Tired of the "Offense did enough to win this game and the defense blew it" spin

[mgteich]

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

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

 

[mgteich]

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.

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]

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!]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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!]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

 

[reflexblue]

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

Ok who played well? The defense? They were going up against Manning who is an average QB, Victor Cruz, who will never be confused for Marvin Harrison, a hot and cold running back who is in the dog house most of the time and a Tight end whos name i can't remember. The Giants Offense isn't exactly over powering.

The Offense was more than spotty, how many times did Mesko Punt?

And Special Teams haven't been any good much of the year.

So who played well?

And i haven't been saying this repeatedly, this post is the first time. No one covered themselves in glory yesterday. You can keep telling yourself its just a phase its going to get better, the D is playing better, but NY marched up and down the field. And again their O isn't all that impressive.

I have come to accept that this team is now above average but won't do anything beyond winning 9 to 11 games this year. I (like a lot of others) just want to know WHY and How we got to this position.

This is not some over night knee jerk conclusion on my part, ive been starting to think this way for a few years now. Last years lose to the Rats and not drafting anyone on the front seven just brought it to a head.

 

[TriplecHamp]

2 td's in the final 3 minutes. Couldnt hold the giants to 3 with a 3 point lead...srsly they played well for 57 minutes but the defense in th final 3 was cringeworthy. The giants made a few plays but the pats also gave them way too much and made some bonehead plays. If one guy makes a play we win the game.

 

[Disco Volante]

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.

It's really eerie how this was the same exact thing being posted after SB42.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

The defense should have done what it did for 4 quarters against a Giants offense missing it's #1 WR and #1RB and starting center and starting TE...

The offense hasn't performed well in weeks, it is in fact performing worse by the week. The only bright spots are Brady and Welker. The OL and Brady by association is getting abused, the young TE's are stuggling in coverage and developing a case of the yips as a result, we can't run the ball consistently because the run blocking is as sketchy as the pass blocking, Welker is the only guy who fights to get open and catch the damn ball consistently, Ocho can't function in a offense that requires instinctive reads and consistent effort and Price can't get on the field even when he outpractices him because he's apparently another of the fragile youngsters we seem to collect.

This was 42 deja vu, and while this offense struggled once again Brady managed to claw them to a lead with less than 2 minutes to play needing a TD to do it because the PK isn't terribly consistent at any distance this season. Then the defense folded... That is total lack of complimentary football, which is what it takes to win consistently in this league. They are actually fairly stiff inside the redzone most of the time except when they shoot themselves in the foot as they did yesterday on the last 3rd down. But the Giants only had the opportunity to win that game because this defense couldn't make one play outside the redzone when the game was on the line. Deja vu all over again...

This team needs to be able to win a game when the offense can only muster 20...

20 points is fine.

How about 20 points and not having turnovers so the opponent has 10 yard scoring drives?

For all the complaining about Pittsburgh, the reality is net of the chipshot TD, the defense gave up 16 points.

Hell, Flacco just put a 23 burger on them with a missed chipshot FG.

 

[Rob0729]

Ok who played well? The defense? They were going up against Manning who is an average QB, Victor Cruz, who will never be confused for Marvin Harrison, a hot and cold running back who is in the dog house most of the time and a Tight end whos name i can't remember. The Giants Offense isn't exactly over powering.

The Offense was more than spotty, how many times did Mesko Punt?

And Special Teams haven't been any good much of the year.

So who played well?

And i haven't been saying this repeatedly, this post is the first time. No one covered themselves in glory yesterday. You can keep telling yourself its just a phase its going to get better, the D is playing better, but NY marched up and down the field. And again their O isn't all that impressive.

Eli Manning is 7th in passing yards, 9th in completion percentage, 5th in passing TDs, and 5th in QB rating this season. Those are not average numbers. He is a top QB this year.

As I already pointed out, Cruz is on his way to a 1,200 yard season. That is pretty good for a WR. He has more receiving yards a game (73.5 YPG) than Stevie Johnson of the Bills (65.4 YPG), Brandon Lloyd (69 YPG), and Santonio Holmes (42.5 YPG) just to name a few.

