WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

    In response to NedBraden's comment:



    Umm, sadly this Colts troll who just posted below your post just showed why it's a problem.

     

    28 TDS and 19 INTs since 2005 in the postseason for Brady is not good.  Nor is 6 TDs and 7 INTs in 3 home AFC Title games.

    How are those stats not reflective of a problem?

    When John Elway was overrated for his entire career, it was because his TD/INT ratio was AWFUL.  People would ohh and ahh because he had a strong arm and was athletic, but as far as understanding the position of QB, his ego wouldn't allow for it. It's why Dan Reeves threw up his arms and quit coaching him.

    Brady is not far off from that kind of failure right now.  Elway would lead his team out of the weak AFC every other year and go to SB, mostly because the Browns choked twice, but I always knew, even as a 10 year old kid, that he would fail in the SB.

    You can't be mismanaging the game and blowing leads because of the mismanagement. That's what Favre used to do, Elway, etc.

    This is why Favre and Elway barely belong on the top 10 all time greats list and why GOmer Manning isn't a top 5 QB of all time either.

    Brady simply has to improve in Januarys, be smarter, etc, before I start calling his season "outstanding".

    Good grief.  How about "good, but disappointing"? Isn't that more objective than piszing in the wind and acting like it doesn't matter how poorly he;s played?



    You failed to answer the question.  If Brady's shotgun preference is such a problem, why can't the coach fix it?  It's as simple as, "You'll run the shotgun when I say, no more, no less."

    So, why can't Bill Belichick do this?

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

    In response to NedBraden's comment:

    How many more times do I have to say this?



    Until you answer the question.

    You ramble on about nothing for 15 paragraphs (which very few read I'd guess) and say nothing.

    Let's try again:

    You say the problem is Brady in the shotgun.  Belichick doesn't need to call timeouts to stop this.  He simply needs to say, "I'm the coach.  You'll do what I say."

    Why doesn't he? Is it because the shotgun isn't the problem, or is it because he's not man enough to stand up to his QB?

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to NedBraden's comment:

     

    How many more times do I have to say this?

     



    Until you answer the question.

     

    You ramble on about nothing for 15 paragraphs (which very few read I'd guess) and say nothing.

    Let's try again:

    You say the problem is Brady in the shotgun.  Belichick doesn't need to call timeouts to stop this.  He simply needs to say, "I'm the coach.  You'll do what I say."

    Why doesn't he? Is it because the shotgun isn't the problem, or is it because he's not man enough to stand up to his QB?



    Your never going to get an answer with out a Brady bash or deflection...

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

    In response to NedBraden's comment:

    Nor is 6 TDs and 7 INTs in 3 home AFC Title games.



    "Tom Brady pass incomplete short middle intended for Aaron Hernandez is intercepted by Dannell Ellerbe at BAL-16 and returned for 2 yards"

    This pass was deflected at the line and went about 10 yards where Ellerbe happened to be.

    Just an example of your quality but transparent spin. 

    Please keep in mind that, of these three AFC Title games, Brady lead the team there each time.  Also keep in mind they won two of those, with Brady at the helm. 

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

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

    In response to NedBraden's comment:

    In response to APpats21's comment:

     

    Im starting to think you made up that interview that Brady said he prefered shotgun. I wanted to listen to it but ive never been able to find it or anything that alludes to it.

     




    I emailed WEEI for access to  it and I've searched for it, but I never heard back. I am telling you right now, it exists. 



    I think they filed it under "Unguarded Moments".   Glad to help.

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

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

    Did our friend Rusty get himself banned again?  

     

     

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

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    [/QUOTE]

    You failed to answer the question.  If Brady's shotgun preference is such a problem, why can't the coach fix it?  It's as simple as, "You'll run the shotgun when I say, no more, no less."

     

    So, why can't Bill Belichick do this?

    [/QUOTE]


    He's really Pete Carroll? 

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:



    You failed to answer the question.  If Brady's shotgun preference is such a problem, why can't the coach fix it?  It's as simple as, "You'll run the shotgun when I say, no more, no less."

     

     

    So, why can't Bill Belichick do this?

