To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    And here is something I would like pro, zbo, and maybe that catfish guy(is he a troll? I can't remember) to respond to.....babe and pezz please don't bother.

    You guus wanted the Pats defense to hold the gints on the last drive of each game scoreless as they needed a td to win on their last drive in both games, can we all agree that is what we all wanted the Pats defense to do?

    Good.

    So, if the Pats defense had held(asante catches the pick etc..) The Patriots would have held the Gints to 10 points, and 15 points in both super bowls as that was their score with 3 minutes left in both super bowls. 

    You are saying the defense failed because they couldn't hold the other team to 10 points and 15 points in 2 different super bowls? 

    Really? Do you realize how sick that is?

     



    Dude, I'm saying the defense failed in 2011 because they allowed Eli Manning a 75% completion rate (his best in two and a half years), gave up drives that averaged over 4 minutes, gave up scores on 50% of the Giants' drives  . . . and failed to hold the Giants at the end of the game. The offense played pretty poorly too, I think, but this idea that the defense played well only comes from failing to comprehend the simple mathematical fact that scoring opportunities are reduced when possessions are reduced.  With 8 drives, the expected scoring (based on the NFL average scoring of 1.79 points per drive in 2011) is roughly 14 points.  Our defense gave up two TDs and two FGs for 19 points.  That means they gave up about 33% more points than expected in an 8 possession game. I know you will say that doesn't matter or call it, like Wozzy, "junk science" but really there's nothing I can do if you and Wozzy are mathematically challenged. (I also think it's odd that both you and Wozzy are big proponents of ball control offenses, but apparently don't understand how they actually work--hint: they work by reducing the other team's drives and therefore their scoring chances.)

     

    In 2007, the problem was the offensive line.  I think the defense played okay (not superb, but okay) in 2007.  I didn't like giving up a (practically unheard of) 10 minute drive to open the game and two 80 yard TD drives in the fourth quarter, but other than that they were decent. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    To those of you who don't think the offense is the problem let me provide 2 words: Peyton Manning.  You are arwlays putting Brady GOAT conversation with manning and then bashing manning in favor of Brady as quickly as possible.  You only give manning a break when he has an uber performance anything less is panned and a team loss at anytime, god forbid,is a manning choke.  

    by relation then, the same kind of critique has to apply to Brady.  If not, then you are being disingenuous.  If so, and if Brady is as good as manning or (gasp) better, then the same standard must apply and if it does, the comment about 14 or 17 points even given fewer possessions applies. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kjfitone's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Thank god they've added to the defense, now maybe the offense will score more than 14 and 17 points in the Super Bowl... see how silly that sounds?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    NOT!  They can't score a lot of points while the D is on the field, and with possessions disappearing at an  OBSCENE rate..  Is this really a foriegn concept to you?  Did you not hear them mention at least 5 times during the Pats/Donkeys game?  7 freaken possessions!
    And you've been telling us how smart you are, all these years.  PFFT

     

    Apparently bb, with help from Lombardi, agrees and can admit it.  Sorry you can't.

    See how silly you sound?

    [/QUOTE]

    umm they had just as many posessions as the giants did but couldnt score. were the three and outs the defenses problem? what about the interceptions? the defense picked off manning in the last superbowl only to have brady throw a pick in the very next play. the offense has stunk in the duperbowls and afc championship games for years.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yeah, we hear the blah blah blah.

    But didn't the offense leave the D with a LEAD at the last minutes of both SBs you refer to? DIDN'T THEY?????

     

    [/QUOTE]

    by it's very name the defense defends and is nit expected ever to put the team in the lead.  those who forward this argument expect the defense to stand up the entire game but especially at the end. What about the offense?  All these arguers care about is who had the lead at crunch time.  What about the rest of the game?  If the defense stands up for 2.5 quarters of a game in the middle of the game but the O scores nary a point to possibly extend a lead already gained, couldn't it be said that the d left the o with a lead?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    This thread is not about Peyton Manning. Just thought I'd let you know . . . 

