We are balanced.

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

    Re: We are balanced.

    Wozzy,
    The Pats were 15th in points allowed because they got 33 turn overs.  That's 33 times the opponent did not score.  Without those turn overs, you see what happened.  (failure).  Yards allowed became scores allowed became time off the clock allowed.
    The D wasn't gassed because of the Pats TOP.  Their offensive average was right about average for the league.
    The D was gasses because they allowed the Jints 4 minutes and 45 seconds per drive which is nearly DOUBLE the league average.
    Let me repeat: the O's TOP was average for the amounts of drives, The D's TOP was almost double the average.
    The double TOP allowed by the D also reduced Possessions.
    If the TOP allowed by the D was reduced just a little, it would have given the Pats more than 57secs to score on the last drive.  It probably would have also allowed them to play out the Gints last drive instead of just handing them 7.
    They could have fought for the 3 instead. That alone accounted for at least 4 extra points for the gints.
    Also Ghost averages 9 pt's a game.  He only had 5 because of the reduced amounts of possessions.  Now if they only allow 3pts on their last drive instead of handing them 7 and TB had a few more seconds to go 45 yrds instead of 80, don't you think  their chances would have been better?  Give Ghost those 3 extra pts and they win.
    They were also missing Gronks 6.8/pts per game on average , which is what TB was shooting for while he was in single coverage. He is the teams leading scorer behind Ghost.
    The next leading scorer is Benny at 4.1pts/g, no he did not get his average either.
    But as you can see, his possessions were also limited due to the gints eating up 38 minutes of the clock and the Pats having to try and score quickly because 60-38 only leaves 22... 
    The Pats could not increase their average TOP without decreasing possessions.  The game was short enough as it was with 8 possessions instead of 12.
    You have to decrease the 38 to get more than 22.
    The D could not decrease the 38, which was a whole freaking quarter +1, more in Offensive TOP than the Pats were allowed.
    Pretty hard to win when the other team has the ball a whole freakin quarter more than you .  Don't you think?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : Way to back up your argument.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]


    Still waiting for you to back up a single argument of yours.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : LOL
    Posted by sporter81[/QUOTE]


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

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : Still waiting for you to back up a single argument of yours.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    Backing up an argument with facts means nothing to you. You consistently dismiss facts with statments like, {take away all of BJGE's good runs and he was terrible}

    How could I counter that argument? Should I make up a bunch of "if" scenarios too?

    Ok here goes.

    "IF" we hadn't thrown 10 int's in our last 8 playoff games we "MAY" have won more games.

    "IF" we ran the ball more then we "MAY" have not thrown the 10 INT's.

    "IF" we were more balanced then a 138 pass to 55 run ratio we "MAY" have scored more then our 17 ppg average against the Giants in the last 3 contests. All of which were losses. 2 of which were Super Bowls.



