These are the facts

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. 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 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?



    So, the answer to that is to lob an INT on FIRST DOWN to a hobbled TE?

    Do you think this era if known for offense or defense, Pezzy? Lol

    Why do you PUT MORE accountability on the D than the O? Answer that question.




    Because the D's inability to get off the field happened throught the WHOLE game.  It was not a matter of one, or two or 3 bad plays.  IT happened the ENTIRE game!

    An AVERAGE NFL D gets off the field in 20 minutes for 8 possessions, NOT 38!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    An average NFL O stays on the field for the same 20 minutes in 8 possessions. 

    The O was better than average and the D was nearly twice as bad. (an unheard of stat)

    Case closed!

 
  • 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 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.



    They led the AFC, though. Yes, they have created the most turnovers in the league in 2010 and were right there with Chicago I believe all year, but stll first again in the AFC.

    They were a leader in this area, for 3 straight years, which means it's not by accident or a coincidence. It means they're really, really good at it, which is the point.

    I am not looking things up like I am in a court room here. We all know the point, so you trying to deflect is pointless.

    And no, passing yards allowed with a bend/don't break is yet again, a pointless stat in this era. It was also pointless when NE led the league in turnovers created in 2003, too.

    BB is infamous for employing that kind of D, especially in the regular season, as a way to hide what he wants to unleash in the postseason. It's nothing new. We've seen it in literally in almost every single postseason.




    The AFC is not the whole NFL.  If you meant AFC, you should have said that.

    Instead you lied or didn't actually know the stats.  Which is it, a lie or lack of knowledge?

     
  • 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 pezz4pats's comment:

    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?



    So, the answer to that is to lob an INT on FIRST DOWN to a hobbled TE?

    Do you think this era if known for offense or defense, Pezzy? Lol

    Why do you PUT MORE accountability on the D than the O? Answer that question.




    Because the D's inability to get off the field happened throught the WHOLE game.  It was not a matter of one, or two or 3 bad plays.  IT happened the ENTIRE game!

    An AVERAGE NFL D gets off the field in 20 minutes for 8 possessions, NOT 38!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    An average NFL O stays on the field for the same 20 minutes in 8 possessions. 

    The O was better than average and the D was nearly twice as bad. (an unheard of stat)

    Case closed!



    Does that include those teams' QB tossing wild INTs on 1st downs, seeing a rash of 3 and outs and taking a Safety?

    Show us the TOP average in those cases, Pezzy. lmao

    Case reopened for further investigation.

    Leave it to you to see our own D execute perfectly within a gameplan to not give up any quick, big scores for an entire game, have a lead of 10-9 at the half, turn the tide in the second half, only to have our offense fold from the mid 3rd qtr and on.

    Super analysis!  You MUST have attended college!  lol




    It includes all of the above and there's no way to tell if there would be any difference in ToP because it's only in your distorted mind that the D would have gotten off the field even one minute earlier throughout the game if the pick or safety didn't happen.

  •  
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • 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 BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     


    So, the answer to that is to lob an INT on FIRST DOWN to a hobbled TE?

    Do you think this era if known for offense or defense, Pezzy? Lol

    Why do you PUT MORE accountability on the D than the O? Answer that question.



    Do you even remember on that play that Brady miraculously escaped a sack junior? After all your continuous bluster about it; It ended up being the equivalent of a good punt. Learn the game.

     



    Oh, I see. You tell me to learn the game, yet you are praising what is a punt in your mind on first down?

    Who punts on 1st down in enemy territory with a lead in a close game? 

    That is absolutely not resembling a punt, because you just crapped away two downs! That's at worst 2 runs for no gain and 1:28 of clock. And no real dramatic loss of momentum.

    That was a gift. A freaking gift.   Why is our HOF QB giving away gifts in SBs?




    Our HoF head coach gave the jints more of a gift.  It's called a TD on the last drive in order to get the ball back after the D let them scamper down the field with no resistance.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79'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".

     




     

    who controlls the subbing or what personnel are on the field?  

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to csylvia79'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".

     




     

    who controlls the subbing or what personnel are on the field?  




    Brady, because shotgun spread formations are based on who is best suited by skill set. Woodhead is the right choice for that in 4 receiver sets, but too much Woodhead is usually a loss for us.

    NE was undefeated when BJGE was used as a lead back in 2010 and 2011. Undefeated.

    Turth hurts.



    See now you are just playing stupid.  Without the coaches sending in the personnel, there would be no time to run the play.  Therefore at the very least the coaching staff are helping and agreeing with what is going on.  I have never once seen Brady run to the sideline and start demanding what players he wants for this down and distance.  

     

    So what is it, Do the Pats have weak and feeble coaches.  Or maybe they know more about football and play call the game the way they see fit?

     

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    The only fact here is that if the Patriots win Rusty will insist that they ran the offense in a way that supports his agenda and if they lose he will insist they didn't regardless of what actually happened.  I have heard so many versions of what it means for NE to run the offense he wants whether it's when they run, how much they run, what running plays they use, how much they sub out the running backs, how much time they spend in shotgun, how many passes Brady throws or what kind of defense they are facing, that it is impossible to keep straight and is in no way a consistent vision.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts