The Record Is Secondary

AndyJohnson said:

Hold on. If you are referring to the OP, you are interpretting it incorrectly.
I am saying the w/l SO FAR is much less relevant than how the team grows and improves over the next 3 months.
What the record is TODAY is secondary to correcting the issues and improving the team by January.
3-3 now with those issues corrected is better than 6-0 now (which they are really 3 plays away from) and going to the post season without correcting those issues.
Of course winning and losing is what matters, but given that this team is what it is, if these problems don't get corrected it is meaningless what record they enter the post-seaosn with. If they do get corrected it is equally meaningless.

Click to expand...

No, I was responding to a couple of posts. I should have quoted them, but I got distracted. I don't fully agree with your point, because having 3 losses already is certainly relevant since it's put the team behind the competition and removed the "well, it's just one bad game" game that they could have had later in the schedule, IMO, but I'm with you on the general point of the team needing to improve the secondary being a major issue.

The Secondary is Recordly bad.

Deus Irae said:

Record is, far and away, the most important thing of all. 3-12 doesn't make the playoffs, no matter how many hard losses a team has, and no matter how well it's playing in week 17.

Click to expand...

Agree with this heartily. A loss (or a win) in October weighs just as heavily as one in December.

Bonzo said:

Agree with this heartily. A loss (or a win) in October weighs just as heavily as one in December.

Click to expand...

That isn't really the point though, as no one has suggested otherwise.

Peaking in December or peaking in October are entirely different things.

Once again.....when all is said and done, how well the team is playing at the end of December, and what it has evolved into will mean much, much more to it's ultimate success than whether it is 3-3, 4-2, 5-1 or 6-0 right now. Its really not that complicated a concept to follow.

dannydyn said:

You may have a point there (playing history with other teams should be ignored), but I’m sorry, I just can’t ignore the fact that he was not good enough to even stay on the practice squad of two very mediocre teams, and yet he shows up on a 3x superbowl team and makes it as a starter. And if that fact in and of itself is not amazing, I think his lousy record should speak for itself. I’m amazed that BB isn’t seeing what other inferior coaches saw immediately. Maybe it’s BB’s inability to admit he made a bad choice in picking this clown.

Click to expand...

Really bad argument. BB signed Russ Hochstein from Tampa Bay after he was cut (from their practice squad I believe) and filled him in all over the line including during the Superbowl which the Patriot's were victorious. Ahem, I think you might be stepping on Warren Sapps toes.

New England has lost seven games since 2009 in which it held the lead with under five minutes remaining in regulation.

Sean Pa Patriot said:

New England has lost seven games since 2009 in which it held the lead with under five minutes remaining in regulation.

Click to expand...

How does that compare to other teams? It is about 2 a year, which seems reasonable.
Keep in mind they also have won more games since 2009 when they led with under 5 minutes left in regulation.
Finally, how many have they won since 2009 that they TRAILED with less than 5 minutes remaining.
The number is meaningless without context.

Deus Irae said:

Record is, far and away, the most important thing of all. 3-12 doesn't make the playoffs, no matter how many hard losses a team has, and no matter how well it's playing in week 17.

Click to expand...

Winning the Super Bowl is the most important thing of all.

Ill take 9 - 7 and a SB Championship over 13 - 3. A 1st round bye doesnt matter and home field doesnt matter.

while it is true that once the loss becomes official and the team goes onto the next opponent, when it comes to moving forward, it only stands as a loss as it pertains to having a record that will get you into the playoffs.

the laughable part is this arrogance that you can see what is happening on the field repeatedly and still say 'pppsssshhhhaw........right now doesn't matter'....when you see how the secondary is playing, we aren't talking about the other side picking on one guy.......the QB can close his eyes and throw it up and stil lhave a reasonable expectation for success, and its not like 'the timing is just a bit off' and that they need a couple of weeks to get it right.....the pats are on the 3rd year of this, and the secondary is getting progressively worse regardless of how many players they draft.

I don't see the secondary fixing itself at this moment.....I hope I am wrong, but there is no reason to believe they can fix it with some sort of scheme.

combine this with a less than stellar red zone offense, and you literally have a situation where no lead is going to be safe unless the offense can score 50

sanchez is mobile enough to do exactly what wilson did. tannehill has proven he can throw on anyone.

if you take the what have you done for me lately approach, since the cardinals game, the pats defense is 30th in the NFL.....averaging just as bad as the bills

AndyJohnson said:

The coaches didnt intentionally ground.
The coaches didn't block poorly.
The coaches didn't not cover WRs deep.
The coaches didn't fail to rush the passer.
The coaches weren't Kyle Arrington.
The coaches didn't allow the Seahawks to drive the length of the field their last 2 possessions.
Which players do you feel played so great that the coaches screwed them over and cost them the game?
The players played like a team that deserved to lose by a point and the coaches coached like a team that deserved to lose by a point.

Click to expand...

The OC went empty backfield on the interception inside the ten which was 3rd and 1 from the 6, the 3rd and 7 late in the game with the lead and on the 3rd and goal to end the half which led to the intentional grounding.

