Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters
posted at 3/24/2014 4:47 PM EDT
In response to BabeParilli's comment:
In response to UD6's comment:
In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
In response to wozzy's comment:
I love that we're mathematically challenged but you can't figure out that both offenses received the ball 9 times,
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.
Then why does it appear to everyone on this thread that you are defending the offense?
You can't be this dumb, so you must be being dishonest.
The "we think that a bend-over D is good" crowd are attacking the offense with the only scrap they have; the total scoring. It is being pointed out that the offense will typically not score normal amounts of points unless they have a normal number of possessions.
This isn't rocket science, but may as well be for some of the mental midgets with a liar's agenda around here. The offense scored okay, considering the relatively few possessions they had. The defense didn't play even okay, and because of that it limited the possessions the offense had.
I know it's a waste of time explaining the objective reality of it to you and your ilk, but hey, it's here for others to see.
Speaking for others I see.
The offense was a problem. The defense held the opponent's offense, in the superbowl, to a lower output than their regular season average. The "it only matters when its crunch time" crowd conveniently have amnesia about all of the failed offensive efforts and successful defensive stops when it wasn't crunch time.
In 2007 the pats O scored at a rate of 3.19 per drive in the Reg season and 1.56 in the Superbowl. The defense gave up points at a rate of 1.41 per drive in the Reg season and 1.89 during the superbowl. It should be harder in the superbowl but the defense performed more to its standard than the offense and allowing 17 points as previously noted is generally a winner.
In 2011 the O scored at a rate of 2.62 points per drive in the reg season and 1.66 in the SB (if you take 2 points from the offense for their safety). The defense gave up 1.82 points per posession in the reg season and 2.375 in the SB if you take away the 2 points the offense gave up for the safety and don't count the Giants possession at the end of the first half (5 seconds). The offense's differential was much more significant than the defense's.
The pats defense has not nearly been as good as it was 2001-2004, but it was one of the best in the NFL in 2007 and performed well enough for the pats to win. In 2011 the pats defense was not that good but performed very well in the SB.
Truth be told, I think Belichick harkens back to a day when the QB was just one of the rest of the players and "cheap". As a defensive mind, he probably loves the idea of defense winning championships but has lacked that kind of personnel for quite some time. I don't think he cares if the offense is just adequate. He wants the best defense.