The Offense

[PatsFanSince74]

My argument completely passes scrutiny, you are just arguing against a different argument than the one I am making.

My entire argument is that winning or losing that game came down to making plays when the game was on the line. I could care less about averages, point totals, or anything that ever happended in the past.
The way this gaem developed it was in the hands of the defense to win, and they failed.

that oversimplifies things way too much. if we're talking about the game coming down to making plays at the end (which we know is BB's mantra), why not also blame TB and Moss for not at least getting the ball within field goal range in the final 42 seconds, why not blame the O line for letting TB get planted one final time on third down? there were indeed plays to be made in the final two minutes, but that doesn't change the fact that the offense was beaten up all game, that there was no real response from the coaching staff and that they only put up 14 points.

 

[Mr.Muhozi]

CJ can learn from 2 of the best receivers in the league. Hopefully he was taking notice of Donte's ability to grab YAC too.

Would really like to see Gaff back though, unheralded player who's done an excellent job on the quiet. Give him a multi-year deal.

wow i am shocked, a liverpool fan with taste, how does it feel to have a team littered with talent, and a Sh*t manager who does not even know his best side, ah wells, thank god we have fergie

 

[Ring 6]

that oversimplifies things way too much. if we're talking about the game coming down to making plays at the end (which we know is BB's mantra), why not also blame TB and Moss for not at least getting the ball within field goal range in the final 42 seconds, why not blame the O line for letting TB get planted one final time on third down? there were indeed plays to be made in the final two minutes, but that doesn't change the fact that the offense was beaten up all game, that there was no real response from the coaching staff and that they only put up 14 points.

I guess I dont consider 42 seconds a reasonable amount of time.
You tell me, which is a more reasonable expectation:
Your defense NOT allowing a TD 83 yards away and 2 minutes left
Your offense scoring a FG to tie, TD to win, with 42 sec left, and 80 yards away?

 

[Deus Irae]

My argument completely passes scrutiny, you are just arguing against a different argument than the one I am making.

My entire argument is that winning or losing that game came down to making plays when the game was on the line. I could care less about averages, point totals, or anything that ever happended in the past.
The way this gaem developed it was in the hands of the defense to win, and they failed.

Even using your own, deliberately and unfairly biased against the defense, parameters, the offense still lost the game. Needing to get into field goal range with the game on the line, with 29 seconds and plenty of timeouts, the offense yielded 3 incompletions and a sack.

 

[Deus Irae]

I guess I dont consider 42 seconds a reasonable amount of time.
You tell me, which is a more reasonable expectation:
Your defense NOT allowing a TD 83 yards away and 2 minutes left
Your offense scoring a FG to tie, TD to win, with 42 sec left, and 80 yards away?

'my' offense scoring more than 17 points when its lowest total all season had been 20 points would be more a reasonable expectation my defense allowing less than its season average.

Then again, I use logic and reason.

 

[Ring 6]

This is one we could argue til the cows come home.

1) If we look at the 41 prior SB's, wherein the average and median winning scores were 30.5 and 30.0 respectively, you can make the argument that our D allowed few enough points to win all but four of those previous games(SB's: III, V, VII and IX) and that seven of those points came with less than one minute to play. IMO, from that perspective, the burden is clearly on the offense and the defense more than did its job. if you're trying to make the argument that this just shows that the D is old and couldn't play four quarters after a draining season and post season, that's a tough argument to make since Time of Possession was practically equal and the Pats actually ran more plays than the Giants.

2) All night, our offense failed to pick up the rush and our coaches failed to adapt to what was happening on the field. that's been rehashed enough out here, but I put the primary blame on the offensive line play and the offensive coaching, all the way from not letting Gostkowski try a 4 & 13 kick that he'd been making in practice, through not spreading the field, going no-huddle and letting TB try to pick the defense apart, through the 20 times TB was hit or sacked right up to third and destiny when Tommy got planted for the final time, leaving only a Fourth Down Hail Mary for the game.

Again we are arguing 2 different points.
You are trying to determine how we got into the position that the Giants could make those 2 drives and win.
I am accepting that we got into that position, and had a tremendous opportunity to win, and judging the reasons for winning/losing based on what happened after we were in a tremendous position to win.

I do not believe you judge the game based on what the o or d did in 18 other games. I think the Giants played well on D, and not real well on O. I think we played well on D and not real well on O. In other words, a defensive game that would come down to the end.
When it did come down to the end, our D failed.

Answer this:
You are a potential Champioship team. You lead by 4 with 2 minutes left and the other team has the ball on their own 17.
Do you expect your D to hold them and win the game?
Is there any doubt you have a Champioship in your hands to give away?