The 3rd and 1 which led to a pick is inexcusable. Personally I think you run it and go for it on 4th. But even if you're going to pass why not play action? Why not make them honor the run and hit one of the TEs? You don't need to score you just need the first down.

The 3rd down late in the game they had already gashed Seattle with a draw. Why not at least put that in their mind? Fake a draw and hold the linebackers? Going empty made no sense.

The end of the half they really screwed up the time out situation and draw would have been perfect with one but again I thought faking the draw would have been a great call but granted it's debatable with 6 seconds I'll admit.

I am so sick of empty backfield in situations like this and it's not revisionist history. I was rolling my eyes at the TV when it went down.

AndyJohnson said:

Aside from this being so wrong, what does this have to do with this part of the discussion?

Click to expand...

Aside from you making excuses, I am pointing that the Pats are heading down the same road if Dennard and Dowling dont step it up. A swiss cheese secondary that cannot hold the lead.

Its amazing that anyone could spin the Pats secondary as being good, but with your experience here, Id put money on you to give it a go.

McCourty was hardly tested because he covered his man, just like he has all season.

Click to expand...

Other NFL DCs and coaches dont buy your nonsense.

The Jets are very familiar with Mr McCourty. Look for them to test him early and often. Like I said, if Arrington is benched, McCourty moves into to target # 1. Im not really concerned about Dennard and hope the Jets go after him.

No coverage and no pressure is roundly beaten. Nothing the Giants did impacted that play at all.

Click to expand...

False

Your argument sucks. See photo below for enlightenment.

Closing in? Come on. Brady threw to where the coverage scheme dictated. They didn't play the coverage scheme effectively, and were fortunate that a pass that is completed 99 times out of 100 wasn't in this case. None of that was because of good defense.

Click to expand...

Youre ignorant to the facts and dont know what youre talking about.

Bottom left frame, Phillips # 26 prevented Brady from throwing the ball inside.

????????


???????????




You are either purposely being obtuse or are just ignorant.
The number of passing yards allowed during the season led to a 13-3 record and ultimately a SB. The final drive of the SB is not influenced by how many yards were allowed during the regular season.
Your argument stinks and you are grasping at straws.

Click to expand...

Youre just being a fool.

A bad secondary in the regular season was a bad secondary in the Super Bowl.

goheels22002 said:

There's plenty of blame to go around, so I am not disagreeing with pinning responsibility on the players for failing to execute. However,...

The coaches did call for a play to be run with 6 seconds left in the half rather than kick the field goal to make it 20-10. That one field goal would have been decisive.

The coaches did decide to put a base defense on the field to protect against the run on the 46-yard TD that won the game rather than call for a blitz to pressure the rookie QB, or to put a nickel or dime package on the field to keep the receivers in front of the last line of defense.

The coaches did call for a pass play from an empty backfield on third and one in the penultimate drive rather run the ball again and force a last time out, and or more time to run off the clock. At least run the pass play out of play action to provide the option to run if Brady saw a favorable matchup.

This chronic problem of a sub-par secondary is very much a coaching responsibility.

Has anyone around this message board wrote: In Josh Boyer or Brian Flores we trust?

It is not unusual for someone to write about Dante Scarnecchia and offensive line adjusting, adapting and improving. It is not unusual to comment on how the linebackers grow and develop as players, and as leaders, under Pepper Johnson. We gush about Josh McDaniels and his ability to put together a game plan that attacks the opponent's weaknesses.

How come those coaches are accountable and the two neophytes responsible for the secondary are not?

To your point, "The coaches weren't Kyle Arrington." Maybe he should be the coach. He has more experience in a defensive secondary than either Boyer or Flores. It's just disconcerting to have guys with their backgrounds managing the greatest vulnerability on the team.

Click to expand...

I agree with this post so much I want to crawl inside of it.

AndyJohnson said:

Arguing for the sake of arguing.

Here is what I started the thread with


Finding a post where I describe why you are attaching relevance does not equal me calling it irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Again, when you disagree, you're directly calling it irrelevant. That's what you are doing. Now, in the interest of avoiding a pissing contest, I'll just drop it from here. I'm sure you'll respond to it though so feel free to get the last work on the matter.

Do you want to discuss or do you want to try to find words that you can use to misrepresent what was said in order to not admit your error?

Click to expand...

What error would that be? Would that be the "error" of stating that, while improvement is important, the record is important too? Are you really ready to disagree with that stance?

dannydyn said:

I really hope that come next draft, BB spends AT LEAST 2 HIGH picks on CBs!

Click to expand...

He's had 20 picks in the first 3 rounds since 2009 and 5 of them have been spent on the secondary. He's spending them at a rate disproportionate to the rest of the team.

They just haven't panned out. Or the coaching has been bad.

Deus Irae said:

Record is, far and away, the most important thing of all. 3-12 doesn't make the playoffs, no matter how many hard losses a team has, and no matter how well it's playing in week 17.

Click to expand...

