show_faces=false&width=110&action=like&font=verdana&colorscheme=light&height=21" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border:none; overflow:hidden; width:110px; height:21px;" allowTransparency="true" id="cnnShareFB"></iframe> inShare3 Share

    Email Print Decrease font Decrease font Enlarge font Enlarge font Tom Brady and the Patriots lost their second straight Super Bowl to the Giants on Sunday, but the defeat shouldn't negatively affect his legacy. Tom Brady and the Patriots lost their second straight Super Bowl to the Giants on Sunday, but the defeat shouldn't negatively affect his legacy. AP Super Bowl XLVI SI.com's Coverage From Indy Super Bowl XLVI Live Blog SI Photos Best SB XLVI Photos Best SB XLVI Photos SB XLVI Halftime ShowSB XLVI Halftime Show

    Legacy? Sure, we can talk about Tom Brady's legacy. Obviously, when you look at the way Brady carried the Patriots to the Super Bowl and the way he played Sunday, he added quite a bit to his legacy.

    Wait. Are you saying you think Brady damaged his legacy Sunday?

    What?

    Sometimes I wonder if people watched the same game I did. Brady completed 27 of 41 passes for 276 yards and two touchdowns. He also threw one interception, when he underthrew a deep ball to Rob Gronkowski. (A healthy Gronkowski probably would have knocked that ball down if he didn't catch it, but Gronkowski had an injured ankle.) And Brady took a safety when he threw another deep ball to nobody from his own end zone.

    But overall, these facts should not be in dispute: Brady took an otherwise nondescript Patriots team to the brink of a championship, and he played well Sunday. At the end of the first half, he completed 10 of 10 passes and drove the Pats 98 yards for a touchdown. He broke the Super Bowl record for consecutive completions.

    Quarterbacks have played worse than Brady played Sunday and won Super Bowl MVP. One of them was Tom Brady: In his first Super Bowl, he completed 16 of 27 passes for 145 yards and a touchdown, and he won the game's MVP award.

    Somehow, that game helped establish Brady as a winner while Sunday's game brought his reputation into question. Part of this is timing. When Brady led the Patriots to that first title, it was his first year as a starter and simply by winning the game, he exceeded the expectations. Now we measure Brady against our image of what he was, or of what Joe Montana was. But it still isn't right.

    Look: I understand that a quarterback's job is to win games, not pile up stats. It's what our football culture demands, and this has helped Brady's reputation much more than it has hurt it over the years. But in our rush to talk about legacies and measure careers against each other, we're losing sight of this: A quarterback cannot win a game himself. Other players matter.

    Did Eli Manning outplay Brady Sunday? Well, Manning was great, and his numbers (30 of 40 completions, 296 yards, one touchdown, no interceptions, no intentional grounding penalties that led to a safety) were better. But Manning also had an easier task than Brady in almost every way.

    Manning has better receivers -- Victor Cruz, Hakeem Nicks and Mario Manningham might be the best trio in the NFL. He got to face the absolutely horrendous Patriots pass defense. In an average game against the Patriots this year -- an AVERAGE game -- quarterbacks completed 24 of 38 passes for 293 yards. The Giants' pass defense was bad this year too, but I think it's fair to say the Patriots' pass defense was worse. And I think it's pretty clear that the Giants' pass rush is better than New England's. If we can't agree on anything else, we can agree on that.

    True, Brady only led his team to 17 points. But New England had the worst field position I can ever remember for a Super Bowl team. The Pats started on their own 6, their 29, their 20, their 2, their 21, their 17, their 20, their 8 and their 20. The Patriots played the entire game uphill.

    Manning also led his team to the game-winning score, while Brady failed to do so. But you have to look at circumstances there, too. Manningham made an incredible catch on a sideline route as he got hit. Wes Welker dropped a pass that he normally catches; it was certainly not Brady's best throw, but it was an easier catch than the one Manningham made, and Welker beat himself up for it afterward.

    When Brady needed to go 80 yards in the final 57 seconds to win the Super Bowl, his first two passes were dropped. That made a difficult task almost impossible, but it also set up the best clutch play that either quarterback made Sunday: on fourth-and-16, Brady escaped the rush and found Deion Branch for a first down.

    Did Brady complete a bunch of passes downfield? No, he did not. But have you seen his roster? His leading receiver is 5-foot-9 Welker, a possession receiver. His second-leading receiver is a tight end. His third-leading receiver is another tight end. His fourth-leading receiver is another 5-9 guy, Branch, who is 32 years old.

