Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

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

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    In response to "Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY": [QUOTE]The number of pass plays have increased over the past decade but the number of runs has not decreased, how do we account for this? The zebras are throwing the flag nearly double the amount allowing offenses to stay on the field longer.  Welcome to the new NFL. Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE] Every time an offense is on the field a defense is also on the field. In every single game in history past and present, the time the offenses are on the field exactly equals the time the defenses are on the field. This is why defensive TOP for the league always equals offensive TOP. If offenses were actually staying on the field longer, than defenses would be staying on the field longer too. It's just basic math.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

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

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY": Every time an offense is on the field a defense is also on the field. In every single game in history past and present, the time the offenses are on the field exactly equals the time the defenses are on the field. This is why defensive TOP for the league always equals offensive TOP. If offenses were actually staying on the field longer, than defenses would be staying on the field longer too. It's just basic math.
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    A run play keeps the clock running, a failed pass stops the clock... simple math.

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

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY": Every time an offense is on the field a defense is also on the field. In every single game in history past and present, the time the offenses are on the field exactly equals the time the defenses are on the field. This is why defensive TOP for the league always equals offensive TOP. If offenses were actually staying on the field longer, than defenses would be staying on the field longer too. It's just basic math.
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    LMAO at this. In so many words you have said exactly nothing.
     
    Hey Pro and Pezz, if our offense had executed an 8 minute drive instead of taking a safety in the SB, do you think our defense may have possibly had a better chance at getting the Gints off the field quicker in the next possession? If our offesne was the one to average 5 minutes a drive could we have had a better TOP?
     
    if you can answer this question honestly this debate will be over.

    Our offense could have impacted TOP positively if they had executed a better game plan. It is not even debatable. they had 4 drives that lasted less then 90 seconds.

    Do you guys work for Boston Globe?
     
    Is your sole purpose to solicit responses and draw hits to this website?

    Am I being punked?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    In response to "Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY : A run play keeps the clock running, a failed pass stops the clock... simple math. Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE] Games haven't gotten any longer, so if it's true as you claimed above that running plays haven't decreased but passing plays have increased, all that means is that teams are running their running plays, their passing plays or both faster. (We're ignoring any changes in the rules that might stop the clock more frequently or any reductions in the amount of time special teams are on the field.)
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    Maybe it's El Nino?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY:
    [QUOTE]TOP is also dictated by the offense imposing their will on the defense. running,passing,execution of a solid game plan. That is my opinion. It doesn't mean you are wrong, but you are definitely not right.  Just because you shout things doesn't mean they are correct. You have grown almost as obnoxious as babe.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    LOL.  It's always the other team imposing their will on the Pats Defense. 
    As illustrated Both offenses can't have a high ToP.  Both the offense and the Defense can't have a high Top as they are the opposite of each other. 
     It's impossible. 
    The Pats D has to stop the opposing offense from imposing their will.
    That is the ONLY way the Pats offense can improve ToP.
    Both offenses can't have a Top over 30 minutes.  One HAS to be less.
    Stop the opposing O and your O's ToP will increase.
    The best D's have the Best Top's (NOT THE BEST O's)
     The suckier the D the suckier the ToP.
    Refusing to acknowledge this doesn't make it go away or non-factual.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    [QUOTE]If your main point is that a poor passing yards given up stat doesn't necessarily mean the sky is falling for a team I'd agree. No reason to get hysterical about the stat as some of the media did. If, however, you're trying to argue like some here seem to be that it doesn't matter at all then I disagree. it's hard to be a truly stellar defense while giving up lots of passing yards and most of the defenses that give up the fewest points also give up relatively few passing yards. So-called bend but don't break defenses do tend to give up more passing yards than other defenses, but even in the bend but don't break system, you don't want to allow too many passing yards. If you are, it's a sign you're either failing to keep plays in front of you (the whole point of BBDB) or not making enough stops on the underneath passes to stop drives before they get into scoring range.
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]
    Yes, that is my point. The passing yards allowed is an overblown stat proved to be overblown last year by the success of the worst perpetrators, the Packers, Patriots, Saints and the Giants.