 

[Ring 6]

Even using your own, deliberately and unfairly biased against the defense, parameters, the offense still lost the game. Needing to get into field goal range with the game on the line, with 29 seconds and plenty of timeouts, the offense yielded 3 incompletions and a sack.

Why do you insist on arguing the parameters that I base my opinion on.
There is no deliberate on unfair bias. I have no agenda. It matters little to me whether the O or D are blameful, or the coaching, or all of the above. (Which is the real answer)

My standard is, was and always will be that in order to win Championships, you have to make plays when the game is on the line. There is no question that in the clutch, the D was more to blame.

Are you honestly telling me that your expectations are that it is easier for the offense to score in 29 seconds, than for the defense to not allow a TD from 83 yards away in 2 minutes?
Now you are being unreasonable, unfair and baised.

I am not really arguing this. There is no need to argue. I am quite certain based on my criteria, the D holds more blame. You, apparently are quite certain based on your criteria that the O holds more blame.

The only argument is the criteria and there is nothing you can say that will make me rank anything higher in the contribution to winning or losing than clutch play when the game is on the line.

 

[Ring 6]

'my' offense scoring more than 17 points when its lowest total all season had been 20 points would be more a reasonable expectation my defense allowing less than its season average.

Then again, I use logic and reason.

Once again, you are talking about something totally different than I am.
If you had read anything I have said, you would realize that my judgment boils down to the end of the game, not the game in its entirety.
What ever happened throughout that game, whether it was 3-0 or 48-47 when the 4th quarter started, what happened after that decided the Champion.
I understand your point, but I disagree. I simply believe that to win a Championship, at some point both your offense and defense will need to step up in the clutch and be the reason you win. The defense had the opportunity to be the reason we won, and did not get it done.

 

[Deus Irae]

Why do you insist on arguing the parameters that I base my opinion on.
There is no deliberate on unfair bias. I have no agenda. It matters little to me whether the O or D are blameful, or the coaching, or all of the above. (Which is the real answer)

Because your argument is crap and is based on ridiculous parameters.

My standard is, was and always will be that in order to win Championships, you have to make plays when the game is on the line. There is no question that in the clutch, the D was more to blame.

This is just a repacking of the same terrible parameters. The defense held the Giants to 3 points in 3 quarters despite the offense sucking like a Dyson and the Giants consistently having good field position. That was clutch. Your definition deliberately ignores that because it runs counter to your agenda of blaming the defense. The Giants starting field position for 3 quarters: Giant 23, Giant 40, Giant 36, Giant 43, NE 49 (just before halftime), Giant 31. The Giants got only 3 points out of that field position.

Are you honestly telling me that your expectations are that it is easier for the offense to score in 29 seconds, than for the defense to not allow a TD from 83 yards away in 2 minutes?
Now you are being unreasonable, unfair and baised.

Now you're trying to turn your ridiculous claims around and act as if I'm being biased? I simply used your silly parameters to show how your argument fails even when using them.

I am not really arguing this. There is no need to argue. I am quite certain based on my criteria, the D holds more blame. You, apparently are quite certain based on your criteria that the O holds more blame.

The only argument is the criteria and there is nothing you can say that will make me rank anything higher in the contribution to winning or losing than clutch play when the game is on the line.

Your criteria is garbage, and your responses are based on nothing reasonable or rational. That pretty much destroys your argument. You ignore some 90% of the game and then bash the defense for the last 2 minutes. How is that even remotely rational?

 

[JR4]

d........... The defense had the opportunity to be the reason we won, and did not get it done.

The Offense had the opportunity, LAST, to be the reason we won, and did not get it done.

( but ... the Offense didn't get it done ..... ALL GAME ... at least not what
was expected they would do )

 

[Deus Irae]

I guess I dont consider 42 seconds a reasonable amount of time.
You tell me, which is a more reasonable expectation:
Your defense NOT allowing a TD 83 yards away and 2 minutes left
Your offense scoring a FG to tie, TD to win, with 42 sec left, and 80 yards away?

Have you thought about the ramifications of your argument? Under your parameters, had the Giants won 3-0 on the last drive of the game, it would still be the fault of the defense that the team had lost. That's how poorly thought out your argument is.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I guess I dont consider 42 seconds a reasonable amount of time.
You tell me, which is a more reasonable expectation:
Your defense NOT allowing a TD 83 yards away and 2 minutes left
Your offense scoring a FG to tie, TD to win, with 42 sec left, and 80 yards away?