    Was that better? Sorry I still had to throw in the facts. Next time I will try and throw out cheap one line insults like you. Perhaps it will register a little more clearly for ya...
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    Wozzy,
    The Pats were 15th in points allowed because they got 33 turn overs.  That's 33 times the opponent did not score.  Without those turn overs, you see what happened.  (failure).  Yards allowed became scores allowed became time off the clock allowed.How was it a "failure" if it led to less ppg allowed then average you just mentioned???
    The D wasn't gassed because of the Pats TOP.  Their offensive average was right about average for the league.What are you talking about? They were on the field for almost the entire 2nd half. How is that not gassed???
    The D was gasses because they allowed the Jints 4 minutes and 45 seconds per drive which is nearly DOUBLE the league average.
    Let me repeat: the O's TOP was average for the amounts of drives, The D's TOP was almost double the average.
    The double TOP allowed by the D also reduced Possessions.Because the Giants executed a better game plan.(which is the purpose of this discussion) Their lead back got 17 carries despite leading off with his 1st 3 going for 1 yard. 17 carries over 10 by ours leads to better t.o.p. Do you dispute that?
    If the TOP allowed by the D was reduced just a little, it would have given the Pats more than 57secs to score on the last drive.If the Pats O could have held the ball for more then 31seconds and 1 minute 18 seconds on 2 of the most important drives of the game then THE GIANTS would have been the tean under pressure to score.  It probably would have also allowed them to play out the Gints last drive instead of just handing them 7.
    They could have fought for the 3 instead. That alone accounted for at least 4 extra points for the gints.
    Also Ghost averages 9 pt's a game.  He only had 5 because of the reduced amounts of possessions He had 5 because our offense couldn;t get into scoring position more then 3 times in the game. omgNow if they only allow 3pts on their last drive instead of handing them 7 and TB had a few more seconds to go 45 yrds instead of 80, don't you think  their chances would have been better?  Give Ghost those 3 extra pts and they win.
    They were also missing Gronks 6.8/pts per game on average , which is what TB was shooting for while he was in single coverage. He is the teams leading scorer behind Ghost. I could have sworn I saw him on the field giving up an INT to a DE? Perhaps it was a bad game plan to have Gronk 40 yards down field if he was "missing, oh but that would question the coaching staff and we wouldn't want that...
    The next leading scorer is Benny at 4.1pts/g, no he did not get his average either.  Tough to get your average with 10 carries against one of the worst run defense's in the league.
    But as you can see, his possessions were also limited due to the gints eating up 38 minutes of the clock and the Pats having to try and score quickly because 60-38 only leaves 22...Imagine of the Pats were the team eating up clock. For the season they averaged more ypc, more rushing tds, LESS FUMBLES BY RB's and a better run defense yet the Gints were the team that ran more??? Please read this twice and let it settle in.  
    The Pats could not increase their average TOP without decreasing possessions.  The game was short enough as it was with 8 possessions instead of 12.SOO We should abandon our run game in order to get more possessions even though we score more points per possession then they do?? Can you not see how that makes no sense what so ever?
    You have to decrease the 38 to get more than 22.
    The D could not decrease the 38, which was a whole freaking quarter +1, more in Offensive TOP than the Pats were allowed.
    Pretty hard to win when the other team has the ball a whole freakin quarter more than you .  Don't you think?ABSOLUTELY. It is the reason we should not have called aplay that involved 15-20 yard routes in a spread formation inside of our own 4 yard line which led to  a safety and 20 seconds of possesion and a 2-0 deficit. It is the reason we should have not thrown a 40 yard ball INT to Gronk after BJGE ran for 7 and 5 yards to get a 1st down. We had the lead. It is a bad game plan. Do you disagree?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: We are balanced.


    Pezz, there are a lot of people who are convinced the whole problem with the Pats is they don't run enough.  You can point out all the facts you want (all absolutely correct) about the defense allowing the Giants too much clock, about the defense giving up too many points for an 8 possession game, about the offense moving the ball best in hurry up, about the offense stalling when it ran more (yet still running on 40% of its snaps up until the very last drive).  All of these things are facts.  Things that actually happened in the game. 

    But we never got to see BJGE carry the ball 20 or 30 times.  That may have worked or it may have failed miserably.  We don't know, because it wasn't done.  But a few people (Bill Belichick clearly not among them, by the way) are so convinced it would have worked that the facts about what actually happened in the game don't matter.  Just those ellusive 20 carries that didn't happen and would have been the Holy Grail. 

    It's a kind of fantasy football where could have beens count more than what really was.  



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

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]Pezz, there are a lot of people who are convinced the whole problem with the Pats is they don't run enough.  You can point out all the facts you want (all absolutely correct) about the defense allowing the Giants too much clock, about the defense giving up too many points for an 8 possession game, about the offense moving the ball best in hurry up, about the offense stalling when it ran more (yet still running on 40% of its snaps up until the very last drive).  All of these things are facts.  Things that actually happened in the game.  But we never got to see BJGE carry the ball 20 or 30 times.  That may have worked or it may have failed miserably.  We don't know, because it wasn't done.  But a few people (Bill Belichick clearly not among them, by the way) are so convinced it would have worked that the facts about what actually happened in the game don't matter.  Just those ellusive 20 carries that didn't happen and would have been the Holy Grail.  It's a kind of fantasy football where could have beens count more than what really was.  
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]


