Idle thoughts.....and the rant continues, and other assorted thoughts

[Deus Irae]

Ah!!!! Where would we be without the nabob of negativity. Thank you for participating and conveniently forgetting to mention the 7 QB hits and 10 QB hurries. I'm sure they had no impact on the fact the Giants were shut out in the first half and didn't really put on any serious scoring drives until and injured James Iheadabu and Sergio Brown were "patrolling" the Pats secondary and Gary Guyton was adding to the many reasons why he didn't see the field for most of the rest of the season. Plus career special teamer Tracy White was forced into action. AND STILL only managed 250 passing yds for the game. But I guess the only real important stat was that the Pats didn't sack Manning

BTW-you completely ignore that despite all that "massive" pressure the Giants put on Brady, he overcame 4 TO's and put up over 340 passing yds, against that "impenetrable" Giants defense.

Seriously DI, if you hurry you can still catch some of the 4 hour Giants commercial, also known as Mike and Mike in the Morning on ESPN. I'm sure after listening for a few minutes you'll feel right at home.

Seriously DI, if you are going to play the negative role, you shouldn't bring a rock to a gun fight. I could have produced a better argument for your position than you did. Cmon Man its the superbowl. I expect your best

1.) I wasn't being negative, Ken. I was responding to your gripe about the media with an explanation regarding the lack of your preferred coverage. Reading is fundamental.

2.) 2 sacks is more than 0 sacks, Brady threw multiple picks in that game, and the Patriots best pass rusher is now gone for the season. You surely know that, so you already know your argument here was a non-starter and posting it was just pure silliness.

3.) Also, the gun fight thing is silly, for a number of reasons that I won't bother getting into during Super Bowl week.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Great posts all, the kind of thread I enjoy most on this board...the kind of thing that makes this the best fan board out there IMHO...no swearing, name-calling (though we're getting close!) and solid football fans talkin'...football.

And DI, love your stuff, but, man, our Pats are playing for the world championship in 3 days. It's ok to be a homer right now.

 

[patfanken]

BTW- it wouldn't be fair not to credit ESPN with one very interesting tidbit that their "Numbers don't lie" segment came up with.

1. The Pats are in their 2 TE formation just over 70% of the time.

2. The Giants have had exactly 4 sacks against a 2 TE formation the entire 18 game season

After the 2 minute segment was completed, I almost expected some deep voiced announcer to come out with a disclaimer stating that the previous comments should be ignored because they don't support the "party line".

On another irritating note. I keep on scratching my head when I keep hearing the mediots saying how the Giants success is going to be predicated on their being "physical" with the Pats receivers. While its probably accurate, they say it like they just DISCOVERED the concept. Like no other team in the last 18 games would have "possibly" tried this out. That Brady threw for 5.200 yds because NO ONE tried hitting their receivers.

Are they F'n kidding. EVERY team tried to be physical with our receivers. Very few even came close to succeeding. I kinda think the Pats might be prepared for this approach.

 

[Deus Irae]

Great posts all, the kind of thread I enjoy most on this board...the kind of thing that makes this the best fan board out there IMHO...no swearing, name-calling (though we're getting close!) and solid football fans talkin'...football.

And DI, love your stuff, but, man, our Pats are playing for the world championship in 3 days. It's ok to be a homer right now.

I think the Patriots are going to win. I'm looking for a multiple touchdown victory for the Patriots if Gronk is healthy, and I've created a .jpeg/demotivator just for the occasion, should it happen.

But the fact that the Patriots are in the Super Bowl doesn't mean we should be idiots when we analyze the game, and it doesn't mean we should be crying about the media because the consensus is that the Giants are more likely to get to Brady than the Patriots are to get to Manning.

 

[patfanken]

I think the Patriots are going to win. I'm looking for a multiple touchdown victory for the Patriots if Gronk is healthy, and I've created a .jpeg/demotivator just for the occasion, should it happen.

