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

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

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

    In response to TravisBean's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Salcon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Salcon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "Points scored, points allowed and turnovers are the only stats that matter. "

    If  you want "simple math" ,  what Wozzy said here is about as simple as it gets.

    The offenses job is to score points, not turn the ball over, not punt , not take a safety.

    Bottom line:  The offense has under-performed.   Why else is everyone screaming for more weapons for Tom Brady?  Although he had those weapons in 2007 and we know what the final result was.

    I believe that number of possesions theory is just BS also.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The defense's job is to prevent the other team from scoring - end of story. They went on to the field with a lead on those final possesions and coughed it up.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think the D played above their heads.  If the offense could put together some long drives, score and actually keep the defense that was so horrible and couldn't prevent the other team from scoring off the field but they underperformed.  End of Story.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    On 3 drives in the 4th with two leads, the offense could not muster one drive to kick even a FG in a dome.

    FAIL

    Obviously.

    [/QUOTE]

    In 3 of the 4 drives in the second half, the D allowed them to score and pizzed away a 2 score lead..

    Obviously, an epic fail.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium'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]


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l123K2vooG4

    It is just dangerous...

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepatsfan111111. Show joepatsfan111111's posts

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

    In response to LazarusintheSanatorium's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l123K2vooG4

    It is just dangerous...

     

    [/QUOTE]

    classic biggie

     
  4. 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 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.  

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Then why does it appear to everyone on this thread that you are defending the offense?

     
  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 prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.  

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Then why does it appear to everyone on this thread that you are defending the offense?

    [/QUOTE]


    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.

     

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

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

    problem with deductive reasoning is that the height of The Ideal is never met.  There is no of the complementary fluidity of symmetry and balance.  Neither does it account for the fullest breaths of chance, happenstance, creativity, passion.  It loses by its own minimalizations...

    I have learned that oftentimes in just all of existance, that: "If you're not d#mb, then you must be dishonest" Is not always true...sometimes you could be wearing sandals.  Or something else happens and maybe thats true.  Relatively speaking...it usually is.  Think about it.  Or don't...I don't give a f###.  Sometimes I/you/we/he/she/it do/does.  The Age of Reason needs to open its/her/his/their eyes.

    progress

    and stuff

     
  7. 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:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.  

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Then why does it appear to everyone on this thread that you are defending the offense?

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't know. Poor listening skills?  Flawed logic?  Wishing it were true?

     

     

     
  8. 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 LazarusintheSanatorium's comment:

    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.




    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l123K2vooG4

    It is just dangerous...

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I don't know, I guess sometimes I feel like I'm just shadowboxin. Know what I mean...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojBLSeUUano

     

     
  9. 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 BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It is being pointed out that the offense will typically not score normal amounts of points unless they have a normal number of possessions.

    [/QUOTE]

    ^ That is not the sign of a great offense, an efficient offense, a clutch offense or a physical offense... if you're ability to score absolutely relies on having numerous chances to score than it is a paper tiger.  It is weak, you would have us believe something else.

    Running up the score on the Jaguars in the regular season doesn't mean anything.  Turning it over twice in the Super Bowl, once to start the game and once to end the game, tells us everything.

     
  10. 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]

     

    I don't know, I guess sometimes I feel like I'm just shadowboxin. Know what I mean...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojBLSeUUano

    [/QUOTE]

    I like the fade from Shadow Boxin' to Liquid Swords mid video...

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

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

    Saved it...throw's a powerful & chill voice.  Nice duality TC 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bungalow-Bill. Show Bungalow-Bill's posts

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

    Stop arguing with Wozzy. He played fullback in high school so clearly he knows what it takes to win the SB!

    Your go to argument is that the offense is soft? Well what about the marshmallow defense? Wouldn't you say that choking away a lead in the last 2 minutes of the SB is the epitome of SOFT? How about the inability to force turnovers in almost every big game against elite opponents? Thats definitely not soft...