    Actually, BJGE is not capable of carrying the ball 30 times a game and being even remotely effective. This has been pointed out many times.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    How was it a "failure" if it led to less ppg allowed then average you just mentioned???
    It failed because they allowed 4 scores and allowed them to keep the ball for 20 minutes on the drives they didn't score which incidentally is almost the total amount of time the Pats had to score period.. The jints didn't have to score in those 20 minutes, just play keep away so that the Pats couldn't.
    Because the Giants executed a better game plan.(which is the purpose of this discussion) Their lead back got 17 carries despite leading off with his 1st 3 going for 1 yard. 17 carries over 10 by ours leads to better t.o.p. Do you dispute that?
    The game plan they ended with was not the game plan they started with, it appeared evident that after about 40 minutes in the game they had to try and score quicker because they weren't getting the ball back in under 5 minutes regardless of what they did. They did have 3 long drives prior to that.
    He had 5 because our offense couldn;t get into scoring position more then 3 times in the game. omg
    And because the possessions were limited. (decreased by 4) 

    I could have sworn I saw him on the field giving up an INT to a DE? Perhaps it was a bad game plan to have Gronk 40 yards down field if he was "missing, oh but that would question the coaching staff and we wouldn't want that.
    He got 40 yrds down the field didn't he.  With only a DE in coverage, right?
    A better throw would have been nice, but still Gronk has to make that play or at least not allow the int.
    Imagine of the Pats were the team eating up clock. For the season they averaged more ypc, more rushing tds, LESS FUMBLES BY RB's and a better run defense yet the Gints were the team that ran more??? Please read this twice and let it settle in.
    They did that for 3 plays , the jints did it for 8.  Both teams can't have the ball for 8, 4:45 drives. That would be a 76 minute game with 8 drives. That 16 extra minutes the gints ate off the clock because the D couldn't stop it is key.
    Tough to get your average with 10 carries against one of the worst run defense's in the league.
    Ya, tough to get it when your possessions are reduced from 12 to 8 too.

    SOO We should abandon our run game in order to get more possessions even though we score more points per possession then they do?? Can you not see how that makes no sense what so ever?
    No, they abandoned the run to PRESERVE the already limited possessions, not to get more.  Like I said, In the last 20 minutes of the game, they knew they were only going to have the ball for 5 of those 20 minutes because it had already been established that the Jints were going to keep the ball for (3 possessions) 15 of those 20min, which they did. 

    It is the reason we should not have called aplay that involved 15-20 yard routes in a spread formation inside of our own 4 yard line which led to a safety and 20 seconds of possesion and a 2-0 deficit. It is the reason we should have not thrown a 40 yard ball INT to Gronk after BJGE ran for 7 and 5 yards to get a 1st down. We had the lead. It is a bad game plan. Do you disagree?
    I agree. both those plays sucked and shouldn't have happened but I also think  that they were caused by lack of execution, and the general game plan changed due to lack of time.
    I also think the original game plan called for more running or else how do you explain them activating Ridley instead of Faulk? They intended to run more, just couldn't.  That extra 16 minutes the gints had the ball is why.

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

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]Pezz, there are a lot of people who are convinced the whole problem with the Pats is they don't run enough.  You can point out all the facts you want (all absolutely correct) about the defense allowing the Giants too much clock, about the defense giving up too many points for an 8 possession game, about the offense moving the ball best in hurry up, about the offense stalling when it ran more (yet still running on 40% of its snaps up until the very last drive).  All of these things are facts.  Things that actually happened in the game.  But we never got to see BJGE carry the ball 20 or 30 times.  That may have worked or it may have failed miserably.  We don't know, because it wasn't done.  But a few people (Bill Belichick clearly not among them, by the way) are so convinced it would have worked that the facts about what actually happened in the game don't matter.  Just those ellusive 20 carries that didn't happen and would have been the Holy Grail.  It's a kind of fantasy football where could have beens count more than what really was.  
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]


    Hmm.  they ran the ball 17 times in 8 possessions.  12 possessions (a normal game) would have given them 25 runs at that rate. Right?  Imagine that!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from mgraham. Show mgraham's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]What do Brees, Rodgers, and E Manning all have in common ? Their HC's all come from the offensive side of the ball.
    Posted by rochfan[/QUOTE]

    these coachs and QBs have a total of 4 SBs, granted all wins. Pats have 5 under BB and i think a better future.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TBSHBT1969. Show TBSHBT1969's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : these coachs and QBs have a total of 4 SBs, granted all wins. Pats have 5 under BB and i think a better future.
    Posted by mgraham[/QUOTE]

    Sounds like wishful thinking. The other three teams have better GM's, younger elite QB's and therefore probably brighter futures.