    [/QUOTE]


    Was Francona able to rein in Manny Ramirez?  Nope. No, he wasn't. Egos can be pretty dangerous things for a team.

    [/QUOTE]

    We aren't talking about baseball or hockey.  This is football.  If Bill Belichick is, as you have stated, possibly the greatest coach of all time, why can't he stop the QB from running plays that are detrimental to the success of the team?

    He either isn't that good at his job, or the plays in question aren't that big of a deal.

    Which one is it?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    Take one step out of NE and mention his name and you'll hear knowledgeable NFL fans think he is done or ask "what has happened to him"?



    Sorry he only finished fourth in yards and touchdowns.

    He is coming off a 4,827 yard performance, 11th best of all time.  If anyone is wondering if he's done or what happened to him, they need to spend less time hating greatness and more time appreciating it.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

    In response to russgriswold's comment:



    He has. A timeout on an opening drive of a game, CALLED by BB because he cannot believe Brady is looking to run shotgun spreads facing what the Raiders were showing in Week 4 of 2011. That's one example of MANY.

    Who calls a timeout on a team's first offensive drive?

    Then, Voila, BJGE and RIdley run for like 250 yards combined on Oakland.

    Lastly, BB just walked from welker, taking his bestest binky and you don't think these are symbols of BB wanting Brady to get it together and be a better QB than he has been?



    Is there anything anywhere that says the timeout was called because of Brady's use of the shotgun?

    Is there anythig anywhere that says the Pats let Welker walk because of Brady's use of the shotgun?

    I mentioned yards before and you dismissed them.  You stated that yards don't matter, points matter.  In the Oakland game in question, Welker had 158 yards.  If the timeout was called to shutdown the shotgun and Welker still racked up those yards, how can you suggest Welker was moved to quell the shotgun problem? 

    A contradiction once again.

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

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

     

    Ha . . . Here's Rusty watching a Patriots game so he can pick up Bill Belichick's every thought . . . 

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    Then, Voila, BJGE and RIdley run for like 250 yards combined on Oakland.



    Or 172, to be more exact and much less dramatic.

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

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

    Glad to see rusty is posting 800 times a day again bashing Brady! Makes me laugh that he bashes the best player this franchise has ever had. Now that's a guy that is utterly clueless.

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

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

    The funny this is that four of these posters are Rusty and he is arguing with himself to make a point no one will every buy...Keep trolling Russ

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

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    Glad to see rusty is posting 800 times a day again bashing Brady! Makes me laugh that he bashes the best player this franchise has ever had. Now that's a guy that is utterly clueless.



    He has to be a computer generated program.  How the heck can any Patriot fan bash a 6th round pick that has delivered us 3 Super Bowls and over a decade of great Football.  Yet he will try to compair and equate a mediocre LB and top 10 pick (who if played for the Jets he would call a bust) to Tedy Bruschi.  Calling him clueless is way to kind.

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

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    A defense getting zero turnovers in an NFL game is pisss poor defense wozzy.

     



    Agree totally that when your bread and butter is turnovers getting none in the Super Bowl will be considered a good thing, I don't admonish the defense for penalties and the rest, but they didn't surrender a lot of points either.  

    That you can say ^this^ but follow it up with v this v is self-contradictory. 

    A lot of that was Eli, them running the ball and playing a more conservative brand of football, which we can take a lesson from going forward.

    What you are really saying is that playing defense is all about points allowed, but playing offense can be about how you score them. The truth is there is a quality to the points of any game on offense and defense. Some are high quality points, others are low quality points, and the difference is in how they serve an overall strategy.

    If your offensive strategy is to increase your chances to score then your defense should play looser and more aggressive, understanding that sacrificing a quick score for the chance to get a grab of field position on a turneover is far superior to allowing the other team to score slowly. 

    Vice versa, if you are pursuing a conservative strategy, your defense should be playing tighter and more disciplined football, meant to prevent scoring TDs at all.

    At no point should you be out there backing your kids off the line just praying that the other team doesn't score quickly unless you have a huge lead or you really can't do any better ... which was what NE's defense looked like against the Giants.