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kjfitone's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Thank god they've added to the defense, now maybe the offense will score more than 14 and 17 points in the Super Bowl... see how silly that sounds?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    NOT!  They can't score a lot of points while the D is on the field, and with possessions disappearing at an  OBSCENE rate..  Is this really a foriegn concept to you?  Did you not hear them mention at least 5 times during the Pats/Donkeys game?  7 freaken possessions!
    And you've been telling us how smart you are, all these years.  PFFT

     

    Apparently bb, with help from Lombardi, agrees and can admit it.  Sorry you can't.

    See how silly you sound?

    [/QUOTE]

    umm they had just as many posessions as the giants did but couldnt score. were the three and outs the defenses problem? what about the interceptions? the defense picked off manning in the last superbowl only to have brady throw a pick in the very next play. the offense has stunk in the duperbowls and afc championship games for years.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yeah, we hear the blah blah blah.

    But didn't the offense leave the D with a LEAD at the last minutes of both SBs you refer to? DIDN'T THEY?????

     

    [/QUOTE]

    by it's very name the defense defends and is nit expected ever to put the team in the lead.  those who forward this argument expect the defense to stand up the entire game but especially at the end. What about the offense?  All these arguers care about is who had the lead at crunch time.  What about the rest of the game?  If the defense stands up for 2.5 quarters of a game in the middle of the game but the O scores nary a point to possibly extend a lead already gained, couldn't it be said that the d left the o with a lead?

    [/QUOTE]


    Hi liar.

    Is being completely manipulated the entire game and getting zero turnovers your idea of a defense being "stand up"?

    Please inform me if you're lying again or just being stupid. It's usually clear, but in this case there is a 1% chance it's just stupidity.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This thread is not about Peyton Manning. Just thought I'd let you know . . . 

    [/QUOTE]


    His every word is about Manning, even if it's not about Manning.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    The Patriots' offensive woes during certain playoff gains has more to do with a combination of poor performance by Brady, the OL allowing opponents to get to Brady via hits/pressures/sacks/hurries when just using 3-4 guys, missing guys like Gronk, and poor coaching playcalling and adjustments.

    On the defensive side of the ball, no pass rush, poor pass coverage, or at the end of the day - couldn't make a key stop when needed the most.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What are these numbers?

    [/QUOTE]

    An excuse for being on the wrong side of an argument for years.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, the Points per Drive argument supports the notion that the O underperformed in the last two SB games. Here are the PPD numbers:

    2001: 1.182

    2003: 2.000

    2004: 2.000

    2007: 1.556

    2011: 2.125 (But, they also committed a safety. I am not sure how to take that into account. Should I decrement their offensive output by 2 points? If so, then net offensive output would be 1.875 per drive.

    What often does not get discussed on these debates is the regular season context. I looked at the reg season PPDs a while back and saw that PPDs in 2001, 2003 and 2004 were <2.000 (might even be lower than 1.182, I am not sure.). On the other hand, the reg season PPDs for 2007 and 2011 were both in the neighborhood of 2.225.

    So, in 2001, 2003 and 2004, the O outperformed their respective reg season norm. In 2007 and 2011, they underperformed vs their reg season norm.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Did you take out scores by the defense? Do you give full credit for points to the offense when the d or special teams gives the o a short field due to an excellent return or turnover.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from OnlyDaTruth. Show OnlyDaTruth's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to LazarusintheSanatorium's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to garytx's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Are you back for a while Laz?

    [/QUOTE]

    ple-ase...don't...tempt...me...under this subject matter.  Am...fighting...for All...the power of...errgh...somewhere else, garytx...errrgghh, must   strength    try   stay   strength...errggh <gurgle>...

    [/QUOTE]

    come on back for the 2014 regular season. We miss ya

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:

     The O output, as indicated but the final scores in 2007 and 2011, were...

    • Lower than their respective reg season norms
    • Lower than most SB winning teams achieved.

    The second bullet is really telling. Since 1984, only one team (out of 30) has ever won the SB with its O scoring 17 points or lower. Yes, that was the 2007 NYG. What is that saying? If you're O scores 17 points, you have a 3% chance of winning. Coversely, if your D keeps your opponent to 17 or less, you have a 97% chance of winning. 

