Tired of the "Offense did enough to win this game and the defense blew it" spin - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

***mgteich*** · 11-07-2011, 09:39 AM

You can repeat this as many times as you want. It won't make it any more true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by reflexblue

OK...How about the Whole team Sucked and played poorly in All phases of the game. Which is the truth

***mgteich*** · 11-07-2011, 09:42 AM

The defense played a great game. It simply couldn't make up for an offense that was shut out for almost the entire game and turned the ball over four times. The offense needed to play well enough to give away the ball only once or twice. That isn't much to ask from what used to be the #1 or #2 offense in football. After all, it was #1 last year and added Waters, Ridley and Ochocinco.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

I don't get how people have turned on the defense and made excuses for the offense with the spin that the offense did enough to win the game since they gave the defense a lead with a little over 1:30 left in the game and the defense blew it. The fact of the matter is that the defense kept this game close so the offense could bring them back in the game in a position to win while the offense played like crap for most of the game. Here are some facts to prove this point:

1.) This was the first game all year that any game went into halftime 0-0. That was a testament to the defense and damnation on the offense and special teams.

2.) The only points that were scored in 3 1/3 quarters by the Giants were off of Patriots turnovers. The only TD the Giants got in that time was a TEN YARD DRIVE because the Pats offense gave up a strip sack on the Pats' ten yard line.

3.) Prior to the Pats scoring their first points, the Pats' offense had 8 drives in which resulted in 4 punts, 2 interceptions, one strip sack, and a missed field goal. The Pats had two drives for negative yards, one drive for 8 yards, and only two drives over 50 yards. Even the first score by the Pats was a drive that went 19 yards and resulted in a field goal.

4.) Every drive the Giants had in the first half resulted in a punt. Their longest drive was 32 yards. The only drive they crossed the 50 yard line in the first half was a drive that started on their 49 yard line and ended on the Pats' 45 (a six yard drive).

5.) The only drives that the Giants had over 57 yards the entire game were the final two.

Yes, the defense fell apart in the end especially since they lost Spikes, Guyton, and Barrett on or before those drives (which definitely hurt the defense since White and Brown are definite downgrades) and two PI penalties. But if the Pats' offense doesn't turnover the ball and Gostowski doesn't miss the field goal, the Pats win this game by 1-2 TDs. Brady's first INT cost the Pats at least 3 points. The strip sack on Brady was going to guarantee the Giants 3 points (they got seven on a ten yard drive).

If you ignore the first three quarters, you can put the blame clearly on the defense. But watching the first three quarters, it is clearly more on the offense and special teams. The offense didn't score until 5:29 minutes left in the third quarter. The offense's screw up was the reason why the Giants score a TD before that.

neuronet · 11-07-2011, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhamz

I'm tired of the weekly posts about which side of the ball is more to blame for a loss. They are always selective in over looking the good done by the side they are blaming and equally selective in discounting the bad of the side of the ball they are absolving of blame.

This is just wrong.

The score, at the end of the half, was 0-0.

That means our defense did a perfect job, and our offense was perfectly awful.

This pattern continued, except for one drive in the fourth quarter. The Offense has to give the defense a better chance. There are no two ways about it.

***BradyFTW!*** · 11-07-2011, 10:27 AM

1) The Giants were missing Bradshaw and Nicks, aka two of their three best players on offense. Let's not pretend that this was a particularly good offense that the Pats were playing against, because it wasn't, due to injury.

2) The defense still gave up two touchdowns in the last six minutes.

3) However bad you think the offense played, they put up 20 points. Holding a below-average offense (which is what the Giants were with the aforementioned injuries) under 30 points is not an accomplishment.

If you think that that performance was 'fine', given those three factors, then you are fine with the Pats never winning another Super Bowl under Brady and Belichick. Because, with defense like that, they absolutely won't.