(first of all, great discussion)

i would argue that making a play at the end of a game might be why a team WINS that game, but that placing the primary blame for a LOSS on a play or plays that were NOT made, in this case by a defense that had performed extremely well all day, is not reasonable.

this game was lost all day by the offense; 20 knockdowns or sacks; poor decisions and questionable coaching and only 14 points scored. the fact that the Defense didn't come up with one more play does not lay primary responsibility for the loss at their doorstep. you just cannot make that inference.

as to your question about which scenario is "more reasonable," you have narrowed the scope to a comparison of a period of two minutes vs. one of 42 seconds and have thereby set up a question to which the hypothetical answer is evident.

however, if i present an even narrower question and ask, which is a "more reasonable expectation," that Tyree will somehow defy physics and trap the ball on his head while he falls to the ground while being jarred by a Pro Bowl Defender or that he will drop the ball? in this case, what was less reasonable occured and the game was lost.

so, who's to say that we couldn't have expected TB to hook up with RM to create a play for the ages, with Randy crossing the goal line as time expired on an 80 yard play? "reasonable?" probably not, but no less reasonable than tyree's *&^%$# catch.

 

[Metaphors]

Have you thought about the ramifications of your argument? Under your parameters, had the Giants won 3-0 on the last drive of the game, it would still be the fault of the defense that the team had lost. That's how poorly thought out your argument is.

Incorrect? Depends on your viewpoint.
Poorly thought out? Don't think so.

It is perfectly legitimate and thoughtful to believe that big games are won or lost in the final minutes. You can always say that the offense blew chances and the team should have been up by a lot instead of a little. That is a copout and doesn't reflect reality.

There would be the same expectation for the offense (down 45-41 and dropping open passes on the final drive) or the ST (down 20-19 and missing a chippy FG).

Honestly, I was not worried about the outcome if the Pats had the ball last with enough time to score. I was worried about the outcome if the Pats had to keep the Giants out of the end zone on a final drive. They had come up big before (Indy, Philly) but relied on taking advantage of poor play/decisions by the opposing offense rather than imposing their will.

I actually give the Pats a bit of a pass on the final drive since the defense was in position to close the game out (read "imposing their will") but didn't seal the deal. Interceptions through fingertips, pullaway jersey, stickem on helmet...sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes your're the bug. Watcha gonna do?

The opening drive in the game and the first 4th quarter drive were brutal. You will never convince me that the effort on those drives were optimal. They were almost going through the motions. Inexcusable. Unacceptable. New blood needed to get the hunger back.

Just look at the score and you lose the context. Offense had a bad day. It happens and you have to be ready to deal with it. Defense didn't have the skill or fire to rise to the occasion when they were needed.

Feel free to disagree. It makes for interesting discourse. But bear in mind that multiple brain cells were used in formulating this post.

 

[Deus Irae]

Incorrect? Depends on your viewpoint.
Poorly thought out? Don't think so.

It is perfectly legitimate and thoughtful to believe that big games are won or lost in the final minutes. You can always say that the offense blew chances and the team should have been up by a lot instead of a little. That is a copout and doesn't reflect reality.

There would be the same expectation for the offense (down 45-41 and dropping open passes on the final drive) or the ST (down 20-19 and missing a chippy FG).

Honestly, I was not worried about the outcome if the Pats had the ball last with enough time to score. I was worried about the outcome if the Pats had to keep the Giants out of the end zone on a final drive. They had come up big before (Indy, Philly) but relied on taking advantage of poor play/decisions by the offense rather than imposing their will.

I actually give the Pats a bit of a pass on the final drive since the defense was in position to close the game out (read "imposing their will") but didn't seal the deal. Interceptions through fingertips, pullaway jersey, stickem on helmet...sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes your're the bug. Watcha gonna do?

The opening drive in the game and the first 4th quarter drive were brutal. You will never convince me that the effort on those drives were optimal. They were almost going through the motions. Inexcusable. Unacceptable. New blood needed to get the hunger back.

Just look at the score and you lose the context. Offense had a bad day. It happens and you have to be ready to deal with it. Defense didn't have the skill or fire to rise to the occasion when they were needed.

Feel free to disagree. It makes for interesting discourse. But bear in mind that multiple brain cells were used in formulating this post.