    Good players, all of them. But who in that group seems like a deep threat to you? Bill Belichick answered this question last summer: Nobody. That is why he acquired Chad Ochocinco -- he was supposed to be that deep threat. Unfortunately Ochocinco is neither deep nor a threat.

    I'm not saying Brady was better than Manning or that this was the greatest performance of his life. But he played very well in a Super Bowl, for a team that, top to bottom, is not as talented as the Giants. Yes, I know the Pats won 13 regular-season games and the Giants won nine. But that was largely a function of schedule (New England didn't beat a team with a winning record until the playoffs) and the greatness of Brady and Belichick.

    Brady was supposedly trying to stake his claim as greatest quarterback ever in this game. After all, Joe Montana has that title now, and he won four Super Bowls, so if Brady could win his fourth ... and hey, there is your claim. This storyline was largely a media creation -- two years ago, in the lead-up to that Colts-Saints Super Bowl, there was a lot of talk about whether a Colts would win mean Peyton Manning was the greatest quarterback ever. But it was a fun media creation.

    If you think Montana was better, that's fine. Montana was phenomenal. But if we're going to discuss it, we should at least point out that Brady has been sturdier than Montana, and that midway through Montana's career, the 49ers added the best receiver in history to a contending roster. Jerry Rice did not make Joe Montana; Montana was an alltime great before Rice showed up. But I think it's fair to say Wes Welker is no Jerry Rice.

    I enjoy those debates, and I don't have a dog in the fight. I grew up during Montana's peak, and I have watched Brady with admiration as an adult and I can't really argue against either of them. But when a quarterback plays as well as Brady did Sunday and it supposedly hurts his legacy because his defense couldn't stop the other quarterback ... well, that's when I shake my head. You can argue that Brady is not the best quarterback ever. Just don't use this Super Bowl as your evidence.

     



    Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_rosenberg/02/06/brady.legacy/index.html#ixzz2HJIhBAZa

     




    what's amazing and kind of sad is I am a Giants fan and I agree with this column/writer more than some Pats fans do...think about that for a minute

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

    In response to themightypatriots's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    NE struggles against good defenses. Why? Their offense slows down, and their defense hasn't been able to stop mediocre offenses like Baltimore or NY in the past.


    Ding ding ding.  We have a winner.




    Giants offense last year was "mediocre"?  Ok....




    They were 9th in points scored, so they were a bit north of mediocre.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    I can't believe this debate still rages when the proof is clearly in the pudding. 

    You can't win a SB without a run game. Doesn't haveto be dominant, you just have to some semblance of one to keep Ds honest.  I don't understand why a basic concept like this is rebuffed by so many on this board. The premise Brady needs a HOF caliber RB like Corey Dillons is also ludicrous, especially considering his salary at this point.

    Our offense last SB tried to defy that fact, and in SB 42, it was something that was also a flaw. Considering how great the 2007 offense was in general, however, it's somewhat forgiveable, because that was a unique situation.

    However, to seriously pretty much mirror the approach and do it again, only to again blame a defense that literally shutown/contained the opposing team's offense from scoring a lot of points, is also ludicrous.

    Can we please stop this nosense?   It's so ridiculous. We could run Ridley/Bolden 25 times combined in every game, including the SB, win the whole thing, and people will still be on here apparently trying to spin how Brady still needs to throw a lot and a shotgun spread base is still the best approach. lol

     




    You CAN win a SB without a run game in fact MANY have.  What you can't do is win with a DPR of  92+ as NO TEAM EVER HAS!




    Stop babbling about DPR.  No one cares about that as much as no one should care about yards allowed.




    Oh, I see. the FACT that NO team has ever won a SB with over a 80 + DPR is irrelevant.

    Facts not fiction, crusty!!!!!

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    Giants offense last year was "mediocre"?  Ok....



    They were 9th in points scored, so they were a bit north of mediocre.



    Funny, the Pat's defense was ranked 15th in points allowed last year and the Giant's were ranked  25th...  I thought the Pat's lost because of their defense?  

    It couldn't have been that the Giants ran a 1/3 more than we did (with less success I might add) and their offense didn't turn the ball over twice?

    Common sense isn't so common...

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:



    Subbing in RBs to fraudlently pretend to run almost as an afterthought will NEVER, EVER be a good approach.

    You just look at the box score, the YPC and then run in here to blame that. Bottom line is, our very accurate analysis is way over your head.

    In SB 42 and Sb 46, we never chose to try to establish a run game in the first half. FACT.