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

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

    You have chosen to ignore posts from Bunghole-Bill.Show Bunghole-Bill's posts

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

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

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

    Seems our boy BB and the new kid in town Lombardi completely disagree with your totally wrong analysis of the team.

     Finally after 10 frutile years of Free Agency and Value Draft picking the boys are throwing some REAL money at the Real problem.....The Defense.

    Thank you Executive of the year Lombardi!!

    [/QUOTE]


    Stupid rant. The defense isn't the ONLY problem as the Brady fanboys and girls like to claim. Despite your Godlike worship of them the offense does put up stinkers. Sometimes it's the play calling, sometime it's the O line and yes sometimes it's Brady. Sometimes the opponent actually has a really good team.

    But hey being realistic here never goes over well. The defense fell apart against Denver and the offense scoring a whopping 3 points in the first 3 quarters didn't help. The offensive game plan stunk too.

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

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

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TravisBean's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Salcon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Salcon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "Points scored, points allowed and turnovers are the only stats that matter. "

    If  you want "simple math" ,  what Wozzy said here is about as simple as it gets.

    The offenses job is to score points, not turn the ball over, not punt , not take a safety.

    Bottom line:  The offense has under-performed.   Why else is everyone screaming for more weapons for Tom Brady?  Although he had those weapons in 2007 and we know what the final result was.

    I believe that number of possesions theory is just BS also.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The defense's job is to prevent the other team from scoring - end of story. They went on to the field with a lead on those final possesions and coughed it up.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think the D played above their heads.  If the offense could put together some long drives, score and actually keep the defense that was so horrible and couldn't prevent the other team from scoring off the field but they underperformed.  End of Story.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    On 3 drives in the 4th with two leads, the offense could not muster one drive to kick even a FG in a dome.

    FAIL

    Obviously.

    [/QUOTE]

    In 3 of the 4 drives in the second half, the D allowed them to score and pizzed away a 2 score lead..

    Obviously, an epic fail.

    [/QUOTE]


    So what you're saying is that if the offense falls flat in the second half then it's the defense's fault? You do realize that both the teams in the SB are usually capable of scoring a lot of points?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bungalow-Bill. Show Bungalow-Bill's posts

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

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You have chosen to ignore posts from Bunghole-Bill.Show Bunghole-Bill's posts

    [/QUOTE]


    Don't try to pretend that you didn't read it {#emotions_dlg.wink} 

    SMASHMOUTHHHHHH

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

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

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [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.  

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Then why does it appear to everyone on this thread that you are defending the offense?

    [/QUOTE]


    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    More babe BS. Scoring 3 points in 3 quarters is all the defense's fault. That was 5 posessions. Now lets here the tired old rythym excuse or perhaps one of your famous pussyout by going into a baby insult rant routines.

     
  18. 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 prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.  

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Then why does it appear to everyone on this thread that you are defending the offense?

    [/QUOTE]


    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

     

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

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


    Im just here to give a shout out to Wozzy for listening to Wu Tang Wu Tang, Wu Tang!! 

    If we cant agree Here, surely we would get along in the music forum!  LoL

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bungalow-Bill. Show Bungalow-Bill's posts

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

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Im just here to give a shout out to Wozzy for listening to Wu Tang Wu Tang, Wu Tang!! 

    If we cant agree Here, surely we would get along in the music forum!  LoL

    [/QUOTE]

    You need to diversify yo bonds #$*#$...

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

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

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It will all be moot if:

    (1) The defense stays reasonably healthy this year (particularly the key personnel)

    (2) Armstead becomes a contributor

    (3) The Pats "hit" on both their 1st and 2nd round picks (i.e. they both become contributors by mid/late season)

    Personally I'd love to see the Pats use a high pick (1st or 2nd) on an edge rusher in the mode of Jamie Collins.  Imagine Collins on one side, Rookie X on the other, bearing down on the QB when necessary, but equally adept at dropping into coverage.

    With a solidified secondary and speed on both sides at OLB this defense might start resembling the glory years again.