But the fact that the Patriots are in the Super Bowl doesn't mean we should be idiots when we analyze the game, and it doesn't mean we should be crying about the media because the consensus is that the Giants are more likely to get to Brady than the Patriots are to get to Manning.

OK now we are getting to the meat of the discussion. Thank you for framing the question properly - Who is more likely to get to the respective QBs, the Giants or the Patriots.

My position is that while the Giants have the more effective pass rush (that shouldn't be denied), Pats have the better OL. Conversely, while the Pats' pass rush is less effective, the Giants OL is also less effective.

Your position is that in the one game the 2 teams have played the Giants OL allowed zero sacks, while the Pat's OL allowed 2

I would counter that IN that game the Pats actually created more pressure on the Giant's QB with 7 QB hits and 10 hurries, than the Giants did with their 2 sacks, 3 QB hits and 4 hurries, and I would back that up by comparing the passing yards each team compiled

And you would counter by saying.........

BTW- Do NOT complete your next post without telling me what the F is a ".jpeg/demotivator"

 

[reflexblue]

BTW- it wouldn't be fair not to credit ESPN with one very interesting tidbit that their "Numbers don't lie" segment came up with.

1. The Pats are in their 2 TE formation just over 70% of the time.

2. The Giants have had exactly 4 sacks against a 2 TE formation the entire 18 game season

After the 2 minute segment was completed, I almost expected some deep voiced announcer to come out with a disclaimer stating that the previous comments should be ignored because they don't support the "party line".

On another irritating note. I keep on scratching my head when I keep hearing the mediots saying how the Giants success is going to be predicated on their being "physical" with the Pats receivers. While its probably accurate, they say it like they just DISCOVERED the concept. Like no other team in the last 18 games would have "possibly" tried this out. That Brady threw for 5.200 yds because NO ONE tried hitting their receivers.

Are they F'n kidding. EVERY team tried to be physical with our receivers. Very few even came close to succeeding. I kinda think the Pats might be prepared for this approach.

I stopped watching or reading any coverage. Listening to how badly the pats are going to get beat (by everyone) whats the point. The last time i checked BSPN was showing combined highlights of the Pats getting losing the 07 SB and the game this NOV. One would think the Giants were about to play MIT.
In a way I like it, im sure the Giants are eating it up and are starting to think they are THAT Good. I'm starting to feel a lot better about the game. The last time i saw er reporting was before the Pats played the Rams.

 

[Deus Irae]

OK now we are getting to the meat of the discussion. Thank you for framing the question properly - Who is more likely to get to the respective QBs, the Giants or the Patriots.

My position is that while the Giants have the more effective pass rush (that shouldn't be denied), Pats have the better OL. Conversely, while the Pats' pass rush is less effective, the Giants OL is also less effective.

This is basically true. I'd put the Patriots O-line in the top 5, although I'd put the 2007 line ahead of it.

Your position is that in the one game the 2 teams have played the Giants OL allowed zero sacks, while the Pat's OL allowed 2

I would counter that IN that game the Pats actually created more pressure on the Giant's QB with 7 QB hits and 10 hurries, than the Giants did with their 2 sacks, 3 QB hits and 4 hurries, and I would back that up by comparing the passing yards each team compiled

No, Ken... my position is that it makes sense for the media to cover the line play the way they have because of what happened in the first meeting, as well as the entirety of the season. 2 sacks + 2 INTs > than anything the Patriots D-line could muster, and that was with Carter still around.

And you would counter by saying.........

Nothing, since I wasn't analyzing the actual play. If I were doing that, I'd note that your argument is basically a useless one because it doesn't take number of pass rushers being used to generate the pressure into account, and it doesn't incorporate the INTs into discussion of the benefits of that Giants pass rush. I plan to get into more thorough analysis of the game either later today or tomorrow, and that's when I'll focus on things like this much more seriously.

BTW- Do NOT complete your next post without telling me what the F is a ".jpeg/demotivator"

You can take a picture on your computer, upload it, put in your words, and voila...