     

     



    Point of clarification: The Pats' O scored just 13 points in 2001 and won.  They got to 20 thanks to Ty Law's pick six

     

    Also, these percentages you are calculating don't strike me as more convincing than what actually happened in the game.   Tell me, for instance, how many times a team won the super bowl when its defense gave up scores on 50% or more of the other team's drives in a low possession game?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    My bad.

     

    So that makes 2 teams in 30 winning the SB. Aren't you splitting hair at this point? Bottomline is if you score 17 or less, your chances of winning a SB is very slim.

    [/QUOTE]

    But I think it's far more instructive to look at what actually happened in the game.  When I see multiple drives of four or more minutes, a 75% completion rate, scoring on 50% of drives, I have a hard time saying the defense played well.  The fact is, a low possession game will almost always result in lower than average scoring for both teams.  So the fact that they gave up fewer points than average doesn't impress me.  If they had done that in a typical 11 possession game it would be significant.  But in 8 possessions?  Two TDs and two FGs in 8 chances is actually fairly a lot to give up. 

    [/QUOTE]

    This is fair.  For example, people love to blame manning for the colts loss to the saints due to his pick six.  He certainly deserves blame but not all of it.  Bree's finished the last 2.5 quarters 24 of 26 ( or something like that) with one of the incompletions being the spiking of the ball.  Further special teams fumbled the onside kick to start the second half.  

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This thread is not about Peyton Manning. Just thought I'd let you know . . . 

    [/QUOTE]

    I know.  I am just providing a context for those that trash him in favor of brady.  If an argument is going to be made, it should be consistent.  That's all. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kjfitone's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Thank god they've added to the defense, now maybe the offense will score more than 14 and 17 points in the Super Bowl... see how silly that sounds?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    NOT!  They can't score a lot of points while the D is on the field, and with possessions disappearing at an  OBSCENE rate..  Is this really a foriegn concept to you?  Did you not hear them mention at least 5 times during the Pats/Donkeys game?  7 freaken possessions!
    And you've been telling us how smart you are, all these years.  PFFT

     

    Apparently bb, with help from Lombardi, agrees and can admit it.  Sorry you can't.

    See how silly you sound?

    [/QUOTE]

    umm they had just as many posessions as the giants did but couldnt score. were the three and outs the defenses problem? what about the interceptions? the defense picked off manning in the last superbowl only to have brady throw a pick in the very next play. the offense has stunk in the duperbowls and afc championship games for years.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yeah, we hear the blah blah blah.

    But didn't the offense leave the D with a LEAD at the last minutes of both SBs you refer to? DIDN'T THEY?????

     

    [/QUOTE]

    by it's very name the defense defends and is nit expected ever to put the team in the lead.  those who forward this argument expect the defense to stand up the entire game but especially at the end. What about the offense?  All these arguers care about is who had the lead at crunch time.  What about the rest of the game?  If the defense stands up for 2.5 quarters of a game in the middle of the game but the O scores nary a point to possibly extend a lead already gained, couldn't it be said that the d left the o with a lead?

    [/QUOTE]


    Hi liar.

    Is being completely manipulated the entire game and getting zero turnovers your idea of a defense being "stand up"?

    Please inform me if you're lying again or just being stupid. It's usually clear, but in this case there is a 1% chance it's just stupidity.

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you expect the defense to get turnovers every game?  go take some vitamin d grumpy. 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This thread is not about Peyton Manning. Just thought I'd let you know . . . 



    I know.  I am just providing a context for those that trash him in favor of brady.  If an argument is going to be made, it should be consistent.  That's all. 

    [/QUOTE]

    That wouldn't be me, though.  I think Manning is arguably the best QB of all time.  There are three or four others (including Brady and Montana) I'd put in the same category, but I think it's ridiculous to claim Manning isn't great. 

    Rusty used to trash Manning all the time, but now he seems to prefer to just trash Brady . . . 

    He apparently thinks Alex Smith is the GOAT. Wink

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to LazarusintheSanatorium's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to garytx's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Are you back for a while Laz?

    [/QUOTE]

    ple-ase...don't...tempt...me...under this subject matter.  Am...fighting...for All...the power of...errgh...somewhere else, garytx...errrgghh, must   strength    try   stay   strength...errggh <gurgle>...