    There is no *magic* strategy ... playoff games are won and lost in a myriad of ways every single season. If anything can be gained from this last post-season, its is that conservative offense was probably a bad idea for a team with an inefficient defense.

    It can be difficult to score 30 points handing the ball off 50% of the time, which was the spread through the first 3.5 quarters. Now if NE's defense could have backed that up (for instance, by not allowing the Ravens to score two TDs in 5 minutes in the 4th) even with Ridley's fumble on the 50 yard line and (we'll grant them) an ensuing FG by the Ravens, New England would have still had the time (and open playbook) in ten minutes to win with a pair of FGs, or a single TD.

    Not that I would nitpick what BB put together, but if I had a gun to my head I would have criticized NE for running too often, and not playing enough no huddle, not for passing too often.

    On the other side, while they only had a loss of four points from what they had put up against the Giants without Gronkowski, they had an enormous drop off in overall efficieny of offense by running. They committed the same amount of turnovers, chewed more clock, but scored 13 points on 10 drives, whereas they scored a very good 17 points on just six drives against the Giants through the same time span by keeping the pressure on them with a faster paced offense. 

    Yes, and the Giants and New England had the same chances to score (about 8 per team) which makes scoring 17 and 19 two extremely efficient performances. It's not that an imbalance in drives that makes the defense look bad, saying NE and the Giants had the same chances to score is a non-sequitur: it has nothing to do with the argument people are making.  

    What makes them look bad is that they surrendered 19 points on just 8 drives. In a fictirious world where you can have four more possessions than the opponent it still wouldn't matter ... 19 points on 8 drives is bad for a defense. It's bad in 2013 ... it's bad in 1930. It's bad if the team is running the ball ... it's bad if they are passing the ball.  

    It's really, really bad. Even an average performance by the defense would have yeilded just 15 points, and the game would have been tied. A solid performance, just 14 points ... and New England would have had a one point lead with just 52 seconds left ... meaning they would have been kneeling on the ball. 

    At the end of the day 2.125 points per drive and 2.375 points per drive are both top 10 scoring performances for an offense ... bottom ten for a defense. 

    You can pretend it doesn't matter ... but in the real world, where every game isn't the same number of chances ... it does. It matters tremendously.

    Lastly, without it ... as I intimated above ... your notion that the Giant's conservative offense was great makes zero sense.

    19 points in the game cannot be great if 17 points in the game is terrible if we pretend that all games are the same.  


    I'm not going to stick around, because I have work to do, but I'm just registering my take on the thread. It's difficult to here someone call thoughtful analysis of outcomes 'junk science' when all they offer in return at football platitudes like "tough" wins games, or worse, made-for-tv Maddenisms like "the team that scores more wins" which make zero sense in the real game of football where winning is about a.) complementary strategy and b.) execution resulting in c.) efficiency .... no matter the abstract score, if you do those three things  you win whether it's 19-9 or 45-27. 

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    13 points allowed by NE's D through 57 minutes of the game while watching the offense fail on their last 4 drives (not even counting the desperate 5th drive where they choked as well) in the 4th qtr is on the offense, not the defense.



    What happened during the other three minutes?

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

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    Did you just compare the 1930 era of the NFL to 2013 when every single facet of the game favors the QB and offenses to score points for bigger ratings?

    Did you, ZBellino?



    Well Rusty, considering the foward pass was half illegal in 1930 an the ball was still practically round, I don't think I was. 

    1.) But rankings are still rankings. A top 20% ranking on defense is as good as a top 20% is now. It doesn't matter what the score looks like. 

    Rankings are rankings because they rate you against your opponents whether the average team is scoring 200 points a season or 1000 points a season ... a bottom 30% defense is bad. 

    If you are bottom 10 now in PPD, and you were bottom 3 in 1930, your defense basically stunk, whether it is 1930 or 2012. You are bad. Bottom of the league.

    Hence the point of ranking teams. 

    2.) Rankings and averages effect all teams equally. In 2003-2006 the Patriots defense gave up an average of about 15 points per game ... in 2012 the Seattle Seahawks ALSO gave up an average of about 15 points per game while since 2009 New England gives up about 21 ppg. 

    The league wide scoring differential between those two selections is 1 point. Not the 6 New England is giving up. 