Cheap shot, Deus. Thank you for the clarification, but I think we're all astute enough to recognize that playing a great game at 3--12 on the first weekend of January isn't a goal to which anyone should aspire.

What folks are saying is the record today isn't as important as getting better and playing your best by December. Most have specifically referenced the Giants' 9--7 and are implying that we don't have to be fixated on 15--1.

PatsFanSince74 said:

Cheap shot, Deus. Thank you for the clarification, but I think we're all astute enough to recognize that playing a great game at 3--12 on the first weekend of January isn't a goal to which anyone should aspire.

What folks are saying is the record today isn't as important as getting better and playing your best by December. Most have specifically referenced the Giants' 9--7 and are implying that we don't have to be fixated on 15--1.

Click to expand...

The Giants had to claw and fight at the end of the regular season just to get INTO the playoffs because of the losses that they had. And, even then, they were the first team ever to actually win a Super Bowl at 9-7. The record is definitely not secondary.

Triumph said:

Winning the Super Bowl is the most important thing of all.

Ill take 9 - 7 and a SB Championship over 13 - 3. A 1st round bye doesnt matter and home field doesnt matter.

Click to expand...

This is the regular season. You don't win the Super Bowl without getting to the playoffs. You get to the playoffs by having a good enough record. Record is what matters.

PatsFanSince74 said:

Cheap shot, Deus. Thank you for the clarification, but I think we're all astute enough to recognize that playing a great game at 3--12 on the first weekend of January isn't a goal to which anyone should aspire.

What folks are saying is the record today isn't as important as getting better and playing your best by December. Most have specifically referenced the Giants' 9--7 and are implying that we don't have to be fixated on 15--1.

Click to expand...

There was nothing cheap about it. I pointed out something that should be obvious, but apparently isn't, given the posts in the thread.

And pointing to the 9-7 Giants makes the point. If they'd been 8-8 they wouldn't have won the Super Bowl. In professional U.S. sports, how you're playing is meaningless if you're not winning games. The Giants started off the season at 6-2, going 3-5 the rest of the way. So, it was those early weeks that got them into the playoffs, not some late season surge because of great late season play, because they were only 3-2 in December and January.

Or, to use a phrase frequently spoken for just this sort of discussion: There are no moral victories.

goheels22002 said:

There's plenty of blame to go around, so I am not disagreeing with pinning responsibility on the players for failing to execute. However,...

Has anyone around this message board wrote: In Josh Boyer or Brian Flores we trust?

.....

How come those coaches are accountable and the two neophytes responsible for the secondary are not?

... It's just disconcerting to have guys with their backgrounds managing the greatest vulnerability on the team.

Click to expand...

This is a great post with an apt ending! Thanks goheels!

Hope Reiss or some other reporter asks BB about it. But even if they do, I am sure BB's response would be "we did what we did given our needs. Next question."

Deus Irae said:

There was nothing cheap about it. I pointed out something that should be obvious, but apparently isn't, given the posts in the thread.

And pointing to the 9-7 Giants makes the point. If they'd been 8-8 they wouldn't have won the Super Bowl. In professional U.S. sports, how you're playing is meaningless if you're not winning games. The Giants started off the season at 6-2, going 3-5 the rest of the way. So, it was those early weeks that got them into the playoffs, not some late season surge because of great late season play, because they were only 3-2 in December and January.

Or, to use a phrase frequently spoken for just this sort of discussion: There are no moral victories.

Click to expand...

Yeah, OK, sure. If the Giants had been 8--8 last year, that wouldn't have gotten them into the NFC Playoffs (but it could have done so in the AFC) and so it's "obvious" even to someone as dumb as me that they wouldn't have been in a position to win the Super Bowl...though I can't for the life of me figure out why you observe that in response to my post.

And thanks for pointing out that "playing well" is kind of pointless unless you're winning. I'll be sure to write that down somewhere and keep it in mind the next time I mistakenly think that it's just yippee, boy-howdy, dadgum great to play really well and lose.

And yes, it's a matter of record that the Giants started 6--2 and ended 3--5, which latter was actually a 1--5 "streak" followed by a 2--0 finish. Thanks for pointing that out too, but I live in New York City and follow the Giants' season pretty closely. (BTW, they're 4--2 now and I expect Eli to lose interest and kick into his mid-season slumber any day now.)

The Giants were, however, 7--2 in December and January, not 3--2 as you stipulate, winning their last six in a row. So, I have no idea what you're saying there.

How "moral victories" got into this, I'll never know and it kind of makes me realize that, in fact, I actually have no idea what the objective of your entire response is, other than to rack up post 31,100 and something or the other. Congrats on that...I guess.

My point was and remains simple.

Winning enough games to make the playoffs and playing your best football in January and February is a reasonable and internally logical aspiration for a team that wants to have a shot at winning the Super Bowl.

Sure, it would be better to go into the playoffs 13--3, finishing the season 8--0 after a loss to, well, the Giants, as did the Pats last year or, better yet, 15--1, as did the Packers...but it's whether you're playing your best football of the year once you get there that is more important.