    [/QUOTE]

    lol

    Welcome back buddy

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters


    This board just got about 10x better, "with the return of the.....oh wait, no wait, you're kidding, he didn't just say what I think he did...did he???".....LAZ

    On behalf of all of us, I apologize for still being trapped in the same cycle of nonsense that more then likely contributed to your hiatus.

    I'm ashamed.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    Do you expect the defense to get turnovers every game?  go take some vitamin d grumpy. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Since the average NFL team gets nearly 2 turnovers per game, yes. Learn the game troll.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    I know you will say that doesn't matter or call it, like Wozzy, "junk science" but really there's nothing I can do if you and Wozzy are mathematically challenged. (I also think it's odd that both you and Wozzy are big proponents of ball control offenses, but apparently don't understand how they actually work--hint: they work by reducing the other team's drives and therefore their scoring chances.)



    I love that we're mathematically challenged but you can't figure out that both offenses received the ball 9 times, the Giants punted 4 times, 1 more time than the Patriot's offense, the same Patriot offense who coincidentally committed the only two turnovers of the game.  I know technically one was a safety but that's doubly as bad because it's giving up points.

    But then turnovers are only important if the defense doesn't cause any... right?

    You don't need crazy ratios to figure this out, Occam's Razor, the simplest answer is most often correct.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    And here is something I would like pro, zbo, and maybe that catfish guy(is he a troll? I can't remember) to respond to.....babe and pezz please don't bother.

    You guus wanted the Pats defense to hold the gints on the last drive of each game scoreless as they needed a td to win on their last drive in both games, can we all agree that is what we all wanted the Pats defense to do?

    Good.

    So, if the Pats defense had held(asante catches the pick etc..) The Patriots would have held the Gints to 10 points, and 15 points in both super bowls as that was their score with 3 minutes left in both super bowls. 

    You are saying the defense failed because they couldn't hold the other team to 10 points and 15 points in 2 different super bowls? 

    Really? Do you realize how sick that is?

     



    Dude, I'm saying the defense failed in 2011 because they allowed Eli Manning a 75% completion rate (his best in two and a half years), gave up drives that averaged over 4 minutes, gave up scores on 50% of the Giants' drives  . . . and failed to hold the Giants at the end of the game. The offense played pretty poorly too, I think, but this idea that the defense played well only comes from failing to comprehend the simple mathematical fact that scoring opportunities are reduced when possessions are reduced.  With 8 drives, the expected scoring (based on the NFL average scoring of 1.79 points per drive in 2011) is roughly 14 points.  Our defense gave up two TDs and two FGs for 19 points.  That means they gave up about 33% more points than expected in an 8 possession game. I know you will say that doesn't matter or call it, like Wozzy, "junk science" but really there's nothing I can do if you and Wozzy are mathematically challenged. (I also think it's odd that both you and Wozzy are big proponents of ball control offenses, but apparently don't understand how they actually work--hint: they work by reducing the other team's drives and therefore their scoring chances.)

     

    In 2007, the problem was the offensive line.  I think the defense played okay (not superb, but okay) in 2007.  I didn't like giving up a (practically unheard of) 10 minute drive to open the game and two 80 yard TD drives in the fourth quarter, but other than that they were decent. 

    [/QUOTE]

    So you do think the defense failed because they didn't hold the other team to 10 and 13 points in the super bowl.

    And the offense repeating 3 and outs and turnovers in the 2nd half of both super bowls had no impact on the defenses ability maintain the 10 and 13 points they let up all game.

    Heard.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This board just got about 10x better, "with the return of the.....oh wait, no wait, you're kidding, he didn't just say what I think he did...did he???".....LAZ

    On behalf of all of us, I apologize for still being trapped in the same cycle of nonsense that more then likely contributed to your hiatus.

    I'm ashamed.

    [/QUOTE]

    As am I...

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    Apparently this thread title should be..." The 3 guys who think it is all the defenses fault" or "The 3 guys who are dumb enough to think Tom Brady is our only good player and the only reason we win"

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    Or how about "3 guys who want someone to blame?"