    It's not because teams can't only allow about 15 points per game, Seattle and San Fran did it last season, The Steelers and San Fran did it the year before, the Packers and Steelers did it the year before that, the Ravens have allow 15-17 points per game for all of those seasons save 2012 when they played most of the year without Ray Lewis.

    Just because New England's defense has slipped ... doesn't mean it's impossible to prevent points. Many teams still play highly effective defense ... and New England's dimished defense is not an artifact of the rules, but an outcome of relative talent on defense

    3.) Lastly .... NFL teams aren't scoring more now than historically when we adjust for major rule changes that alter the game. Yes, the adoption of the forward pass was tremendous for scoring, as was the adoption of the 6 point touchdown, or the switch to the spiraling ovoid shaped footballs, etc. 

    But modern football scoring has been about the same for about 60-65 seasons. In the 1950s the average teams scored about 22 points per game ... which is the same score that averaged in the last decade. In fact the span from the mid to late 40s through the 1960s was possibly a  better scoring era than we are in now.

    Minor, 3-5 point shifts in points scored have happened on an up and down basis since the inception of modern football in the NFL. 

    The most recent rule changes have done very little, relatively speaking. 

    So please desist from backing a claim with something that isn't factual.

    Yes, the NFL put a point of emphasis on the five yard chuck rule since 2005, that's a fact ... but your claim that it's had dramatic effect on scoring is fiction. It's had a nominal effect (~1 point per game) on overall league scoring if any at all, as one point could just be attributable to the ebb and flow of league talent.

    All in all ... your point is pretty hollow. If you want to back your argument ... I'd bring up something that holds water a bit better than "defenses have it tougher now."

    It's just not good defense ... it's not rule changes because everyone would be playing worse defense, not just NE. 

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

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year


    Only if I listened to the teachers in HS lol good post Z.

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

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

    Did you just compare the 1930 era of the NFL to 2013 when every single facet of the game favors the QB and offenses to score points for bigger ratings?

    Did you, ZBellino?

     

     



    Well Rusty, considering the foward pass was half illegal in 1930 an the ball was still practically round, I don't think I was. 

     

     

    1.) But rankings are still rankings. A top 20% ranking on defense is as good as a top 20% is now. It doesn't matter what the score looks like. 

    Rankings are rankings because they rate you against your opponents whether the average team is scoring 200 points a season or 1000 points a season ... a bottom 30% defense is bad. 

    If you are bottom 10 now in PPD, and you were bottom 3 in 1930, your defense basically stunk, whether it is 1930 or 2012. You are bad. Bottom of the league.

    Hence the point of ranking teams. 

    2.) Rankings and averages effect all teams equally. In 2003-2006 the Patriots defense gave up an average of about 15 points per game ... in 2012 the Seattle Seahawks ALSO gave up an average of about 15 points per game while since 2009 New England gives up about 21 ppg. 

    The league wide scoring differential between those two selections is 1 point. Not the 6 New England is giving up. 

    It's not because teams can't only allow about 15 points per game, Seattle and San Fran did it last season, The Steelers and San Fran did it the year before, the Packers and Steelers did it the year before that, the Ravens have allow 15-17 points per game for all of those seasons save 2012 when they played most of the year without Ray Lewis.

    Just because New England's defense has slipped ... doesn't mean it's impossible to prevent points. Many teams still play highly effective defense ... and New England's dimished defense is not an artifact of the rules, but an outcome of relative talent on defense

    3.) Lastly .... NFL teams aren't scoring more now than historically when we adjust for major rule changes that alter the game. Yes, the adoption of the forward pass was tremendous for scoring, as was the adoption of the 6 point touchdown, or the switch to the spiraling ovoid shaped footballs, etc. 

    But modern football scoring has been about the same for about 60-65 seasons. In the 1950s the average teams scored about 22 points per game ... which is the same score that averaged in the last decade. In fact the span from the mid to late 40s through the 1960s was possibly a  better scoring era than we are in now.

    Minor, 3-5 point shifts in points scored have happened on an up and down basis since the inception of modern football in the NFL. 

    The most recent rule changes have done very little, relatively speaking. 