    Reports of McCourty getting beat means he is just like every other cornerback playing in todays NFL. Quarterbacks and receivers are going to get their yards. The NFL will make sure of that.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    In response to "Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY : LOL.  It's always the other team imposing their will on the Pats Defense.  As illustrated Both offenses can't have a high ToP.  Both the offense and the Defense can't have a high Top as they are the opposite of each other.   It's impossible.  The Pats D has to stop the opposing offense from imposing their will. That is the ONLY way the Pats offense can improve ToP. Both offenses can't have a Top over 30 minutes.  One HAS to be less. Stop the opposing O and your O's ToP will increase. The best D's have the Best Top's (NOT THE BEST O's)  The suckier the D the suckier the ToP. Refusing to acknowledge this doesn't make it go away or non-factual. Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE] I guess you missed my question? What if our offense had came out with an 8 minute drive? What if they continued to go on long clock killing drives the whole game? The we we would have had a better TOP right?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY": I guess you missed my question? What if our offense had came out with an 8 minute drive? What if they continued to go on long clock killing drives the whole game? The we we would have had a better TOP right?
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    You mean like the Giant's did to us... revolutionary!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY : LMAO at this. In so many words you have said exactly nothing.   Hey Pro and Pezz, if our offense had executed an 8 minute drive instead of taking a safety in the SB, do you think our defense may have possibly had a better chance at getting the Gints off the field quicker in the next possession? If our offesne was the one to average 5 minutes a drive could we have had a better TOP?   if you can answer this question honestly this debate will be over. Our offense could have impacted TOP positively if they had executed a better game plan. It is not even debatable. they had 4 drives that lasted less then 90 seconds. Do you guys work for Boston Globe?   Is your sole purpose to solicit responses and draw hits to this website? Am I being punked?
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    Well, that certainly would have closed the gap on ToP but not eliminated it as there was almost a 16 minute difference in the O's Top and the D's top.
    It also would have eliminated another possession by using up 8 extra minutes of time.  That's a no, no, when possessions are already extremely low.
    Do the math.  6 minutes for the D and 8 minutes for the O ='s 14 minutes and one whole quarter gone with both sides only having 1 possession instead of the pathetic 2 that they already had.  Would have made it a 7 possession game.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY": I guess you missed my question? What if our offense had came out with an 8 minute drive? What if they continued to go on long clock killing drives the whole game? The we we would have had a better TOP right?
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    I didn't miss your question. was typing a different response at the time.  wrong!
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY : Well, that certainly would have closed the gap on ToP but not eliminated it as there was almost a 16 minute difference in the O's Top and the D's top. It also would have eliminated another possession by using up 8 extra minutes of time.  That's a no, no, when possessions are already extremely low. Do the math.  6 minutes for the D and 8 minutes for the O ='s 14 minutes and one whole quarter gone with both sides only having 1 possession instead of the pathetic 2 that they already had.  Would have made it a 7 possession game.
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]


    Thank you for being honest and answering the question. Btw one less possession for each team and we win the Super Bowl. Think about that.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    n Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY : You mean like the Giant's did to us... revolutionary!
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    I think you mean like the jints O came out and did to the pathetic D all game long  leaving the O little possessions and little time.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY : LMAO at this. In so many words you have said exactly nothing.   [/QUOTE]

    No, just debunked Wozzy's mathematically impossible conclusion.  Offenses aren't staying on the field longer.  Games are only 60 minutes long. If one offense spends more time on the field, it directly subtracts from the time the other offense spends on the field.  Maybe Wozzy meant that drives are on average longer now that teams are passing more.  But that seems to fly in the face of Wozzy's most deeply held and cherished beliefs. 

    [QUOTE]Hey Pro and Pezz, if our offense had executed an 8 minute drive instead of taking a safety in the SB, do you think our defense may have possibly had a better chance at getting the Gints off the field quicker in the next possession? [/QUOTE]

    Maybe, maybe not.  Depends on how much fatigue played a role in the defense's inability to get off the field fast on the Giants' second drive.  Even though the Pats' first drive was very short, the D did get some rest time because of all the TV timeouts in the Super Bowl.  And they had played only about 6 minutes at that point, so I'm not sure how fatigued they really were.  

    [QUOTE]If our offesne was the one to average 5 minutes a drive could we have had a better TOP?[/QUOTE]

    Sure . . . but if the Giants drives averaged no shorter than they actually, then the total drives for the game would have been fewer for both teams.   

