What a Mess

[Deus Irae]

Bradford eanred those 7 points with 3-3-69 on the first drive.
After that he was 19-27-136. with an Int 2-9 3rd down conversions and 2 sacks.
I think his passing numbers suggest exactly 7 points when you add in his kicker missed a FG and they were so far behind that FGs late were pointless.

19-27-136 is far from impressive, not is 2/9 3rd downs.

20 of 28 is pretty impressive, particularly given that he was something like 13 for 15 at one point.

 

[Big-T]

Never go to theonion.com, btw.

Still a more legit news source than Fox though

 

[Ring 6]

20 of 28 is pretty impressive, particularly given that he was something like 13 for 15 at one point.

Come on. 19-27 for 136 yard is not impressive at all.
2/9 on 3rd downs is pathetic.
You don't score points by completing passes that don't result in first downs.
19-27-136 with a pick, 2 sacks and 2/9 on 3rd downs adding up to zero points, a missed FG, and going for it on 4th from around the 35 and failing, is about what is should add up to.
Your statement was that those passing stats make it surprising they only put up 7 points, and it really isn't surprising at all. Are you saying that teams put up great point totals completing 70% of passes for 7 yards per completion and converting 2 3rd downs all day? The numbers add up to the score.

 

[Deus Irae]

Come on. 19-27 for 136 yard is not impressive at all.
2/9 on 3rd downs is pathetic.
You don't score points by completing passes that don't result in first downs.
19-27-136 with a pick, 2 sacks and 2/9 on 3rd downs adding up to zero points, a missed FG, and going for it on 4th from around the 35 and failing, is about what is should add up to.
Your statement was that those passing stats make it surprising they only put up 7 points, and it really isn't surprising at all. Are you saying that teams put up great point totals completing 70% of passes for 7 yards per completion and converting 2 3rd downs all day? The numbers add up to the score.

If you want to think 13 for 15 and 20 for 28 is a recipe for 7 points, you go for it. Your point about the yardage is kind of my point, though, since I was talking about plays left on the table.

 

[Ring 6]

If you want to think 13 for 15 and 20 for 28 is a recipe for 7 points, you go for it.

136 passing yards 2/9 on 3rd down an Int and 2 sacks is a recipe for ZERO points. We just say it.
You said Bradfords passing numbers should have produced more points. How? He threw for 136 yards and was 2/9 outside of the 7 points he got on the first drive.
You made a poor statement. If you can't admit you are wrong, thats on you. Have a good night.

 

[Jackson 2]

Did you get to the game, btw? We got back (to Beckenham) about half an hour ago.

Are you Ian Ball by any chance?

 

[Deus Irae]

136 passing yards 2/9 on 3rd down an Int and 2 sacks is a recipe for ZERO points. We just say it.
You said Bradfords passing numbers should have produced more points. How? He threw for 136 yards and was 2/9 outside of the 7 points he got on the first drive.
You made a poor statement. If you can't admit you are wrong, thats on you. Have a good night.

My statement was fine. You decided to post too hastily in response, instead of thinking my post through.

 

[SpiderFox53]

20 of 28 is pretty impressive, particularly given that he was something like 13 for 15 at one point.

Bradford was 22 of 30 for 205, take away the 50 yard TD and he's 21 of 29 for 155 which really isn't impressive at all. Yes the 50 yard TD was impressive but the rest of his day was mediocre at best.

Strictly a yardage perspective.

 

[Ring 6]

My statement was fine. You decided to post too hastily in response, instead of thinking my post through.

What?
Thinking it through, you are trying to say that passing for 136 yards and going 2/9 on 3rd down with 2 sacks and an Int makes it surprising that they didn't score more points.
What is there to think through? How many points do you expect that kind of performance to amount to?

 

[Deus Irae]

Bradford was 22 of 30 for 205, take away the 50 yard TD and he's 21 of 29 for 155 which really isn't impressive at all. Yes the 50 yard TD was impressive but the rest of his day was mediocre at best.

What I'd put forth:

It will be interesting to see the analysis of whether it was because of plays Bradford was leaving on the table or because the DBs were actually doing what they were supposed to be doing (first drive excepted, naturally).

Completing passes was obviously not a problem for the Rams. The question, therefore, is whether Bradford was missing other open receivers deeper down the field (leaving plays on the table), or whether the defense was actually being successful in implementing a game plan.

 

[Ring 6]

Bradford was 22 of 30 for 205, take away the 50 yard TD and he's 21 of 29 for 155 which really isn't impressive at all. Yes the 50 yard TD was impressive but the rest of his day was mediocre at best.

Strictly a yardage perspective.

Actually he was 3-3-69 on the first drive, so those 7 points were well earned.
The zero he put up after that came from 19-27-136 with a pick 2 sacks and a 2/9 3rd down conversions. Mediocre is a huge complement.
You can't put points on the board throwing for 136 yards in 57 minutes with 2/9 on 3rd and a turnover.