(This one actually needs to be updated, since Peyton's now 9-10 in the playoffs, but you get the idea)

Here's a generator that's put out by the site that is all about demotivators.

Parody Motivator Generator - Create your own Motivational Poster

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

I would counter that IN that game the Pats actually created more pressure on the Giant's QB with 7 QB hits and 10 hurries, than the Giants did with their 2 sacks, 3 QB hits and 4 hurries, and I would back that up by comparing the passing yards each team compiled

And you would counter by saying.........

BTW- Do NOT complete your next post without telling me what the F is a ".jpeg/demotivator"

I would also say that "that admittedly weaker then it is now" defense kept Eli fairly limited for large swaths of that game. Don't forget, through the first half, Manning went 8/19, 74 yards, 0-0. A whooping 53.4 passer rating.

Then a few costly injuries came up and it got a little ugly in the 2nd half. We certainly gave then fits for at least half that game.

 

[Willie55]

9 of those sacks came in the 2 games against Miami and Denver. It's not as if they were crushing everyone. They've also lost Carter.

Look, I'm not saying that the Patriots can't get to Eli. I'm saying that they didn't in the first meeting, so the media's not going to act as if the Patriots rush is a formidable problem facing the Giants, no matter how offended a bunch of homers on a message board get as a result.

I'm not a homer or offended, just looking at the facts objectively. The Patriots defense has been playing better lately, up to, and including the playoffs. I think most of this has to do with the pressure and sacks the fronts seven has been generating.

 

[Gwedd]

I'm not a homer or offended, just looking at the facts objectively. The Patriots defense has been playing better lately, up to, and including the playoffs. I think most of this has to do with the pressure and sacks the fronts seven has been generating.

Agreed. I've been pleasantly surprised at both the agility and tenacity of our Pass rush and the entire D-line these past few games. I expect an even better performance this Sunday, since they're playing for ALL the marbles now.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm not a homer or offended, just looking at the facts objectively. The Patriots defense has been playing better lately, up to, and including the playoffs. I think most of this has to do with the pressure and sacks the fronts seven has been generating.

I wasn't calling you out as a homer, but was referring to the general desire of the homers here to be offended by every word uttered by the media. However, it's not really objective when you "counter" the only actual head-to-head matchup with a bunch of games against stiffs.

 

[Willie55]

I wasn't calling you out as a homer, but was referring to the general desire of the homers here to be offended by every word uttered by the media. However, it's not really objective when you "counter" the only actual head-to-head matchup with a bunch of games against stiffs.

Supposedly, from what I've heard, the Patriots have played "stiffs" all year. They've had one of the weakest schedules. When they played these "stiffs" earlier in the year, they produced no pressure or sacks. Now, the latter half of the year, against the "stiffs", they are generating more of a pass rush and applying more pressure.

People get offended because the reporting has been far from balanced. You would think the Giants are playing the local high school with what's been reported.

 

[robbomango]

Nice post Ken thanks,

Ah!!!! Where would we be without the nabob of negativity. Thank you for participating and conveniently forgetting to mention the 7 QB hits and 10 QB hurries.

Where did you get the hit count? Usually I see it in media analysis but never listed under stats. I was looking for statistics on QB hits for each game and season totals earlier this year but couldn't find 1.

Just curious, tnx again

 

[PlainOldEd]

Instead every minute of every broadcast hour is spent in glorifying a decent team and disparaging a better one.

The annoying thing for me is that after the game, if the Patriots win, they will start talking about how the Giants were a 9-7 team so the victory isn't really that impressive.

Remember before the Denver game how many mediots were wondering how the Pats were ever going to be able to handle the Broncos run game?

Then after the game, and since then, they 'only' beat the Broncos. Foxboro High could have beaten them......

http://www.nfltouchdown.com/2012-nfl-playoff-predictions-denver-broncos-at-new-england-patriots/

 

[patfanken]

This is basically true. I'd put the Patriots O-line in the top 5, although I'd put the 2007 line ahead of it.