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Apparently this thread title should be..." The 3 guys who think it is all the defenses fault" or "The 3 guys who are dumb enough to think Tom Brady is our only good player and the only reason we win"

    [/QUOTE]

    Very mature 

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Very mature 

    [/QUOTE]

    Tcal, the king of one liners and zingers, calling someone else immature...

    .. priceless.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    And here is something I would like pro, zbo, and maybe that catfish guy(is he a troll? I can't remember) to respond to.....babe and pezz please don't bother.

    You guus wanted the Pats defense to hold the gints on the last drive of each game scoreless as they needed a td to win on their last drive in both games, can we all agree that is what we all wanted the Pats defense to do?

    Good.

    So, if the Pats defense had held(asante catches the pick etc..) The Patriots would have held the Gints to 10 points, and 15 points in both super bowls as that was their score with 3 minutes left in both super bowls. 

    You are saying the defense failed because they couldn't hold the other team to 10 points and 15 points in 2 different super bowls? 

    Really? Do you realize how sick that is?

     



    Dude, I'm saying the defense failed in 2011 because they allowed Eli Manning a 75% completion rate (his best in two and a half years), gave up drives that averaged over 4 minutes, gave up scores on 50% of the Giants' drives  . . . and failed to hold the Giants at the end of the game. The offense played pretty poorly too, I think, but this idea that the defense played well only comes from failing to comprehend the simple mathematical fact that scoring opportunities are reduced when possessions are reduced.  With 8 drives, the expected scoring (based on the NFL average scoring of 1.79 points per drive in 2011) is roughly 14 points.  Our defense gave up two TDs and two FGs for 19 points.  That means they gave up about 33% more points than expected in an 8 possession game. I know you will say that doesn't matter or call it, like Wozzy, "junk science" but really there's nothing I can do if you and Wozzy are mathematically challenged. (I also think it's odd that both you and Wozzy are big proponents of ball control offenses, but apparently don't understand how they actually work--hint: they work by reducing the other team's drives and therefore their scoring chances.)

     

    In 2007, the problem was the offensive line.  I think the defense played okay (not superb, but okay) in 2007.  I didn't like giving up a (practically unheard of) 10 minute drive to open the game and two 80 yard TD drives in the fourth quarter, but other than that they were decent. 

     



    So you do think the defense failed because they didn't hold the other team to 10 and 13 points in the super bowl.

     

    And the offense repeating 3 and outs and turnovers in the 2nd half of both super bowls had no impact on the defenses ability maintain the 10 and 13 points they let up all game.

    Heard.

     



    First, I've never once said the offense played well in either the 2011 or 2007 game.  In fact, I've repeatedly said that the biggest problem for the Pats in 2007 was the offensiveline getting killed by the Giants' defensive front.  I could be wrong, but I've always thought the offensive line was part of the offense. 

     

    Second, I've given you a whole list of reasons why I think the defense played poorly in the 2011 Super Bowl, none of which you've refuted.  If the defense had held the Giants (in 2011) to 14 or 15 points, they would have given up an average number of points over 8 drives.  The extra TD means they gave up more than the average number of points on 8 possessions (technically, the Giants had nine possessions, but the ninth was a single play kneel down to end the first half). I guess I don't consider giving up an above average number of points per drive great defense.  

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I love that we're mathematically challenged but you can't figure out that both offenses received the ball 9 times

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes Wozzy, generally both sides do have an even number of possessions. That's what happens when possessions alternate.  That's never been the point or anything any of us contests.  The point has always been that the number of possessions has an impact on the expected number of points scored.  The average points given up by NFL teams in eight possessions happens to be between 14 and 15.  (Since one of the Giants' possessions started with just 8 seconds left in the first half and was a one-play kneel down, they effectively had just eight possessions rather than nine.) Given that the Giants had just eight drives, the fact that our defense gave up 19 points isn't anything special.  Giving up two TDs and two FGs on eight drives is average to below-average defense.  Of course, the Pats' scoring just 17 points on 8 and a half possessions and giving up a safety is average to below-average offense too.  But I've never claimed that offense played well.  My point all along has been that the Pats were not great on either side of the ball, offense or defense.  

     

     

     

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share