    So please desist from backing a claim with something that isn't factual.

    Yes, the NFL put a point of emphasis on the five yard chuck rule since 2005, that's a fact ... but your claim that it's had dramatic effect on scoring is fiction. It's had a nominal effect (~1 point per game) on overall league scoring if any at all, as one point could just be attributable to the ebb and flow of league talent.

    All in all ... your point is pretty hollow. If you want to back your argument ... I'd bring up something that holds water a bit better than "defenses have it tougher now."

    It's just not good defense ... it's not rule changes because everyone would be playing worse defense, not just NE. 

     



    Except our D has been middle of the road in points allowed the last 3 years.  It hasn't stunk at all.

     

    It's not elite, but it hasn't stunk. You don't get to play in SBs with a bad defense.  Just doesn't happen.

    Giants 2011 D was a mere 4 slots ranked above ours in yards allowed. That's literally the difference of 150 yards or something.  Did the Giants D "stink"?

    Nope.

    YOU please desist from pretending yards allowed is how you would really rank a defense's quality.

    Good day.



    I didn't say NE's defense was last during the regular season, Russ. 

    Those were hypotheticals ... I could have just as easily said top 10/top 3, the point was that rankings exist across eras ... if you are 5th out of 100 in 1890 and you are 5th out of 100 in 2025 ... you are equally "better" than your opponents. 

    You are right ... NE's scoring defense is middle of the pack the last few seasons. 

    That's a sea-change from the stretch from 2003-2006 when they were top 3 every season. 

    My point is that NE's whole team isn't good enough right now. That's my 2 cents. 

    Those early 2000's team would beat this team. 

    Also, although I was not referring to them .... yards ... do ... matter. Except in big play scenarios ... yards = first downs which = lost TOP for your offense, lost drives for your offense, or worse field position for your offense.

    While points are the most important barometer of a defense.... yards are the second most important because they tell you how well the defense is doing at maintaining field position battles and at getting the ball back to the offense in a timely manner.

    The "yards don't matter" mantra is an old hat ... it's reductive, and overlooks a whole lot about how football is actually played.

    Lastly ... the Giants' defense when healthy is a whole lot better than NE's. It's not really even close. 

    Their pass rush has basically been the story about their two superbowl runs ... shutting Atlanta out, holding GB to 17 points and 20 points through OT in both games. Holding SF to 17 points. Yeah, holding NE to 17. These are elite offenses they were shutting down out there. These are top ten and top five offenses we are talking about.

    If you think NE's defense could do that... you would have to show me the games against the elite offenses, like the SF's, the Green Bays, the New Orleans, etc, that New England has held them even under 24 points. If there are any ... they are exceptions and not the rule. 

    The last time NE played Green Bay they gave up 27 points to a backup ... the last time they played Sf they gave up 41. New Orleans? 38. 

    They don't ... they usually get beat up, giving over 30 or 40 points up. 

    Giants' defensive stats in the regular season are absolutely meaningless, when they get healthy and heat up ... and pitch winning ball like that ... they are an amazing defense. 

    NE couldn't do that. Not without another star player or two. 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    A battle hardened D, gassed in a dome with temps rising above 80 degrees got tired.  So did NY's D in SB 42, GBs in SB 45.

    The difference is, those teams offenses actually scored some points. Ours sucked.

    Offensive era. Everything is geared towards giving offenses the advantage.  NE's defense played closer to their ceiling in each SB (42 and 46) more so than the offense. Truth hurts trolls.



    They were hot and tired?

     

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

    Re: WHEN Tommy has another Outstanding season this year

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    Agree totally that when your bread and butter is turnovers getting none in the Super Bowl will be considered a good thing, I don't admonish the defense for penalties and the rest, but they didn't surrender a lot of points either.  

    That you can say ^this^ but follow it up with v this v is self-contradictory. 

    A lot of that was Eli, them running the ball and playing a more conservative brand of football, which we can take a lesson from going forward.

    What you are really saying is that playing defense is all about points allowed, but playing offense can be about how you score them. The truth is there is a quality to the points of any game on offense and defense. Some are high quality points, others are low quality points, and the difference is in how they serve an overall strategy.