 

[Avenger]

I saw Bradford being forced to dump it off short of the 1st because coverage/pressure. when you throw an 8 yard pass on a 3rd and 10 or a 6 yard pass on a 3rd and seven that isn't a good play.

 

[Ring 6]

What?
Thinking it through, you are trying to say that passing for 136 yards and going 2/9 on 3rd down with 2 sacks and an Int makes it surprising that they didn't score more points.
What is there to think through? How many points do you expect that kind of performance to amount to?

I must apologize here, you didn't say suprising, you said miraculous

Given the passing numbers of Bradford, it's almost miraculous that the Rams got only the 7 points.

 

[Ring 6]

I saw Bradford being forced to dump it off short of the 1st because coverage/pressure. when you throw an 8 yard pass on a 3rd and 10 or a 6 yard pass on a 3rd and seven that isn't a good play.

Which is how you throw for 136 yards in 57 minutes and go 2/9 on 3rd down and get shut out in those 57 minutes. (or whatever the exact time was after the first drive)
You could argue the 54 yard FG, so "his passing stats" could have deserved to put either 7 or 10 on the board depending on if you wish to hold your FG until accountable to 54 yarders.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

If you want to think 13 for 15 and 20 for 28 is a recipe for 7 points, you go for it. Your point about the yardage is kind of my point, though, since I was talking about plays left on the table.

Neither is correct without additional data, most specifically YPA. The first series Bradford was 3 of 3 for 69 yards. Obviously numbers even in the same general galaxy to that is a recipe for more points. However, after that first series, he was 19 of 27 for 136. That is a YPA of about 5. A YPA of 5 is rarely going to be a recipe for points even with a 70% completion percentage.

 

[ATippett56]

What a mess?

Damn!

I thought this was to be the ultimate New York Jets carnage thread!

 

[mayoclinic]

So as the Pats go into the bye week at the mid-point mark of the season they sit at 5-3 atop the AFC East with the 3rd best record in the AFC. They lead the NFL in scoring at 32.5 PPG (on pace for 524 points, second only to the 2007 team) and in offense at over 452 YPG. The team is averaging just under 150 yards rushing per game, and is on pace for the most yards rushing yards in the BB era. The defense is averaging 21.5 PPG, and is giving up less than 90 yards per game rushing. Tom Brady is on pace for 4800 yards passing and 32 TDs vs. only 6 INTs. Wes Welker is on pace for 120 receptions and 1400 yards. Rob Gronkowski is on pace for 80+ receptions and almost 1200 yards receiving and 14 TDs. Stevan Ridley is on pace for 1400 yards rushing and 1500 yards from scrimmage. Chandler Jones is on pace for 12 sacks and 6 forced fumbles. Jerod Mayo is on pace for 160 tackles, and has been making for impact plays than in years past. The defense has 11 fumble recoveries and 9 interceptions so far on the season.

And this is while Logan Mankins, Sebastian Vollmer, Dan Connolly, Rob Grohkowski, Aaron Hernandez, Wes Welker, Brandon Bolden, Dont'a Hightower, Steve Gregory, Patrick Chung and Ras-I Dowling have missed considerable time and/or played at less than 100%. The OL and secondary have resembled MASH units. The offense has had to make due to different skill players each week, so it's not surprising that there have been some issues with execution and consistency. But in spite of it all the results are still pretty impression, and the team is still in pretty decent shape.

Lesser teams fold. The really good ones are tempered by adversity and are forged into champions. It's too soon to tell if that will be the case with the Pats, but so far they seem to be weathering the storm in pretty decent fashion.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Another opening TD drive by the opposing team. Another 50 yard completion with a secondary breakdown eerily reminiscent of previous gaffes. Sam Bradford was 22/30 against our porous secondary. We were lucky the Rams left 3 points on the board with a botched FG attempt before the half. 2 more 4th quarter drives allowed by the defense, which we were lucky weren't converted into points.

Same old problems. We were lucky to get out alive with a win. The trolls and chicken littles are going to have a field day with this one ...

You forgot to mention that they once again proved that they can't win close games.

 

[Deus Irae]

Neither is correct without additional data, most specifically YPA. The first series Bradford was 3 of 3 for 69 yards. Obviously numbers even in the same general galaxy to that is a recipe for more points. However, after that first series, he was 19 of 27 for 136. That is a YPA of about 5. A YPA of 5 is rarely going to be a recipe for points even with a 70% completion percentage.

Ok, No offense to you, but you're not the first to go down this route. I have no idea why people think telling me what I already know is supposed to be the answer.

Bradford was completing passes at a high rate, particularly until the game got out of hand, but he wasn't moving the team well enough to get more than 7 points. As has been noted, he was 3-3 for the TD on that first drive, and he was 13-15 at one point, meaning he was still 10-12 after the TD drive. Now, the question/issue I brought up is whether this was because the downfield routes were well covered (DBs doing the job) or because Bradford was missing/passing on open receivers.

 

[Salva135]

I am so glad for this bye. This team has been exhausting to watch this season. I hate to say it, but I am happy for a week where the Pats can heal up and I can just watch other teams make their fans crazy.