    We also did not commit to a lead back. We almost BLEW the 2007 and 2011 AFC title games at home for the same reasons, with Brady featuring 3 and 2 INTs, respectively.

    DO THE MATH FOR ONCE.

    What YOU don't get is that he prefers the shotgun spread base (FACT!) and THAT is the roote cause of these supposed "failures of others".

     



    Again junior..... TAKE THAT UP WITH BB.

    I have not seen another person on the planet but you saying Brady somehow is uncontrollable by Belichick.

    That's the warped little game you play. You say I bash BB when I don't say much at all about his coaching other than that it is the best in the game. But you trash his coaching and hide behind the preposterous claim that Brady defies BB and passes like a madman. And this defies BB's own words where he has stated more than once that he runs more often if it is effective!

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    Can we all stop with the troll hunt seriously. What are we all in 3rd grade saying "so and so is a coutie head"

    What, unless you are completely wearing ruby glasses you are a troll? We are fans, everyone and as fans we have the right to question the moves of the team. Not because we have any control over it but because we spend money, have an emotional connection to the team, and want to see the team succeed in the manner we see it to succeed.

    I don't always agree with Rusty (esp when it comes to Brady) but he does provide some good talking points when it comes to the D. You can tell Rusty is a devoted fan (sometimes to much when he attacks other posters views) he's not a troll.

    I don't always agree with Babe (esp when it comes to balance) but he does provide some good talking points when it comes to the O. You can tell Babe is a devoted fan (even when he calls out former players or gives misleading stats to prove his argument) he's not a troll.

    Frankly, I question a persons fanship when all they do is come out and call other fans trolls without bringing any other points to the discussion. Just as long as you enjoy watching the team and bring points to discussions about the team you are not a troll.

    Now can we all grow up, stop trying to divide the board into camps, and finally just enjoy civil discussions about how we think the Pats would be best suited without resorting to name calling and labeling each other




    Agree.  I also feel I've had to defend a very unpopular reality/opinion here for over 18 months to the tune of multiple bannings, but none of what I've come forward with is wrong nor should it be considered taboo.

    With the unfortunate loss in SB 46, I thought for sure, without a doubt, as painful as it is from a sports fan's viewpoint, that this little elephant in the room topic would be put to bed in a way I didn't want to see. In fact, I said it BEFORE the SB.   I said I didn't want to have to come in here and point to 40+ passes and Brady melting down in the 4th qtr.

    I don't initiate any attacks either. I am attacked by the same people who apparently are paid here to defend Brady's rep and legacy on these boards.

    God forbid Brady not seen to be above the team by diehard fans who have been following this team BEFORE Brady got here, and will follow it AFTER Brady leaves.

     

     



    rusty i will make this easy for you in a very common sense way that i believe trumps all these crazy stats etc...

    when we played those games-and i know i speak for all Jints fans-i did not for one second fear maroney or bjge or woodhead-

    i most certainly did fear tom brady, wes welker, randy moss, aaron hernandez, gronkowski

    does this clear anything up for you? probably not but hey it was worth a try!

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    If you score more points than the opposition, hold them to less points and don't turn the ball over than who cares what the TOP is?  I haven't changed my tune about anything.  

    You are ignoring my message and attacking the messenger.  Stick to my point, this offense is tougher, stronger more "smashmouth" just like in our championship years.  

    Address this, instead of trying to deflect away my very common sense logic by using misdirection.

    Are we or are we not tougher offensively?  

    If you can answer this honestly we can keep talking, otherwise you are like the rest of your cohorts spinning your wheels looking at miles of useless, arbitrary stats...  stats are for losers.



    And Prolate still waiting for a response to this... Babe, Pezz any other Fantasy Football, Pass Happy Fanatics feel free to chip in?

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    I can't believe this debate still rages when the proof is clearly in the pudding. 

    You can't win a SB without a run game. Doesn't haveto be dominant, you just have to some semblance of one to keep Ds honest. 


    Nobody is going to disagree with you junior that the run game was ineffective in the last 2 SBs. In that case you likely need a D playing very tough to win. As it is, despite anemic running and defensive collapses, we lost them both in the last minutes.

    Your problem is you expect Brady to make up for the other deficiencies every time. He can only do that to a certain extent. You just don't get that Brady is the one guy who was doing his job well enough to keep us in it despite the fails of others.

     

     




    Subbing in RBs to fraudlently pretend to run almost as an afterthought will NEVER, EVER be a good approach.

    You just look at the box score, the YPC and then run in here to blame that. Bottom line is, our very accurate analysis is way over your head.