RIpats88 · 11-07-2011, 10:40 AM

and lets not forget the defenses redzone int. after edelman fumbled the kick return.

the thing is, this is not a defense that can win you games for all 4 quarters...it did what it was designed to do yesterday. get off the field and force some 3 and outs, stay strong in the redzone.

but the other side is that the offense needs to make the most of its opportunities and not turnover the ball....we turned over the ball 4 times!! and that puts alot more pressure on our defense. gostkowski doesnt miss that field goal, it might be a different game

also, brady wasnt brady yesterday...making bad decisions and missing wide open receivers. and you can imagine this is eating at him just as much as it is us and he will make the adjustments and return to the QB he is

***Rob0729*** · 11-07-2011, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradyFTW!

1) The Giants were missing Bradshaw and Nicks, aka two of their three best players on offense. Let's not pretend that this was a particularly good offense that the Pats were playing against, because it wasn't, due to injury.

And yet everyone was predicting that the Giants would score over 30 points. People are overstating the losses.

People are overstating these losses. I mean the Texans scored 30 points yesterday without Andre Johnson. In fact, they scored 41 points vs. Tennessee without him. And he is far better than Nicks. Bradshaw had nothing to do with how the Pats defense held Manning to an under 50% completion percentage for most of the game.

Quote:

2) The defense still gave up two touchdowns in the last six minutes.

Yes, that was bad, but if the offense did their job and didn't consistently ask the defense to bail them out for most of the game, those two TD drives probably never happen. Also, one of those TD drives came off a PI that Arrington had great coverage and had no way to avoid the PI and the PI was questionable/ticky-tack.

Quote:

3) However bad you think the offense played, they put up 20 points. Holding a below-average offense (which is what the Giants were with the aforementioned injuries) under 30 points is not an accomplishment.

The Giants are a well above average offense. You have no idea what kind of offense they are without Nick and Bradshaw other than your opinion. If Bradshaw played a 16 game season, he was on pace for 1,005 yards and 11 rushing TDs. He is an average back, just their best back. Nicks was on pace for 1300 yards though, but Victor Cruz is on pace for 1176 yards and Jake Ballard is on pace for 800 yards. Ballard has 7 more receiving TDs than the rest of the team combined. Let's not act like the Giants without Nick and Bradshaw is the Colts without Eli's brother.

Also, the Giants scored 7 of their 24 points on a 10 yard TD drive. Most defenses cannot stop the opposing team from scoring at least 3 when the drive starts on the defense's ten yard line.

Also, when the Pats gave the Giants offense the short field far too many times because of turnovers and poor special teams, it is quite an accomplishment by the defense that they only gave up 10 points for the first 40 minutes.

Quote:

If you think that that performance was 'fine', given those three factors, then you are fine with the Pats never winning another Super Bowl under Brady and Belichick. Because, with defense like that, they absolutely won't.

Hyperbolize much. Jeez, I swear people have gone off the deep end.

***BradyFTW!*** · 11-07-2011, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

And yet everyone was predicting that the Giants would score over 30 points. People are overstating the losses.

People are overstating these losses. I mean the Texans scored 30 points yesterday without Andre Johnson. In fact, they scored 41 points vs. Tennessee without him. And he is far better than Nicks. Bradshaw had nothing to do with how the Pats defense held Manning to an under 50% completion percentage for most of the game.

Of course it did, because Brandon Jacobs is terrible.

Quote:

Yes, that was bad, but if the offense did their job and didn't consistently ask the defense to bail them out for most of the game, those two TD drives probably never happen. Also, one of those TD drives came off a PI that Arrington had great coverage and had no way to avoid the PI and the PI was questionable/ticky-tack.

The offense isn't always going to score 30 points. It's just not going to happen. Sometimes they'll only muster 20, and if they can do that and still take the lead twice late in the fourth quarter, then the defense has to be able to make one of those stops. It just has to.

And FWIW, I don't think that it was a systemic, defense-wide failure yesterday. I place the blame squarely on the safeties. They killed us on those last two drives, culminating in Sergio Brown committing one of the dumbest penalties I've seen in a long time. Tracy White should probably get some blame here too, but like Eric Alexander in the 2006 AFCCG, I just don't get why either of these guys is on the field at all taking meaningful defensive snaps, let alone pivotal ones at the end of the 4th quarter. White should be ST-only, period.

Quote:

The Giants are a well above average offense. You have no idea what kind of offense they are without Nick and Bradshaw other than your opinion. If Bradshaw played a 16 game season, he was on pace for 1,005 yards and 11 rushing TDs. He is an average back, just their best back. Nicks was on pace for 1300 yards though, but Victor Cruz is on pace for 1176 yards and Jake Ballard is on pace for 800 yards. Ballard has 7 more receiving TDs than the rest of the team combined. Let's not act like the Giants without Nick and Bradshaw is the Colts without Eli's brother.