I completely disagree with your comparison of the 2007 OL. I think this one is vast superior for the following reasons.
1. Steven Neal went out in the first series and Russ Hockstein < Brian Waters...much less.
2. We are much better situated at RT. Both Volner and Solder are > than Kazcur
3. And while I wouldn't say he's a better all round C, The bigger and stronger Dan Connolly is much better prepared to set the middle than Dan Koppen was.
4. I would suggest that Matt Light (much to my surprise) is playing at a higher level than he was then.
5. Hard to believe that Mankins could have a game that was worse than in 2007.

No, Ken... my position is that it makes sense for the media to cover the line play the way they have because of what happened in the first meeting, as well as the entirety of the season. 2 sacks + 2 INTs > than anything the Patriots D-line could muster, and that was with Carter still around.

My position all along was that I had no problem with what the mediots were saying. My problem was with their lack of a balanced approach. They accentuated all the Pats negatives while ignoring any of the Giants'. There is example after example of this one sided reporting. So I guess what I'm saying is, "its not what they are saying, its what they AREN'T saying."

We could also get into a discussion of which is a more effective method of slowing down a passing attack. More QB hits and hurries or fewer QB hits and hurries, but a couple of actual sacks. On first blush, if you look at a comparison of the total passing yard in this particular game, you might come down on the side of the former.

Nothing, since I wasn't analyzing the actual play. If I were doing that, I'd note that your argument is basically a useless one because it doesn't take number of pass rushers being used to generate the pressure into account, and it doesn't incorporate the INTs into discussion of the benefits of that Giants pass rush. I plan to get into more thorough analysis of the game either later today or tomorrow, and that's when I'll focus on things like this much more seriously.

OK, now you are getting into the complexities of the game. Which is made difficult for fans like us because of the lack of resources we have to make our opinions on. Think about how much fun it would be if we had the "all 22 coach's tape" to break down and discuss after each game. I recognize how tough it is to make point when you are using flawed sites like PFF to provide info to make points. But I look forward to your effort to look at the Giants pass rush more "thoroughly".

You can take a picture on your computer, upload it, put in your words, and voila...

(This one actually needs to be updated, since Peyton's now 9-10 in the playoffs, but you get the idea)

Here's a generator that's put out by the site that is all about demotivators.

Parody Motivator Generator - Create your own Motivational Poster

Thanks, that was cool.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

These teams met earlier this season. The Patriots didn't manage a single sack of Eli.

That said, the Pats DL wasn't playing as well as it is now, and the Giants OL was playing better than it is now.

 

[Deus Irae]

Supposedly, from what I've heard, the Patriots have played "stiffs" all year. They've had one of the weakest schedules. When they played these "stiffs" earlier in the year, they produced no pressure or sacks. Now, the latter half of the year, against the "stiffs", they are generating more of a pass rush and applying more pressure.

People get offended because the reporting has been far from balanced. You would think the Giants are playing the local high school with what's been reported.

Go look at the sacks breakdown. Miami was worth 9 all alone, for example, 4 prior to your 10-16 subset and 5 during it. The Giants, on the other hand, accumulated their sacks while dealing with injuries to players like Osi and Tuck. The reporting has basically said that it's going to come down to pressuring the QBs. That's not "far from balanced", at all. I may disagree with much of what's being said, and I do, but that doesn't make what's being said unfair or unbalanced.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Go look at the sacks breakdown. Miami was worth 9 all alone, for example, 4 prior to your 10-16 subset and 5 during it. The Giants, on the other hand, accumulated their sacks while dealing with injuries to players like Osi and Tuck. The reporting has basically said that it's going to come down to pressuring the QBs. That's not "far from balanced", at all. I may disagree with much of what's being said, and I do, but that doesn't make what's being said unfair or unbalanced.