    In SB 42 and Sb 46, we never chose to try to establish a run game in the first half. FACT.

    We also did not commit to a lead back. We almost BLEW the 2007 and 2011 AFC title games at home for the same reasons, with Brady featuring 3 and 2 INTs, respectively.

    DO THE MATH FOR ONCE.

    What YOU don't get is that he prefers the shotgun spread base (FACT!) and THAT is the roote cause of these supposed "failures of others".

     




    So you are blaming the COACHES for going to the more effecient shotgun and subbing a MUCH BETTER pass catching and pass blocking RB for a guy that has a 30% pass completion %.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     



    what's amazing and kind of sad is I am a Giants fan and I agree with this column/writer more than some Pats fans do...think about that for a minute

     


    It's not kind of sad it's pathetic. It's calles spoiled rotten to the core.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    I can't believe this debate still rages when the proof is clearly in the pudding. 

    You can't win a SB without a run game. Doesn't haveto be dominant, you just have to some semblance of one to keep Ds honest. 


    Nobody is going to disagree with you junior that the run game was ineffective in the last 2 SBs. In that case you likely need a D playing very tough to win. As it is, despite anemic running and defensive collapses, we lost them both in the last minutes.

    Your problem is you expect Brady to make up for the other deficiencies every time. He can only do that to a certain extent. You just don't get that Brady is the one guy who was doing his job well enough to keep us in it despite the fails of others.

     

     




    Subbing in RBs to fraudlently pretend to run almost as an afterthought will NEVER, EVER be a good approach.

    You just look at the box score, the YPC and then run in here to blame that. Bottom line is, our very accurate analysis is way over your head.

    In SB 42 and Sb 46, we never chose to try to establish a run game in the first half. FACT.

    We also did not commit to a lead back. We almost BLEW the 2007 and 2011 AFC title games at home for the same reasons, with Brady featuring 3 and 2 INTs, respectively.

    DO THE MATH FOR ONCE.

    What YOU don't get is that he prefers the shotgun spread base (FACT!) and THAT is the roote cause of these supposed "failures of others".

     




    So you are blaming the COACHES for going to the more effecient shotgun and subbing a MUCH BETTER pass catching RB for a guy that has a 30% pass completion %.




    pezz didn't you know that according to ol' russ Bellichick is the greatest hc of all time but yet somehow can't control his own QB-matter of fact he stands by and let's your team lose

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    Giants offense last year was "mediocre"?  Ok....



    They were 9th in points scored, so they were a bit north of mediocre.



    Funny, the Pat's defense was ranked 15th in points allowed last year and the Giant's were ranked  25th...  I thought the Pat's lost because of their defense?  

    It couldn't have been that the Giants ran a 1/3 more than we did (with less success I might add) and their offense didn't turn the ball over twice?

    Common sense isn't so common...




    You're right. Their offense didn't turn the ball over. Well, they did, but the D took a bush league 12 man penalty to negate that.

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    Funny, the Pat's defense was ranked 15th in points allowed last year and the Giant's were ranked  25th...  I thought the Pat's lost because of their defense?  

    It couldn't have been that the Giants ran a 1/3 more than we did (with less success I might add) and their offense didn't turn the ball over twice?

    Common sense isn't so common...



    You're right. Their offense didn't turn the ball over. Well, they did, but the D took a bush league 12 man penalty to negate that.



    So that absolves our offense for turning it over twice?

    Please address the defensive rankings above and tell me how that works?

    Better yet, explain to us how them running it a third more attempts, less successfully than us, played no part it?

  •  
  • This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    If you score more points than the opposition, hold them to less points and don't turn the ball over than who cares what the TOP is?  I haven't changed my tune about anything.  

    You are ignoring my message and attacking the messenger.  Stick to my point, this offense is tougher, stronger more "smashmouth" just like in our championship years.  

    Address this, instead of trying to deflect away my very common sense logic by using misdirection.

    Are we or are we not tougher offensively?  

    If you can answer this honestly we can keep talking, otherwise you are like the rest of your cohorts spinning your wheels looking at miles of useless, arbitrary stats...  stats are for losers.



    We are all pleased to have a more effective running game wozzy. For myself, I wish it was more effective still, because while it is better than last season, it could be better. My greatest concern with the run remains late in the game with a modest lead. If we can run effectively then, we should win it all. If not, then it's much more of a maybe.

    It looks like this time around we have a better D and a better running game. We are all happy about that.