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

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : Sounds like wishful thinking. The other three teams have better GM's, younger elite QB's and therefore probably brighter futures.
    Posted by TBSHBT1969[/QUOTE]

    in the next 3-5 years? ie.the TB window. I dont know about that.  4 draft picks in the first 64 this year in a more economic friendly rookie salary enviornment ( sure we will probably only see 2 or 3 at best, but more in 2013) .

    also i am really interested in seeing the Ryan Mallett ( another draft steal) era.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : Backing up an argument with facts means nothing to you. You consistently dismiss facts with statments like, {take away all of BJGE's good runs and he was terrible} How could I counter that argument? Should I make up a bunch of "if" scenarios too? Ok here goes. "IF" we hadn't thrown 10 int's in our last 8 playoff games we " MAY" have won more games. "IF" we ran the ball more then we "MAY" have not thrown the 10 INT's. "IF" we were more balanced then a 138 pass to 55 run ratio we "MAY" have scored more then our 17 ppg average against the Giants in the last 3 contests. All of which were losses. 2 of which were Super Bowls. Was that better? Sorry I still had to throw in the facts. Next time I will try and throw out cheap one line insults like you. Perhaps it will register a little more clearly for ya...
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    You forgot to add:

    IF NE's Defense wasn't Top 3 in turnovers, they'd be MUCH worse...Therefore: Once you subtract this aspect, you can clearly see that NE's Defense is THE worst...

    And-

    IF NE's Defense wasn't SO bad at giving up long, extended drives (TOP), THEN NE's Offense wouldn't be unconditionally "forced" to pass on 1st down, 2nd down, 3rd down, and then punt on 4th down after ticking all of 30 seconds off of the clock... Indeed, NE's Offense IS about "League Average" in terms of TOP (although I won't be offering you any credible link for a reference point), IT therefore IS NE's Defense who is Always and Forever to blame- Both for their own inability to grant THEMSELVES a gametime "breather" after they made NE's Offense fail to eat time off the clock (yet again...and always), AND it's clearly NE's Defense who's at fault whenever NE's high-powered Offense manages a 10 point final scoreboard tally, all-the-while controlling the ball 1/4 of the total time in the game & not scoring any of these points after the 1st quarter, IF and WHENever in accordance with this scenario, That NE's Defense gives up such a HUGE lead in the 4th quarter...  I mean How Ob-vious IS the answer in this scenario?!?  NE's Offense=10 points on their side in the plus column...NE's Defense=MINUS 13 points given to the other team.  Really, I don't see NE's OFFENSE putting points on the scoreboard to the oppossing team, right?!?  Only NE's Defense does this...!  THAT is your "weak link" right there...  Final Score: Jets 6 New England 3=Defense blew it yet again by giving the other team more points than they themselves gave New England...      
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    "Let me repeat: the O's TOP was average for the amounts of drives, The D's TOP was almost double the average."

    ...because there's differences in what the Total Time is on the gameclock before the start of any & all given games, therefore there's no relation when NE's Defense allows the other team to have the ball 3/4's of the total time, yet NE's Offense still manages to have the ball roughly half the time... 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from mgraham. Show mgraham's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : I haven't been all that impressed with belicheat's drafting acumen. Been quite a drop off since Pioli left.
    Posted by TBSHBT1969[/QUOTE]

     Got me there . He passed on Clay Mathews ( every one screams at that ) but used 2nd  extra round pick we got on the TE from Arizona with the bad back and than stupidly ( admitedly I was concerned too!) picked another TE.. who would do that?. I live in upstate NY and the local sports show guys keep ranting that the Pats have 2 stud game breaker TEs ( lets just call them recievers) and Bills havent had a decent one since the 90 glory days.

    Wilfork, Mayo, Spikes, Mankin, Vollmer, Solder,Arrington late, Merriweather was a jerk but Pro Bowler.

