PatsSox363804

Right. Even though we overcame that and had the lead that's a huge part of the game right there. We were coming off of a big defensive stop to open and basically had them right where we wanted them, that's why we defer, and we pissed it away with that safety and then TD. And of course the 2 points was huge at the end because we were down 4 instead of 3.

That said we did overcome that and there's no reason why after 2 solid TD drives the offense all of a sudden couldn't score even a field goal the last 20+ minutes.

Deus Irae

You weren't on to anything, and I had been making just one small point in response to a question you, yourself, had asked:

Your responding post was a complete miss, made worse by bringing in an inapplicable comment of mine from another thread. Making comments about my "reputation" doesn't change that.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

AndyJohnson

Of course the defense is to blame for allowing a game winning TD drive.
Are you telling me they arent expected to do their job becuase they played well the rest of the game and the offense didn't?

ivanvamp

In many ways, you guys are all hitting on aspects of the truth. There are two extremes here:

Extreme #1: Losing the Super Bowl is the defense's fault.
Those who argue this point to the fact that the Giants, on their last possession, just carved up the Patriots' D, when the Pats had a chance to hold them for the win. Whatever else happened during the game, the D had a lead to hold and could not get the job done. Eerily similar to SB 42 and the Giants/Pats regular season game this year.

The problem with this view isn't that it's not correct, because it is true that the Pats' D has been notoriously bad at making game-ending stops. But the reality is that the D isn't very good to begin with. It's better than it was early in the year as I've documented, but it still isn't very good. And the fact is that they held the Giants' offense - which was coming into the game averaging 28.2 points a game over their previous 5 contests - to a mere 19 points. In other words, the beleaguered Pats' D held a high-scoring offense to 9 points under their average (I'm speaking of the G-men's last 5 games, when they got hot...that's a relevant stretch of games). There aren't too many people who would have expected NE's defense to hold up that well. And they did so without a lot of help from the offense - which had numerous very short possessions, forcing the defense to be on the field much too quickly. Normally, if the D is going to give up just 19 points, that's a recipe for a big Patriots' win. But not when the Pats' offense only scores 17 points.

Extreme #2: Losing the Super Bowl is the offense's fault.
This view seeks to absolve the defense of blame based on what I just said at the tail end of the previous paragraph. Hey, they did a really good job overall containing a pretty explosive offense, and gave the offense more than enough chances to win. They did their job and this loss is on the offense.

The problem with this view is that the Pats now have a pretty serious history of giving up late scores. The fact is, despite how they played for most of the game, they did have a chance to stop the Giants at the end and they simply didn't get it done.

So both perspectives are right to a degree and both extremes are to be avoided. Both units had chances to make plays to help the Pats win the game, and while both did some good things, neither unit made enough plays and the Pats did not win.

Bonzo

This is dead on. I said the same thing 4 years ago: can't it be both?

Hardboiled

You're a piece of work. I still feel quoting you was applicable to the topic. I'll leave it at that.

Hardboiled

I think you need to move those sentences to the offensive's fault section.

ivanvamp

Did you even read my post for real?

Hardboiled

For reals. Pretty good stuff. I thought the counter to the Offense was better put in the defense section instead of the reference.

ivanvamp

Ok. I asked that not to be snide, but because I put it in there as part of the rebuttal to the "the defense gets the blame" argument.