Translation

When the facts don't support some dumb assessment......just strategically ignore data that makes the dumb assessment seem smarter.

If you throw out all the Patriots sacks, then you can come to the conclusion that the defense doesn't pressure anyone.

It's this method that has morphed a 9 completion game vs the Jets/Hail Mary vs Packers/did nothing vs 49ers Manning into such an elite QB.

 

[Deus Irae]

I completely disagree with your comparison of the 2007 OL. I think this one is vast superior for the following reasons.
1. Steven Neal went out in the first series and Russ Hockstein < Brian Waters...much less.
2. We are much better situated at RT. Both Volner and Solder are > than Kazcur
3. And while I wouldn't say he's a better all round C, The bigger and stronger Dan Connolly is much better prepared to set the middle than Dan Koppen was.
4. I would suggest that Matt Light (much to my surprise) is playing at a higher level than he was then.
5. Hard to believe that Mankins could have a game that was worse than in 2007.

1.) Patriots line was Light/Mankins/Koppen/Neal/Kaczur. The Neal injury happened in-game. I'd certainly agree with the notion that 2011 Waters is better than any 2007 backup OG would have been.

2.) Opinions will vary, but:
Light 2007 > Light 2011
Mankins 2011 > Mankins 2007
Koppen 2007 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Connolly 2011 (by a country mile)
Neal 2007 > Waters 2011
Kaczur 2007 = Solder/Vollmer 2011

My position all along was that I had no problem with what the mediots were saying. My problem was with their lack of a balanced approach. They accentuated all the Pats negatives while ignoring any of the Giants'. There is example after example of this one sided reporting. So I guess what I'm saying is, "its not what they are saying, its what they AREN'T saying."

But you're ignoring the many positives that have been pointed out about the Patriots AND the negatives that have been mentioned about the Giants. I'll grant you that the Giants running game is being talked about as if it's still at 2007 level, but that's really been the only thing that the media has missed on besides the Eli idiocy. I've heard plenty about the poor Giants linebacking and secondary, for example.

We could also get into a discussion of which is a more effective method of slowing down a passing attack. More QB hits and hurries or fewer QB hits and hurries, but a couple of actual sacks. On first blush, if you look at a comparison of the total passing yard in this particular game, you might come down on the side of the former.

The best way to slow down a passing attack is to get pressure with 4 rushers or fewer, thus allowing more defenders to be active in the pass defense. This is acknowledged by pretty much everyone involved in football, at pretty much any level. The Giants were, I recall seeing, the first or second best in the league at doing that this year, despite the injuries and missed games with Tuck/Osi. Heck, Osi's been a sack-a-game guy when healthy, just like JPP.

Fortunately, that just gives us probabilities regarding what will happen on Sunday, and is not binding, as 2007 showed us all too convincingly.

OK, now you are getting into the complexities of the game. Which is made difficult for fans like us because of the lack of resources we have to make our opinions on. Think about how much fun it would be if we had the "all 22 coach's tape" to break down and discuss after each game. I recognize how tough it is to make point when you are using flawed sites like PFF to provide info to make points. But I look forward to your effort to look at the Giants pass rush more "thoroughly".

It'll be tough to get into too much depth, since I'm not going to be going with long, blog entry-style posts. I'm thinking of basic breakdowns as O.P.s with everyone adding in and debating following that. My guess is that the responses will end up getting more detailed than the opening posts.

 

[shmessy]

1.) Patriots line was Light/Mankins/Koppen/Neal/Kaczur. The Neal injury happened in-game.

2.) Opinions will vary, but:
Light 2007 > Light 2011
Mankins 2011 > Mankins 2007
Koppen 2007 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Connolly 2011 (by a country mile)
Neal 2007 > Waters 2011
Kaczur 2007 = Solder/Vollmer 2011

I know you wrote opinions vary, but you truly jumped the shark with those last three listed.

That's delusional.

I would also reverse #2 going the other way.