    2006 sucked because he traded away a 4th and and a 3rd for Randy Moss and Wes Welker. what was he doing selling out our future?

    and of course the skinny immobile QB  from Michigan with the 197th pick in 2000. yes Pioli was there then but BB had input and I think the scouting QB coach was influential. But it speaks volume to the forsight of 31 other GMs, maybe yours?

    also FAs  we had 8 of them on the starting 22 of a SB team

    the draft is a crap shoot but I would put his record up against anyone. We made the SB wih allegedly the worst D ever assembled and have 4 picks in the first 64  and lots of cap room.I like where we are.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : You forgot to add: IF NE's Defense wasn't Top 3 in turnovers, they'd be MUCH worse...Therefore: Once you subtract this aspect, you can clearly see that NE's Defense is THE worst... And- IF NE's Defense wasn't SO bad at giving up long, extended drives (TOP), THEN NE's Offense wouldn't be unconditionally "forced" to pass on 1st down, 2nd down, 3rd down, and then punt on 4th down after ticking all of 30 seconds off of the clock... Indeed, NE's Offense IS about "League Average" in terms of TOP (although I won't be offering you any credible link for a reference point), IT therefore IS NE's Defense who is Always and Forever to blame- Both for their own inability to grant THEMSELVES a gametime "breather" after they made NE's Offense fail to eat time off the clock (yet again...and always), AND it's clearly NE's Defense who's at fault whenever NE's high-powered Offense manages a 10 point final scoreboard tally, all-the-while controlling the ball 1/4 of the total time in the game & not scoring any of these points after the 1st quarter, IF and WHENever in accordance with this scenario, That NE's Defense gives up such a HUGE lead in the 4th quarter...  I mean How Ob-vious IS the answer in this scenario?!?  NE's Offense=10 points on their side in the plus column...NE's Defense=MINUS 13 points given to the other team.  Really, I don't see NE's OFFENSE putting points on the scoreboard to the oppossing team, right?!?  Only NE's Defense does this...!  THAT is your "weak link" right there...  Final Score: Jets 6 New England 3=Defense blew it yet again by giving the other team more points than they themselves gave New England...      
    Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium[/QUOTE]

    I am bewildered. Does anybody else here understand the premise that if one team doesn't have the ball then the other does? If our offense gives up a safety- 20 whatever seconds, a 3 and out - 31 seconds, and a 1 minute 18 second punt besides the INT, then we have given the other team the ball quickly. Then the other team uses a game plan that involves running the ball, short safe passes and waiting as long as they can to snap the ball and fans are blaming OUR DEFENSE for this?

    @ PEZZ, What do you think would happen if the Patriots used the Giants game plan involving the run game and eating up as much clock?

    Why do you say that because the Giants used this plan that we could not use it?

    Why would fewer possessions be a bad thing for one of the best offense's in NFL history?

     Do the Giants score more often then the Patriots per possession? I think not. So why would we be forced into abandoning the run game? And playing into their hands? Were we not winning the game or down by 1 score for over half of it?

    I am sorry but nothing about your opinion makes sense. To say the Patriots defense is responsible for the Patriots offense going 3 and out, turning the ball over, and not using clock which gave the other team t.o.p is just irresponsible for a Patriot fan.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : I'd say that has more to do with the division you play in. The patsies benefit from playing in a very week divion year in and year out, much like the 49'ers in the 80's. When you coast through your division every year it can make things alot easier. But, all in all, I'm not very impressed with his drafting since Pioli left, which leads me to believe that Pioli was the man with the drafting skills.
    Posted by TBSHBT1969[/QUOTE]

    Says the guy who alleges he roots for the team that won their division with only 9 wins.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : Backing up an argument with facts means nothing to you. You consistently dismiss facts with statments like, {take away all of BJGE's good runs and he was terrible} How could I counter that argument? Should I make up a bunch of "if" scenarios too? Ok here goes. "IF" we hadn't thrown 10 int's in our last 8 playoff games we " MAY" have won more games. "IF" we ran the ball more then we "MAY" have not thrown the 10 INT's. "IF" we were more balanced then a 138 pass to 55 run ratio we "MAY" have scored more then our 17 ppg average against the Giants in the last 3 contests. All of which were losses. 2 of which were Super Bowls. Was that better? Sorry I still had to throw in the facts. Next time I will try and throw out cheap one line insults like you. Perhaps it will register a little more clearly for ya...
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]


    Why is it so hard for you to wrap that pea brain around the concept that BB isn't fooled by BJGE's "average" in that game. He knows the guy had TWO runs over 4 yards. But you expect BB to ask for more of that in the SB? Pffft.