    If your offensive strategy is to increase your chances to score then your defense should play looser and more aggressive, understanding that sacrificing a quick score for the chance to get a grab of field position on a turneover is far superior to allowing the other team to score slowly. 

    Vice versa, if you are pursuing a conservative strategy, your defense should be playing tighter and more disciplined football, meant to prevent scoring TDs at all.

    At no point should you be out there backing your kids off the line just praying that the other team doesn't score quickly unless you have a huge lead or you really can't do any better ... which was what NE's defense looked like against the Giants.

    There is no *magic* strategy ... playoff games are won and lost in a myriad of ways every single season. If anything can be gained from this last post-season, its is that conservative offense was probably a bad idea for a team with an inefficient defense.

    It can be difficult to score 30 points handing the ball off 50% of the time, which was the spread through the first 3.5 quarters. Now if NE's defense could have backed that up (for instance, by not allowing the Ravens to score two TDs in 5 minutes in the 4th) even with Ridley's fumble on the 50 yard line and (we'll grant them) an ensuing FG by the Ravens, New England would have still had the time (and open playbook) in ten minutes to win with a pair of FGs, or a single TD.

    Not that I would nitpick what BB put together, but if I had a gun to my head I would have criticized NE for running too often, and not playing enough no huddle, not for passing too often.

    On the other side, while they only had a loss of four points from what they had put up against the Giants without Gronkowski, they had an enormous drop off in overall efficieny of offense by running. They committed the same amount of turnovers, chewed more clock, but scored 13 points on 10 drives, whereas they scored a very good 17 points on just six drives against the Giants through the same time span by keeping the pressure on them with a faster paced offense. 

    Yes, and the Giants and New England had the same chances to score (about 8 per team) which makes scoring 17 and 19 two extremely efficient performances. It's not that an imbalance in drives that makes the defense look bad, saying NE and the Giants had the same chances to score is a non-sequitur: it has nothing to do with the argument people are making.  

    What makes them look bad is that they surrendered 19 points on just 8 drives. In a fictirious world where you can have four more possessions than the opponent it still wouldn't matter ... 19 points on 8 drives is bad for a defense. It's bad in 2013 ... it's bad in 1930. It's bad if the team is running the ball ... it's bad if they are passing the ball.  

    It's really, really bad. Even an average performance by the defense would have yeilded just 15 points, and the game would have been tied. A solid performance, just 14 points ... and New England would have had a one point lead with just 52 seconds left ... meaning they would have been kneeling on the ball. 

    At the end of the day 2.125 points per drive and 2.375 points per drive are both top 10 scoring performances for an offense ... bottom ten for a defense. 

    You can pretend it doesn't matter ... but in the real world, where every game isn't the same number of chances ... it does. It matters tremendously.

    Lastly, without it ... as I intimated above ... your notion that the Giant's conservative offense was great makes zero sense.

    19 points in the game cannot be great if 17 points in the game is terrible if we pretend that all games are the same.  


    I'm not going to stick around, because I have work to do, but I'm just registering my take on the thread. It's difficult to here someone call thoughtful analysis of outcomes 'junk science' when all they offer in return at football platitudes like "tough" wins games, or worse, made-for-tv Maddenisms like "the team that scores more wins" which make zero sense in the real game of football where winning is about a.) complementary strategy and b.) execution resulting in c.) efficiency .... no matter the abstract score, if you do those three things  you win whether it's 19-9 or 45-27. 

     



    “Stats are for losers,the final score is for winners.”  Bill Belichick

     

    I didn't say any of those words you conveniently put in my mouth.

    I just echoed what Belichick said and I happen to agree.

    You can paint this with any swatch you like, 17 points

    scored in the modern day NFL sux.

    There are no "high quality points" or "low quality points," that's silly.  

    There are points scored and points allowed. That's all.

    The Giants were more conservative and protected the ball,

    preventing turnovers, the Pats didnt.

    Everything else is making excuses for an offense that scored 17 points.

    The Patriots scored zero points in the 4th quarter,

    they turned the ball over twice...

    Kind of the opposite of the three Super Bowl bowl

    victories won in crunchtime right?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share