    [QUOTE]if you can answer this question honestly this debate will be over. Our offense could have impacted TOP positively if they had executed a better game plan. [/QUOTE]

    Yes, we could have had better TOP--but that doesn't mean we would have scored more or the Giants scored less. Assuming the Giants drives were just as long, we would have had fewer drives.  What would have mattered is what happened at the end of those drives.  Were their points scored or not?

    [QUOTE]It is not even debatable. they had 4 drives that lasted less then 90 seconds. Do you guys work for Boston Globe?   Is your sole purpose to solicit responses and draw hits to this website? Am I being punked?
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    So what was your point?  

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

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY : Thank you for being honest and answering the question. Btw one less possession for each team and we win the Super Bowl. Think about that.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    In that particular game, that is entirely possible.  You are correct.
    But as a rule, higher possession games favor the higher scoring offenses, which is why the jints played it that way.
    Guess we'll never know.  :-(
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY :Maybe Wozzy meant that drives are on average longer now that teams are passing more.  But that seems to fly in the face of Wozzy's most deeply held and cherished beliefs.
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Maybe Wozzy meant exactly what he said, I know that you hear/read what is said and then put it through your fantasy filter, but what I said was ref's are throwing the flags at a much increased rate  and keeping drives alive.

    Since 2001 ref's (roughly) doubled the number of penalty flags thrown, specifically pass interference, the Colt's whined their way to a championship with the help of Bill Polian and the competition committee and helped warp the game of football  as a whole.

    The debunking is only in your mind.  And please, feel free to chime in on Truechamp's "I-Formation" thread if you can, you'll have a much harder time debunking Bill Belichick... then again you completely twisted Brady's words yesterday so maybe not.

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

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY : Maybe Wozzy meant exactly what he said, I know that you hear/read what is said and then put it through your fantasy filter, but what I said was ref's are throwing the flags at a much increased rate  and keeping drives alive. Since 2001 ref's (roughly) doubled the number of penalty flags thrown, specifically pass interference, the Colt's whined their way to a championship with the help of Bill Polian and the competition committee and helped warp the game of football  as a whole. The debunking is only in your mind.  And please, feel free to chime in on Truechamp's "I-Formation" thread if you can, you'll have a much harder time debunking Bill Belichick... then again you completely twisted Brady's words yesterday so maybe not.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    So are you claiming that, with all the passing (helped by pass intereference calls) drives have gotten longer than they were when teams ran more? If that's what you're saying, then how does that mesh with your "teams need to run more to control TOP" argument?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY : So are you claiming that, with all the passing (helped by pass intereference calls) drives have gotten longer than they were when teams ran more? If that's what you're saying, then how does that mesh with your "teams need to run more to control TOP" argument?
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    You obviously don't listen, team's aren't running more, they aren't running less. Team's are passing more because of the increase in flags. 

    I invite you to take the team stat's from 2001 and compare them to 2011, the only thing that changed from then to now is the number of teams that were penalized more than 1000 yards more than doubled, the number of penalties more than doubled. You wanted pass happy, you got pass happy, you must enjoy watching the ref's work...
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY:
    [QUOTE]You just like to attack the guy. How did he look to your expert eyes in the game?
    Posted by Philskiw1[/QUOTE]


    excuse me but, passing on a report of observations from sports reporters is attacking?

    i watched streaming. poor at best.
    he was not noticeable which was a good. thing. the one play i heard his name i didnt see as the screen was frozen for the first saints off series. so ive nothing to report yet.

    reports froom game by sports reporters onsite were that he did ok. nothing stood out bad or good. thats a good sign (compared to last year)
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY:
    [QUOTE]we have no right to look at any player in this secondary in anything but the most positive light Thats not true but to say he's consistently beaten then he plays 34 snaps somethings wrong there. Do you think BB would have kept him in there if that was the case? Would the final score have been 7-6? Wouldn't he have been beaten consistently in the game? Maybe he was hurt last year. Sure his play wasn't good but there was no ota's and offseason. Maybe we should just cut him now.
    Posted by Philskiw1[/QUOTE]

    you keep referring to "beaten consistently" and refer to the game. the thread states and i just restated above after your first bringing this up, the comments were about the past weeks practice.