    Other than that one run the backs averaged 2.8 yards a carry. Maybe you don't like looking at it that way because it ruffles your lame little concept, but that's the way BB has to look at it. If it wasn't so pisss-poor he would have used it more.

    Why the hell should BB want to run more when over half the time the run was being stuffed for next to nothing when he can throw and over half the time get 10+ yards?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : Says the guy who alleges he roots for the team that won their division with only 9 wins.
    Posted by pcmIV[/QUOTE]


    It don't matter. This guy will know the rest of his days if Gronk was healthy his team loses.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from boomerst3. Show boomerst3's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In response to "Re: We are balanced.": [QUOTE]or they had an easy schedule at the end of the regular, beat one team they should beat, and got really lucky to get to the SB. Posted by anonymis[/QUOTE] Obviously you are a Jets fan. What a stupid statement. They belonged in the game, and could have, maybe should have, won it. How's that for luck?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : You mean like during the regular season when gronk was healthy and the pats beat the GIA....errr...oh wait, that's right. The GMEN beat them with a healthy gronk!
    Posted by TBSHBT1969[/QUOTE]


    Yeah, and Chung and Spikes got injured. You're a moron.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : I am bewildered. Does anybody else here understand the premise that if one team doesn't have the ball then the other does? If our offense gives up a safety- 20 whatever seconds, a 3 and out - 31 seconds, and a 1 minute 18 second punt besides the INT, then we have given the other team the ball quickly. Then the other team uses a game plan that involves running the ball, short safe passes and waiting as long as they can to snap the ball and fans are blaming OUR DEFENSE for this? @ PEZZ, What do you think would happen if the Patriots used the Giants game plan involving the run game and eating up as much clock? Why do you say that because the Giants used this plan that we could not use it? Why would fewer possessions be a bad thing for one of the best offense's in NFL history?  Do the Giants score more often then the Patriots per possession? I think not. So why would we be forced into abandoning the run game? And playing into their hands? Were we not winning the game or down by 1 score for over half of it? I am sorry but nothing about your opinion makes sense. To say the Patriots defense is responsible for the Patriots offense going 3 and out, turning the ball over, and not using clock which gave the other team t.o.p is just irresponsible for a Patriot fan.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    All I can say to that is;
    All teams frequently score on less than half of their drives.
    All teams often have a few 3 & and outs and don't gain first downs on every possession.
    All teams throw pics
    All teams commit turn overs
    All teams often have drives stall before the 50 yard line and have to punt
    All teams often have drives that last less than 8 plays
    All teams often have the ball for under 4:45/drive for every drive.
    All teams have games where they score less than 21pts
    All teams often have less than 4 sacks/game

    That is all teams... unless of course you are the NY Giants playing the New England Patriots in the SB, where NONE of these things happened to them. 
    Not one!
    All those things are caused by the D or lack of it in this case.
    That's what's crazy and very hard to ignore, unless you choose to ignore it.
    I just can't.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : And Bradshaw and Nicks were out for the Giants. Not to mention how depleted their secondary was from the beginning of the season. But, hey, if excuses don't work for you then you could always resort to name calling. Oh wait, you already did that.
    Posted by TBSHBT1969[/QUOTE]

    So, prey tell, which one are you in your avatar?
    It's gotta be the Parrot.
    "Bellicheat, Bellicheat......wakwakwak
    Patsies, Patsies, wakwakwak
    Yup, definately the parrot.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]Those were defenses that completely controlled the pace of the game.  Back then, I'd go to Foxborough on Sunday mostly to watch the defense.  Yeah, Brady was exciting.  But what I liked best was seeing Seymour, Washington/Wilfork, Warren, Vrabel, Bruschi, Johnson, Law, Harrison, etc. completely dominate the pace of the game.  
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    You don't know what your talking about, all of those defenses gave up the same or more points in the Super Bowl than this D did.  2004 they gave up 21 points to the Eagles but our offense scored more (28 rushes/112 yards). 

    2003 they gave up 29 but the offense scored more (35 rushes/127 yards). 

    Only 2001 did they give up less with 17 points but they also rushed the most coincidentally for 133 yards (25 rushes/133 yards) and completely dominated the time of possession.

    2007 we rushed 16 times for 45 yards, the Giants rushed 26 for 91 yards, neither was successful but the Giants stuck with it and we went pass happy. Our offense scored 14 points...