The TE you can't remember is Jake Ballard and he leads the league in TDs by a TE this year. He is also the 10th ranked TE in receiving yards per game (49.4 YPG) which is more than Jermichael Finley (47.2), Heath Miller (48.2), and Vernon Davis (42.4).

Just because you are uneducated on the Giants' offense doesn't make it bad. They have a very good offense with or without Nicks and Bradshaw. I think the problem with the people who want to trash the defense is that they are ignorant to what is going on in the NFL outside the Patriots' sphere of football.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Your point is well taken and the D did play *very* well for 3+ quarters. The O did no favors for being blanked for the bulk of 3 quarters.

Still, you cannot ignore they gave up an 85yd TD drive and an 80yd TD drive back-to-back. 165yds in the game-deciding quarter? Come on. That's attrocious. Somebody needed to make a play and nobody did. And if you want to blame guys in the back 7 for going down as the reason they collapsed, then the pass rush *has to step up*, whether it's a 4-man rush or a blitz. They got nothing from nobody on two drives and it cost them sole possession of first place in the AFCE.

Regards,
Chris

 

[TruthSeeker]

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.

This basically squashes the title of this thread. The offense put the team ahead, the defense couldn't hold it. Period. This team has not had a good defense since 2004. It's been bend and don't break since then, they blew the AFCC Game in 2006, they blew SB 42, and pretty much every loss except games like the Cleveland Game last year or last week against Pitt. Every time the team takes the lead, the defense gives it up. This team has so many holes, defensively, that it can not be corrected this season.

 

[RIpats88]

the thing is, you cant expect to win with 4 turnovers in the game. that puts ALOT of pressure on our defense. its easy to blame the 2 TD drives given up which is fair...but if we take better care of the ball and have less 3-outs thats a non-issue...the defense held firm for 3 quarters...but you can only bend it so far before it breaks

this is not the Ravens who are Defense first because they have to make up for their bonheaded QB Flacco...and their defense still gave up 20pts to the Steelers

this is a team with arguably the greatest QB in the NFL at our helm...brady cant play like flacco and we win.

its not the points put up on the board. its how you put them up on the board that can determine a game...you take your time with long drives and put points on the board, it makes our defense better rather than going 3 and out and they need to make another big stop...we had no long drives offensively and needed some clutch plays in the 4th quarter just to make it a game. thats not a formula to win

if we can fix our offensive issues and can start to put together long drives early in the game that will make us alot better team. but we cant expect to do nothing for 3quarters offensively, turn over the ball, let the defense hold us for 4quarters and try and win with clutch 4th quarter drives

you give Eli manning so many chances to get on the field, eventually hes going to make a play...its easy to blame the defense and rightfully so. but when the offense with MVP 3time superbowl champion Tom brady does nothing for 3 quarters you need to place the blame on them as well

 

[BradyManny]

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.

Of course, you realize you fall right into doing the exact same thing as the people are you are chastising this thread - forcing all the blame onto one unit.

Clearly, both are to blame.

The reason people are blaming the defense in most cases - SB42, for instance, or yesterday - is because if you give your team a lead with 1:30 or 2:15 left in a game, your win probability is extremely high. In fact, it was over 80 percent when the Patriots took the lead.

The bottom line is games play out in different ways, you could harp on the offense's terrible first three quarters, sure. But when you are in a position where the average team wins 80% of the time and you don't - that's going to garner more attention than anything else.

The reality is - I think yesterday is an example where the defense played great all game and then was, in fact, sidetracked by injuries and a couple dumb plays. I don't think this was like SB42 or other defensive meltdowns - I actually have faith that if presented with the opportunity again, and if Chung and Spikes were healthy - we win that game.

But Rob, you're no better than the ones blaming it all on the defense. Look, the Giants are paid too, and their Defense played well, just like in SB42, they controlled our offense and the line - the offense did struggle through 3 quarters, but when it mattered most, the Patriots offense twice captured the lead. That doesn't just count for a little bit, it counts for a lot.