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

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY:
    [QUOTE]Maybe I'll go back and re-watch the game keying on McCourty, but honestly, I thought he was staying with his men pretty well.  Overall, I thought the secondary was okay.  Not great, but definitely a step ahead of where it was early in the preseason last year.  Plus, the LBs were better in coverage as well and the DL was getting some decent pressure.  All of those things will help with pass defense, so I see reason for optimism.  We'll have to watch how it evolves over the preseason, but so far so good for the first game in August. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    pro, this thread was tuesday about practices.
    teh game WAS encouraging. we did get beat by the wrs, but not all game (however it seems none of teh dbs tun for the ball except dowling).
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY:
    [QUOTE]Maybe I'll go back and re-watch the game keying on McCourty, but honestly, I thought he was staying with his men pretty well.  Overall, I thought the secondary was okay.  Not great, but definitely a step ahead of where it was early in the preseason last year.  Plus, the LBs were better in coverage as well and the DL was getting some decent pressure.  All of those things will help with pass defense, so I see reason for optimism.  We'll have to watch how it evolves over the preseason, but so far so good for the first game in August. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]


    pro this thread was psoted based on a report tuesday about practices.
    the game WAS encouraging. we / our cbs did get beat but not ALL game (though it does appear that only 1 cb consistently turns for teh ball-dowling)
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY : I disagree with you digger. Yards given up don't necessarily lead to points, but they do tend to contribute to a lot of bad things, including: More defensive and less offensive TOP for you (which means a more tired defense and fewer scoring chances for your own offense) More first downs given up and therefore longer drives for your opponents (see TOP above) More trips to the redzone for your opponent (which also tends to lead to at least more field goals if not more touchdowns for your opponent) Poorer field position in general, since your opponents will frequently end their drives past midfield It's rare that a defense that gives up lots of yards is any better than mediocre when you look at points given up. And most defenses that give up lots of yards also give up lots of points.  Last year, the Pats were middle of the pack in points given up, primarily because their defense was very good at getting turnovers.  That helped balance the poor ability to make stops on third down and the tendency to give up lots and lots of passing yards.  However, the defense's penchant for giving up long drives and quick scores did hurt the offense, since it reduced offensive TOP and forced the offense to play a more "shoot-out" style than we might like.  
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]


    thanks for pointing out what is obvious to some, but not everyone.
    +1
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Yesterday parillo and hart on nepats.com report receievers STILL running by mccourty CONSISTENTLY

    I'm amazed that this TOP argument still lingers. I'm amazed that we still go back to that Super Bowl and argue for days over who was to blame.

    My opinion is this - we were not a balanced offense, but the reason for that in my opinion was do in large part to personnel. I don't think we had a back to make us balanced and therefore not able to control TOP in THAT game.
     
    I think the Giant's defense also had a lot to do with it. I think the loss of Kevin Faulk hurt some of our third down diversity. I think having a "feature" back that wasn't all that quick, fast or elusive, hurts the ability to control your time of possession. You can also add in the fact that Benny was not the type of runner that would break tackles at the line of scrimmage, but rather after he built up a head of steam - this was a problem because he was too slow to really build up that head start and would obviously be met by tacklers around the line. 

    Benny was ranked 27th in yards for starting running backs and there were something like 45 runners that had a better ypc average...think about that for a second...here's a guy running on a team where every defense is trying to stop our passing game and this is where you rank? Maybe the guy was playing hurt, but I think there was a reason why we didn't try to resign him and drafted two guys to replace him.

    I'm sure Belichick would like two things to happen...one, our defense to get off the field and help our TOP. And two, have a running game that can be counted on to close out games and control TOP. WE had neither last season. It took some serious intervention for us to get to that Super Bowl - does anyone remember Tebow? The guy couldn't hit the blind side of a barn with a football if he was standing 4 feet away from it. We were very lucky to be facing him on a cold night at home. Then you have a wide receiver for the Ravens who only needed to squeeze that ball for a second longer in the end zone before our 4th string corner knocks it out at the last millisecond. 

    I think our defense will be better this year, but it will take 6-8 games without major injuries. And I think the offense will struggle some because of the line (although that may force them to run more) - hopefully that will be resolved by the time the defense comes together.
     

Share