    2011 we rushed 19 times for 83 yards, the Giants rushed 28 times for 114 yards, neither was great but the Giants stuck with it despite the fact the Patriots were better at running the ball than the Giants were. Pats high powered offense scored 17 points...

    You think the defense has more responsibility in controlling the time of possession than the offense, that's cute, it would be funny if it weren't so sad your lack of historical context.  That's exactly what the Ernhardt-Perkins system was predicated on and known for, it's what the Giants in the 80's-90's were famous for, being boring, being conservative, it was a weekly topic in the NY papers, Simms was constantly at odds with Parcell's to open up the offense but Bill and Ron Ernhardt had their way, two Super Bowls was the result... this thread has become a joke.

    The defensive game plan for the Giants Super Bowl victory in 1990, written by defensive coordinator Bill Belichick, has been included in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. The offensive game plan still stands as a Super Bowl record; Time of Possession, (40 minutes 33 seconds) The Super Bowl MVP was Giants runningback Otis Anderson.  The Giants D gave up 19 points and the Giant's offense rushed the ball 39 times.

    You guys are completely lost.  It used to be known as Giant football, then it became Patriot football, now it's known as Giant football once again. You guys have no footing to stand on because despite your feeble resistance our opinion is actually backed up with 3 Super Bowl victories squarely placed on the back of a balanced run to pass ratio.  That's just the facts. Granted the defenses back then were older, wiser but the offense put them in the best position to succeed regardless of how the D was playing...

    It's funny how none of you can speak to why the offense only scored two touchdowns in each game and really explain how that's the defense's fault. The Giants played ball control, ground and pound offense, beat us at our own (old) game but you refuse to admit that philosophically a great running team that can pass will always beat an all passing team. 

    Get over 2007, fantasy stat's don't equal Super Bowl wins. I preferred when the Pats players were less heralded individually but won more rings, as opposed to all the MVP's and 1st round playoff exits, but that's just me... I don't live in fantasy land.  Yeah if that means I'm "old school" than so be it... the Giants obviously proved that old school still works.



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

    Re: We are balanced.

    Hey Wozzy . . . I said I went to Foxborough on Sunday.  The Super Bowls weren't played there.  All I was saying was that on a regular basis--week in and week out--the defenses in 2003 and 2004 were much, much better than anything we've seen since and especially better than what we've seen in 2011 (and 2010).  

    And I know they gave up 29 points against Carolina.  The D did struggle with some Delhomme quick strikes at the end of the game (they weren't helped by a Brady interception).  But the D absolutely dominated that game for three quarters.  There were like six three and outs and two more six and outs.  Against the Eagles, it was much the same thing.  Three and out after three and out--plus three interceptions.  Yes, the Eagles scored three times on 12 or 13 possessions.  But it wasn't anywhere near like the Giants scoring four times on 8 possessions.  

    And I don't believe for one moment that Belichick wouldn't go back to a 1990 Giants-like game plan if he thought it would work with this team.  But this team isn't built that way.  (And remember, it's the defensive game plan that's in the hall of fame, not the offensive game plan.)

    And guess what--the 2011 Giants aren't built like the 1990s Giants either.  They did not pound the ball in the Super Bowl.  They threw nearly 60% of the time!   You're making way too much of 28 carries (one of which was a kneel down play and shouldn't really be counted as a run).  They also threw 40 times.  27/(27+40) = 40.3% rushing.  The length of their drives was primarily the result of their ability to complete 75% of their passes. Our defense's inability to stop passess has been chronic and evident all year and it continued in the Super Bowl.  Why you guys can't seem to admit that and think that handing the ball to Benny would have cured all evils is beyond me. This team is just not built for that type of play.  

    Look, we lost the Super Bowl not because the coaches failed us in game planning, but because the team wasn't as good as the Giants.  Sorry, that's the reality. This team has major holes in talent.  Belichick has done a brilliant job to keep this team competitive despite it's problems.  We've got to stop bemoaning the failures of our coach. It shows a complete lack of appreciation of how good we have it.  The reality is we've got a coach who is so good he can get a team with Slater and Edelmen starting in the backfield to the Super Bowl. That's brilliant, even if in the end they couldn't quite win the big game. Just enjoy it.  You won't see anything like this run ever again.  





     

Share