When the argument is taken to its logical conclusion, the #1 scoring offense in history going scoreless will not be to 'blame' for a 3-0 loss if the loss occurred as a result of a winning field goal on a drive against the defense in the last minutes of the game. And, any theory which would make that case is garbage. If you don't like 3-0, look to a 7-3 loss instead, with the touchdown following the field goal. It's still the same argument. Again, to rehash:

Defense allowed only 3 points through 3 quarters
Offense only scored 7 points through 3 quarters
Offense failed to convert on a turnover, going 3-and-out
Offense fumbled a scoring opportunity away
Offense turned the ball over on downs after a 1st & 10 from the Giants 28
Offense gets 3 incompletes and a sack on a drive that needed only 39 yards to get to the Giants 35 for a field goal for a 52 yard attempt when the team had its timeouts to use.

As for the opening drive, why do you choose to deride the defense instead of noting that New England survived the longest drive in Super Bowl history with only a field goal surrendered? You mentioned losing context. Despite that "brutal" drive, the score was 7-3 New England at the half and going into the 4th because the defense was doing its job. THAT'S the context.

 

[Ring 6]

Because your argument is crap and is based on ridiculous parameters.



This is just a repacking of the same terrible parameters. The defense held the Giants to 3 points in 3 quarters despite the offense sucking like a Dyson and the Giants consistently having good field position. That was clutch. Your definition deliberately ignores that because it runs counter to your agenda of blaming the defense. The Giants starting field position for 3 quarters: Giant 23, Giant 40, Giant 36, Giant 43, NE 49 (just before halftime), Giant 31. The Giants got only 3 points out of that field position.




Now you're trying to turn your ridiculous claims around and act as if I'm being biased? I simply used your silly parameters to show how your argument fails even when using them.



Your criteria is garbage, and your responses are based on nothing reasonable or rational. That pretty much destroys your argument. You ignore some 90% of the game and then bash the defense for the last 2 minutes. How is that even remotely rational?

Do you have any concept of competition?
Stop with the stats, and the overanalysis, and think about competing and winning.
Championship teams, specifically the 03-04 Patriots, won high scoring games, low scoring games, and ALL close games. They were Champions because when the game was on the line,, whoever went out on the field got the job done.

Simply answer this. In the 4th quarter with the game on the line, how did the defense play.
In ONE QUARTER, they allowed 14 points, 2 80+ drives, and 150 passing yards.
That is equal to 56 points, and 600 passing yards.

How can you possibly hold the defense harmless when they played a terrible quarter of football with a Championship in their grasp?

 

[Ring 6]

When the argument is taken to its logical conclusion, the #1 scoring offense in history going scoreless will not be to 'blame' for a 3-0 loss if the loss occurred as a result of a winning field goal on a drive against the defense in the last minutes of the game. And, any theory which would make that case is garbage. If you don't like 3-0, look to a 7-3 loss instead, with the touchdown following the field goal. It's still the same argument. Again, to rehash:

Defense allowed only 3 points through 3 quarters
Offense only scored 7 points through 3 quarters
Offense failed to convert on a turnover, going 3-and-out
Offense fumbled a scoring opportunity away
Offense turned the ball over on downs after a 1st & 10 from the Giants 28
Offense gets 3 incompletes and a sack on a drive that needed only 39 yards to get to the Giants 35 for a field goal for a 52 yard attempt when the team had its timeouts to use.

As for the opening drive, why do you choose to deride the defense instead of noting that New England survived the longest drive in Super Bowl history with only a field goal surrendered? You mentioned losing context. Despite that "brutal" drive, the score was 7-3 New England at the half and going into the 4th because the defense was doing its job. THAT'S the context.

No, that example does not equate.
See what you are doing is pretending. What if this, what if that. I am dealing in reality.
The reality is not a 0-0 game and a last minute FG.
The reality is a LEAD at the start of the 4th quarter.
Then the defense surrendering it.
Then the offense GETTING IT BACK.
Then the defense surrendering it.

I hope we aren't going to go back into the silliness of expecting the offense to score in 29 seconds again, are we?

 

[Ring 6]

(first of all, great discussion)

i would argue that making a play at the end of a game might be why a team WINS that game, but that placing the primary blame for a LOSS on a play or plays that were NOT made, in this case by a defense that had performed extremely well all day, is not reasonable.

this game was lost all day by the offense; 20 knockdowns or sacks; poor decisions and questionable coaching and only 14 points scored. the fact that the Defense didn't come up with one more play does not lay primary responsibility for the loss at their doorstep. you just cannot make that inference.

as to your question about which scenario is "more reasonable," you have narrowed the scope to a comparison of a period of two minutes vs. one of 42 seconds and have thereby set up a question to which the hypothetical answer is evident.

however, if i present an even narrower question and ask, which is a "more reasonable expectation," that Tyree will somehow defy physics and trap the ball on his head while he falls to the ground while being jarred by a Pro Bowl Defender or that he will drop the ball? in this case, what was less reasonable occured and the game was lost.

so, who's to say that we couldn't have expected TB to hook up with RM to create a play for the ages, with Randy crossing the goal line as time expired on an 80 yard play? "reasonable?" probably not, but no less reasonable than tyree's *&^%$# catch.