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    The Patriots D leads the NFL this year in takeaways.  They lead the NFL overall the last THREE YEARS. This means, our offense gets more drives available to them than any other team in the NFL the last THREE YEARS. I believe they finished second last year.

     



    And they didn't do this in the SB!

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    Funny, the Pat's defense was ranked 15th in points allowed last year and the Giant's were ranked  25th...  I thought the Pat's lost because of their defense?  

    It couldn't have been that the Giants ran a 1/3 more than we did (with less success I might add) and their offense didn't turn the ball over twice?

    Common sense isn't so common...



    You're right. Their offense didn't turn the ball over. Well, they did, but the D took a bush league 12 man penalty to negate that.



    So that absolves our offense for turning it over twice?




    Nothing can absolve those turn-overs and nothing can absolve the Defenses, zero turn over effort or their zero 3 & out effort or zero 6 & out effort or their zero stopping the O in their own territory effort or their untimely penalties and allowing the jints O to staying on the field for 38 minutes effort and 5 minute possession effort, or lack of timely drive stopping sack effort, which all resulted in 8 possessions and BTW made the 2 offensive misshaps more critical than they would have been in a 12 possession game.   Get it?

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     I believe they finished second last year.

     



    That is incorrect.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    You keep changing your tune Wozzy.  Now TOP doesn't matter, just points and turnovers?  You've been arguing ground and pound to control clock, and talking about an "offense designed to win low scoring games" (a hilarious concept, by the way--and bordering on absurd if now you don't think TOP matters either), and now when shown how running the ball isn't always the way to control TOP, you back track. 

    Sorry, Bill Belichick knows how to win football games . . . you guys act like he's been a screw-up since 2004 who went all soft and "finesse."  He hasn't gone soft or forgotten the basics of the game.  He's just trying to win with the talent he has given years of having to try to build a team with low draft picks . . . 

     



    Of course TOP matters, hence why we feel running it more will HELP TOP.

    Ever notice we lose the TOP battle against good Ds. Why do you think that is?  LMAO

    Get over it. Brady isn't as good as he thinks he is in his preferred shotgun spread base.




    Dumb, dumb, dumb.  They lose TOP every time when the Defense never leaves the field and limits possessions. , as was the case in both SB's and the Steeler and gints game.

    This year it wasn't really an issue because opposing offenses easily threw TD passes over the D's heads for 4 play and  less than 2 minute scores which got the D off the field in a hurry.

    You can't win ToP when the defense is gobbling up minutes'



    The Patriots D leads the NFL this year in takeaways.  They lead the NFL overall the last THREE YEARS. This means, our offense gets more drives available to them than any other team in the NFL the last THREE YEARS. I believe they finished second last year.

    What we don't want is our QB tossing INTs in games when our D isn't getting their minimum 2 takeaways per game.

    Get it?

    So, like in the SF game AFTER Ridley and Vereen fumbled, why is Brady lobbing wild balls downfield when we couldn't afford to turn it over again?

    His whole goal at that point should be to not throw any INTs. It's not like the balls were tipped. He forced the balls into areas that have VERY LOW ODDS of being completed.

    Even Brady would admit this!

    The fact that you unappreciate JERKS for fans want blood from stone with this D leading the league in every possible category in an offensive era like this is pathetic from any fan in this fanbase.

     

     




    First of all the D did not lead the leage in takeaways, they were second.  The team led the leage in tak away/give aways because the O coughed it up less than the other teams.

    Secondly the D is 29th in pass D which decreases possessions due to the excessive yards they give up and the time that takes. 

    Turn overs are possession changes and normally result in the opposition getting the same amount of possessions.  Possessions in games are normally = unless there is an extra one due to time running out.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    Funny, the Pat's defense was ranked 15th in points allowed last year and the Giant's were ranked  25th...  I thought the Pat's lost because of their defense?  

    It couldn't have been that the Giants ran a 1/3 more than we did (with less success I might add) and their offense didn't turn the ball over twice?

    Common sense isn't so common...



    You're right. Their offense didn't turn the ball over. Well, they did, but the D took a bush league 12 man penalty to negate that.



    So that absolves our offense for turning it over twice?

    Please address the defensive rankings above and tell me how that works?

    Better yet, explain to us how them running it a third more attempts, less successfully than us, played no part it?




    We didn't have 2 turnovers.

    Those defensive rankings are only based on scoring. The Giants did allow significantly less yards on the season - thus our defense not being able to get off the field issue.

    The Giants' backs ran the ball more effectively than ours in the SB.

  •  
    Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share