In response to wozzy's comment:
In response to pezz4pats' comment:
In response to wozzy's comment:
I watched the game, here's how I remember it...
4 punts for the Giants, 3 for the Pat's.
2 turnovers by the Pat's offense, one of which resulted in points for the Giants, Giants had zero turnovers.
Eli 40 pass attempts, Brady 41 = same
Giant's RB's rushed 27 times / Pat's RB's 17 times = 10 more rushes despite less success
Giant's time of possession 37:05 to the Pats 22:55
If you don't think running the ball helped keep their offense on the field, control the clock, wear down and keep our defense off balance as well as keep Brady off the field than you're hopeless.
The Giant's offense executed in crunchtime because our defense was exhausted. Why?
Our offense scored zero points in the 4th quarter. Our D was on the field the entire 2nd half because our offense was anemic.
The offense threw a pick to start the fourth quarter and on a first down play; the opposite of clutch.
Despite that disastrous interception to start to the 4th our defense held the Giants forcing them to punt, our offense got the ball back two more times and did nothing until they dropped 3 straight passes to end the game. Despite 3 possessions in the 4th the offense came away with zero points.
That's why they've switched back to a smashmouth offense, so they can get back to controlling the clock when need be, so they can execute a run or a pass under duress.
The fact that the team is returning to it's old form is a testament to this and the fact that we're still arguing it is the dying gasps of the pass happy fantasy crowd refusing to acknowledge the obvious... they've been wrong for years.
Do you see the Gints had 10 more plays and 16 more minutes on the clock to score?
The pick to start the game was an O-line breakdown.
Eli completed 75% of his passes, because........? Is he the bestest or was he playing aginst the Pats practice squad?
O scored zero points in the 4th which consisted of 2 whole flippin drives. The Gints scored in both of theirs. One of the Pats drive was 6 minutes and one 57 seconds.
The D was on the field for the whole game, not just the second half, because the D was enemic- not the O The Pats averaged 2 minutes and 45 seconds per drive. Do you know what they are averaging per drive at the moment.? ? ?? You might want to check that out before you proclaim that running is the answer to keeping them on the field.
First downs are the key to keeping them on the field. Those are usually achieved with execution and taking what the D gives you. The Jints O was averaging 3+ a drive and over 4 minutes for each one and they had a pretty easy job of it. Obviously.
Yes the Giant's had 16 more minutes to score because they controlled the time of possesion and ran the ball. They converted first downs because they were balanced and kept our D off balance. Figure it out. If they passed an even amount of times and punted about an even number of times, how did that happen? Running is the answer.
The Pat's offense started the 4th with the ball and received it two more times = 3 possessions.
One INT, one punt after the D saved their azz by forcing NY to punt and then three straight dropped passes by the offense.
The offense scored 17 points with the no huddle (which coincidently doesn't take a lot of time off the clock) and did nothing else but turn it over twice.
The defense played better than it was supposed to, it gave the team a chance, the offense failed to move the ball when it had to, zero points in crunch time... who underachieved?
So the D that got zero pics, zero 3 & outs, was on the field for 2/3rds the game, limited the O's possessions to 8 and never stopped the gints in their own territoy giving the Pats O extremely poor field position and gave up the game winning drive, allowed Eli a 75% pass completion, played good enough to give them a chance?
Sure would hate to see what a D that didn't give their O a chance would look like.