Re: These are the facts
posted at 1/8/2013 12:27 PM EST
In response to wozzy's comment:
In response to zbellino's comment:
Here is hoping the defense comes to play, unlike last postseason. They are going to need it, because the offense isn't going to run the table scoring 30 a game.
This offense is actually built to win a low scoring affair now because it has a running game, something that's been missing that you'll never allow yourself to see because of your rigid dogma.
The same grind it out approach that the Giants stuck with in last year's Super Bowl should be our blueprint on how to beat the best teams in the playoffs... we should know it well, it's how we won three rings from 2001-2004.
As soon as we win a tighly contested, low scoring playoff game by controlling the TOP expect me to dredge this post up to remind you of this.
That I have to remind our "fans" of what Patriot football used to look like is sad, but it is what it is...
It used to look like this, let me refresh your memory because it's a little hazy actually:
TOP per drive
Pats v Rams (11 drives) -- 2:22
Patriots v Eagles (13)-- 2:25
Pats v Giants(II) (9)-- 2:32
Patriots v Jets (12)-- 2:54
Patriots v Panthers (13) -- 2:59
And that doesn't even count the stunning displays of offensive ineptitude against teams like the Titans, Steelers, etc, where the offense just sat there turning the ball over and going three and out after three yards and a cloud of dust, and had *much* lower TOP per drive scores.
Of course, with the exception of the Panthers game, those offenses weren't great. So those stats are logical to someone who pays attention to what really matters in football. They routinely had three and outs, and weren't tremendously efficient at scoring, or getting first downs, hence, they didn't chew a lot of clock.
Hence, the last two playoff losses were actually more efficient TOP performances by the offense because the offenses are better and do more with less. If you want a more *balanced* TOP between the teams ... the defense needs to get off the field.
And yet ironically, the BEST defensive performances came in the games with the WORST amount of clock eaten up by the Pats offense. Weird, considering defenses must have a running game to be efficient. Huh?
But wait, the single BEST TOP per drive performance came in the game where Brady threw the ball 48(!!!!!!!) times. I think that is 9 whole passes over yours and Rusty's "limit" where you can't win, right (they won)? Or get an efficient TOP (it was the best of their Superbowl run)? Or have a defense that creates turnovers (they created one)? Or another host of assumptions basing a bad faith argument.
I can't say it anymore, or show you any more stats that conflict with this fictional account of the halcyon days where running = winning. If you don't believe it looking at such naked statistics, you won't ever.
Sorry, if the reality of their TOP per drive conflicts with your "story" about "tough" offenses. The difference between those teams and this one was that they had great defenses that could actually contribute to a win, get off the field, get them the ball back over and over.
Saying, or even hinting that the sole difference between playoff wins then and losses now is because New England runs the ball a couple of times less in the game really just shouldn't even be taken seriously, and I find it remarkable that the forum entertains this at this point.
Pretending otherwise is fine, but not based in reality. Again, sorry for busting up your little story. Carry on.