    [/QUOTE]

    You know, I've been thinking the same thing.  A few weeks ago safety seemed like a major need on defense, but with our new depth in quality corners, I'm not so sure safety is as important anymore. DT of course remains a major need, but after that I like a fast, versatile LB (who plays standing up and is good in both coverage and pass rush) too.  I'd put safety third or fourth, along with a hands-in-the-dirt DE.  

    Of course, we also have offensive needs--interior line, TE, and WR--so what we get may depend very much on who's the best available player in any of those needed positions at the time we pick.

    [/QUOTE]


    Think of it this way...Not that the safety position isn't still important. Think of it as the safety can be shifted away from always having to cover for the DBs. Maybe with improved DBs we'll see more use of the safety up in the box. Maybe ( dare I say it ) we might see the safety blitz now and then.

     
  22. 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 glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It will all be moot if:

    (1) The defense stays reasonably healthy this year (particularly the key personnel)

    (2) Armstead becomes a contributor

    (3) The Pats "hit" on both their 1st and 2nd round picks (i.e. they both become contributors by mid/late season)

    Personally I'd love to see the Pats use a high pick (1st or 2nd) on an edge rusher in the mode of Jamie Collins.  Imagine Collins on one side, Rookie X on the other, bearing down on the QB when necessary, but equally adept at dropping into coverage.

    With a solidified secondary and speed on both sides at OLB this defense might start resembling the glory years again.

    [/QUOTE]

    You know, I've been thinking the same thing.  A few weeks ago safety seemed like a major need on defense, but with our new depth in quality corners, I'm not so sure safety is as important anymore. DT of course remains a major need, but after that I like a fast, versatile LB (who plays standing up and is good in both coverage and pass rush) too.  I'd put safety third or fourth, along with a hands-in-the-dirt DE.  

    Of course, we also have offensive needs--interior line, TE, and WR--so what we get may depend very much on who's the best available player in any of those needed positions at the time we pick.

    [/QUOTE]


    Think of it this way...Not that the safety position isn't still important. Think of it as the safety can be shifted away from always having to cover for the DBs. Maybe with improved DBs we'll see more use of the safety up in the box. Maybe ( dare I say it ) we might see the safety blitz now and then.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yep, that's it.  Particularly with five DBs, you can have one be that "big nickel" we hear so much of.

     

     
  23. 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 wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You have chosen to ignore posts from Bunghole-Bill.Show Bunghole-Bill's posts

    [/QUOTE]

    He's really a Patriot fan....really. He chose the name "Bungalow Bill" not to mock Bill Belichick(  despite 90% of his posts degrading BB's decisions and Bill Belichicks defense ) but in reference to a Beatles song....really!

     
  24. 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]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You have chosen to ignore posts from Bunghole-Bill.Show Bunghole-Bill's posts

    [/QUOTE]

    He's really a Patriot fan....really. He chose the name "Bungalow Bill" not to mock Bill Belichick(  despite 90% of his posts degrading BB's decisions and Bill Belichicks defense ) but in reference to a Beatles song....really!

    [/QUOTE]

    You got his name wrong...

     
  25. 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 wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It is being pointed out that the offense will typically not score normal amounts of points unless they have a normal number of possessions.

    [/QUOTE]

    ^ That is not the sign of a great offense, an efficient offense, a clutch offense or a physical offense... if you're ability to score absolutely relies on having numerous chances to score than it is a paper tiger.  It is weak, you would have us believe something else.

    Running up the score on the Jaguars in the regular season doesn't mean anything.  Turning it over twice in the Super Bowl, once to start the game and once to end the game, tells us everything.

    [/QUOTE]


    I don't think anybody is claiming the offense was awesome, wozzy. But they weren't "the problem" those who cling to the final score are making them out to be.

    The offense didn't turn the ball over an untypical amount. But the D only getting one turnover in 2 SBs was surely untypical and contributed greatly to the final outcomes.

    Certainly the O-line gets an F for SB 42. But whatever the grades are that any want to give out, the epic fails of the D at the endgame in both SBs are the ultimate final grade.

     

Share