You made my point though.
The defense coming thorough wins a Championship.
The defense failed to do so.

If next year, in every game we play, we are ahead by 4 points, with 2 minutes left, what would be an acceptable record?
You would have to be kidding if you said anything less than 13-3 and a SB win.

I just don't understand why everyone wants to let the defense off the hook for handing away a game that was won.

 

[Ring 6]

Have you thought about the ramifications of your argument? Under your parameters, had the Giants won 3-0 on the last drive of the game, it would still be the fault of the defense that the team had lost. That's how poorly thought out your argument is.

Wrong.
The parameters of my argument are what happened in THIS game. It doesnt translate to other games.
Perhaps if you understood anything I was saying you would understand how thought out the argument is.
Instead, you prefer to restate the argument incorrectly and argue against what you created. How ignorant is that?

Very simple.
Do you expect your defense to not allow 150 passing yards and 2 80+ TD drives in the 4th quarter of a close SB?
Do you expect your defense to be capable of stopping a team from going 80 yards in 2 minutes with winning or losing the SB hanging in the balance?

See, I do NOT expect my offense to tear through every defense that it ever faces. I do not expect that my defense will never have to be challenged, and hold it blameless when it finally does get challenged and fails. I expect whatever unit is on the field to finish a win.
With 2 minutes left the offense handed over a win (and I would agree the defense played better than the offense to that point) for the defense to finish and it failed.

To make an analogy, lets use baseball. After 7 innings you lead 1-0. In the bottom of the 8th your pitcher allows 2 runs. In th etop of the 9th you take the lead back 3-2. In the bottom of the 9th your pitcher allows 2 more runs and you lose 4-3.
Your pitcher threw 7 shutout innings. In your approach, it is not his fault for falling behind in the 8th and losing the game in the 9th, because the offense should have scored 8 runs by the 7th and it wouldn't matter.

 

[Metaphors]

As for the opening drive, why do you choose to deride the defense instead of noting that New England survived the longest drive in Super Bowl history with only a field goal surrendered? You mentioned losing context. Despite that "brutal" drive, the score was 7-3 New England at the half and going into the 4th because the defense was doing its job. THAT'S the context.

Those are facts, but they don't provide the context. How did a 10+ minute drive with multiple 3rd down conversions affect the Pats offense (getting tighter and more anxious/frustrated by the minute on the sidelines)? How did that drive amp up the Giants defense, knowing that the game just got a lot shorter? How did that drive bolster Eli's confidence if the game fell on his shoulders late?

We will never know. We shouldn't have to wonder.

 

[Deus Irae]

Wrong.
The parameters of my argument are what happened in THIS game. It doesnt translate to other games.
Perhaps if you understood anything I was saying you would understand how thought out the argument is.
Instead, you prefer to restate the argument incorrectly and argue against what you created. How ignorant is that?

Very simple.
Do you expect your defense to not allow 150 passing yards and 2 80+ TD drives in the 4th quarter of a close SB?
Do you expect your defense to be capable of stopping a team from going 80 yards in 2 minutes with winning or losing the SB hanging in the balance?

See, I do NOT expect my offense to tear through every defense that it ever faces. I do not expect that my defense will never have to be challenged, and hold it blameless when it finally does get challenged and fails. I expect whatever unit is on the field to finish a win.
With 2 minutes left the offense handed over a win (and I would agree the defense played better than the offense to that point) for the defense to finish and it failed.

To make an analogy, lets use baseball. After 7 innings you lead 1-0. In the bottom of the 8th your pitcher allows 2 runs. In th etop of the 9th you take the lead back 3-2. In the bottom of the 9th your pitcher allows 2 more runs and you lose 4-3.
Your pitcher threw 7 shutout innings. In your approach, it is not his fault for falling behind in the 8th and losing the game in the 9th, because the offense should have scored 8 runs by the 7th and it wouldn't matter.

Of COURSE the argument translates to other games. In fact, the irony is that you want to exclude everything that proves you wrong. The offense scored its lowest point total of the season, fumbled away a scoring possibility at the half, blew a first and 10 on the Giants 28, and you blame the defense. I showed you the data on teams scoring fewer than 20 points, and you just ignored it because it kills your argument.

Your two minute argument is faulty (I'm being kind), as several people have pointed out, so your defense is to simply avoid all the data that proves it.