The "should they have been in this situation" game is almost irrelevant to me - I look at things as how they played out. The offense sucked for 3 quarters, but there is no way to say they would've been up 14 points if they scored more - the Giants might have countered with better offense, certain turnovers may not have happened - the entire game would've been different. The what if game puts you in some quantum physics land that I'm not comfortable talking about. As soon as you change one thing about that game and say "what if this..." you change everything, from the resulting defensive performance, to the refs, to whatever.

I'll talk about how it did play out.

The offense sucked for a while. The defense was great for a while. The offense was mega-clutch again. The defense - though arguably through little fault of their own, or their own starters, at least - sucked and was very anti-clutch again.

There is no way to look at yesterday's game and not see both units to blame and come to the conclusion above.

I take a lot of positives out of yesterday's game. For the fourth time this year, the offense showed great resolve in the fourth quarter - granted, they have lost 3 of those games. And for the third time in four games, the defense played great for the vast majority of the game - only to be derailed by things out of their control.

If the two units can put it together for 60 minutes, we'll be fine. I went into this weekend thinking we were hopeless because of our defense, but left it feeling much better about that side of the ball.

 

[Rob0729]

Of course, you realize you fall right into doing the exact same thing as the people are you are chastising this thread - forcing all the blame onto one unit.

Clearly, both are to blame.

The reason people are blaming the defense in most cases - SB42, for instance, or yesterday - is because if you give your team a lead with 1:30 or 2:15 left in a game, your win probability is extremely high. In fact, it was over 80 percent when the Patriots took the lead.

The bottom line is games play out in different ways, you could harp on the offense's terrible first three quarters, sure. But when you are in a position where the average team wins 80% of the time and you don't - that's going to garner more attention than anything else.

The reality is - I think yesterday is an example where the defense played great all game and then was, in fact, sidetracked by injuries and a couple dumb plays. I don't think this was like SB42 or other defensive meltdowns - I actually have faith that if presented with the opportunity again, and if Chung and Spikes were healthy - we win that game.

But Rob, you're no better than the ones blaming it all on the defense. Look, the Giants are paid too, and their Defense played well, just like in SB42, they controlled our offense and the line - the offense did struggle through 3 quarters, but when it mattered most, the Patriots offense twice captured the lead. That doesn't just count for a little bit, it counts for a lot.

The "should they have been in this situation" game is almost irrelevant to me - I look at things as how they played out. The offense sucked for 3 quarters, but there is no way to say they would've been up 14 points if they scored more - the Giants might have countered with better offense, certain turnovers may not have happened - the entire game would've been different. The what if game puts you in some quantum physics land that I'm not comfortable talking about. As soon as you change one thing about that game and say "what if this..." you change everything, from the resulting defensive performance, to the refs, to whatever.

I'll talk about how it did play out.

The offense sucked for a while. The defense was great for a while. The offense was mega-clutch again. The defense - though arguably through little fault of their own, or their own starters, at least - sucked and was very anti-clutch again.

There is no way to look at yesterday's game and not see both units to blame and come to the conclusion above.

I take a lot of positives out of yesterday's game. For the fourth time this year, the offense showed great resolve in the fourth quarter - granted, they have lost 3 of those games. And for the third time in four games, the defense played great for the vast majority of the game - only to be derailed by things out of their control.

If the two units can put it together for 60 minutes, we'll be fine. I went into this weekend thinking we were hopeless because of our defense, but left it feeling much better about that side of the ball.

I have said several times that the defense laid an egg in the final two drives I am not obsolving them at all. I am just saying that the offense deserves a lionshare of the blame and people are ignoring what went on the first 3 1/2 quarters and focusing on the final two defensive stands to make it sound like the defense just was picked apart all day.

I don't know how many people said in this thread and others that if the offense can score 20 on a bad day, this defense should step up and win. Which is complete and utter BS. Ten of the Giants' 24 points were off of turnovers and seven of those points came off a turnover where the Pats' offense backed up the Pats' defense to the ten yard line. The offense played a key role in many of those 24 points given up. They had nothing to do with the final 14 points other than Woodhead running out of bounds on one of the plays.

It is basically been spun that even though the offense had a slow start, they stepped up when they had to and gave the defense the win and the defense just blew it. I am arguing that this game was just as lost in the first half as it was in the final 5 minutes.