You're accusing me of hyperbole? I said that the Giants, without their top RB and top WR, have a below-average offense, and to you that means they're an 0-8 caliber team? If that's what you have to resort to to make your case, then it's pretty clear that you've gone off the deep end.

Dutchmaster617 · 11-07-2011, 10:59 AM

One thing to say defending the defense though. The Pats struggled to drive, then settled for a missed FG, third quarter get the ball and throw an INT, get the ball back scoreless game STILL and another failed drive, now it is 0-3 after three straight pathetic drives, what do they do? Brady fumbles it away, now it is 0-10 after 4 straight jokes of a drive and now is when Brady decides to play football.

You can definitely respect the offense being blamed, ignoring the entire first 29 minutes or so the offense still managed to throw away 4 straight drives, that is just asking for trouble. No way you can be happy with the offense, even if they came back they still needed this loss, now we can end the 'weapons' and '30 ppg' talk.

***Rob0729*** · 11-07-2011, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradyFTW!

Of course it did, because Brandon Jacobs is terrible.

First, the Giants were going to pass the ball no matter what because of the team they were playing. So Bradshaw was not going to be a big part of the Giants' gameplan whether he played or not. So he was not a big factor.

Second, even though Jacobs sucks, Bradshaw is just average. He is on pace for under a 1000 yards (would have been a 1000 if he played yesterday and kept his average). He is better than Jacobs, but the Giants are a pass first team this year which means he would have a minimal impact.

Quote:

The offense isn't always going to score 30 points. It's just not going to happen. Sometimes they'll only muster 20, and if they can do that and still take the lead twice late in the fourth quarter, then the defense has to be able to make one of those stops. It just has to.

Sorry, but the Pats' offense turned over the ball 4 times and couldn't stay on the field. That tires out a defense. If the offense scored 20 points and they had several long drives early in the game and didn't keep on putting the defense in position to bail out their arses, they might have made a stop late in the game.

This Patriots offense was the Colts without Manning for 40 minutes and the defense kept the Pats in the game until Brady actually got his head in the game. Without the Pats' defense stepping up and keeping this a game while the offense struggled, the Giants easily could have scored 30-40 points yesterday.

Quote:

And FWIW, I don't think that it was a systemic, defense-wide failure yesterday. I place the blame squarely on the safeties. They killed us on those last two drives, culminating in Sergio Brown committing one of the dumbest penalties I've seen in a long time. Tracy White should probably get some blame here too, but like Eric Alexander in the 2006 AFCCG, I just don't get why either of these guys is on the field at all taking meaningful defensive snaps, let alone pivotal ones at the end of the 4th quarter. White should be ST-only, period.

Unless they change the rules to let Spikes play in a wheelchair, White had to play since both Spikes and Guyton were injured and Fletcher didn't even dress because of injuries. Brown had to play because Barrett (who played fairly well yesterday) was also injured. How can you blame them for playing players when they had a rash of injuries by the last drive.

Quote:

You're accusing me of hyperbole? I said that the Giants, without their top RB and top WR, is a below-average offense, and to you that means they're an 0-8 caliber team? If that's what you have to resort to to make your case, then it's pretty clear that you've gone off the deep end.

I did hyperbolize there, but you have no evidence that the Giants are a below average team without Nick and Bradshaw. They are currently the 6th ranked passing offense and the 29th ranked rushing offense. So they were not a great rushing offense with Bradshaw there. So you are over-emphasizing his impact. I pointed out that Cruz is on pace to be about a 1,200 yard receiver and Ballard leads the league in TD for a TE and on pace for 800 yards. They still have a pretty good offense even without those two.

***Theplayer*** · 11-07-2011, 11:43 AM

Bottom line is that with the game on the line, the offense drove down the field for what should have been the winning TD. The defense on the other hand failed with the game on the line.

I really don't care how the D played for 3 quarters, I want their defense to be able to make a stop when it matters most. Pats defense hasn't been able to do this for 3-4 years now.