Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Triumph, Aug 2, 2011.
New England Patriots: The 6 Biggest Misconceptions in Patriots History | Bleacher Report
some fans should read # 3, and 4
Does anybody believe 4 is true?!
Nice link, Triumph. Every now and then I find myself on the bleacherreport.com site somehow, it's mostly quite unreliable and just made up by fans--but every now and then they actually put up something that is useful.
I did enjoy the stats that showed our comparitive sack totals (vs NFL average) in '01, '03, and '04--and the fact that we've had a top 8 scoring defense 8x in the last 10 yrs.
If #4 is the rushing totals, then I guess so..
The proof is in the pudding. I think those teams had a much better defense though, and the slightest rushing to keep other teams honest was good enough. There's always the 04 season though, with Clock-killin' Cory Dillon.
some people do. lol.
With the exception of 04 with Dillon, I think our running game has always been 'just enough'. I wish that would change, but Bill stopped listening to me a few seasons ago :bricks:
I'll wager Adam Vinateri does.
Three is compelling and negates some of the talk about finding some big named pass rusher, in reality a sack can come from any position on the field.
To find a D lineman or OLB who can put consistent pressure on the passer would be nice.. but he has to fit this system.
4 was the section on us apparently having a great running game, which we never have and I can't see how anybody could ever state that we have
Perfect assessment of the Bleacherreport, but your also right about Triumph's article. It was an excellent job.
Matt Roth came in for a work out, and I really hope that we sign him. Not because I think he'll solve the "so called" pass rush issue, but because he'll be a solid contributor to the entire defense. The two most important points he makes in the "sack" segment is that where you rank in scoring defense is the most important defensive stat, and that it has little relationship to how you rank in sacks. Secondly, having a great individual sacker is NOT necessary to have success as a team in getting sacks.
I also appreciated his comments on the running game. I don't think people appreciate how important the running game is BEYOND actually gaining yards. I think the "clock killin" aspect is very underrated. For every minuted your team can control the ball is one minute less your opponents offense can score. A 10 minute scoring drive is a much more effective method to win the game than a 3 minute one.
As to the "game that shall not be mentioned" I think the loss of Stephan Neal in the first series of the game was a critical and highly UNDERRATED loss. I don't think the Giants would have had nearly the success they had rushing the passer they had, if he hadn't gone down.
And I appreciated that he noted that the Packer superbowl loss was closer than the score indicated.
God I hate SlideShow report.
Wow. What a ****ty article.
1. They got blown out. The fact that they got blown out because their special teams gave up 14 points is immaterial. They still got blown out.
2. Sacks are a terrible measure of pass rush. I think the pass rush issues are overblown at this point, but sacks are probably only 10% of the plays where a pass rush makes a difference. There's been a bunch of studies, and sacks and hurries only correlate loosely, and hurries correlate closer to defensive performance than sacks do.
3. One stat says they had an elite rushing offense in 2004, and I don't agree with that, so I'm going to ignore it and use another one... which says they were better than average. Conclusion: the Patriots running game wasn't any good. Yeah, nice research there.
4. Agree. Vinateri wasn't actually particularly good in the playoffs. A couple of games wouldn't have been as close as they were if he doesn't shank kicks early.
5. Agree. They might have won it all if their offense hadn't gone retarded in the superbowl.
6. The 2010 playoffs weren't a dissapointment? Any time a 14-2 team gets knocked out in the first round its a dissapointment. The fact that there were some ninnies that predicted the Patriots to go 8-8 based on absolutely nothing doesn't make a difference.
You don't think the 2004 Patriots had a great running game?
Corey Dillon ranked 2nd in the league behind Curtis Martin, with a 15.4% DVOA, The rushing offense as a whole had a 12.7% DVOA, good for 4th in the league. Thats a great rushing offense.
New England Patriots: The 6 Biggest Misconceptions in Patriots History
"The New England Patriots have a long history of being a down-in-the-dumps franchise before recently establishing themselves as one of the premiere franchises in the NFL."
I don't know about down in the dumps (other than 89-92). One of the biggest misconceptions is his lead sentence. Since 1976 the Patriots have had 25 seasons with a winning record, 2 with a .500 record and only 8 with a losing record. Of those 8 losing seasons, 5 were in consecutive years 89-93.
The misconception is probably because of the ownership situations before Kraft got here but I don't think many teams are able to say they had only 8 losing seasons in 35.
I wasn't going to bother clicking the link but when I saw your comment the first thing I thought was 'I bet Erik Frenz wrote it', and sure enough that was the case. He's far superior than the vast majority of Bleacher Report writers. He also does some podcasts with miDeuce (who posts here from time to time) of Pats Propaganda that are worth listening to as well.
And before anyone asks: no, I'm not related or anything like that. I just stumbled across his stuff a while back via Pats Propaganda and found it to be pretty good. I can't think of any other writers (Pats-related or anything else) there that I have found to be worth reading.
One thing I do find annoying is having to click through the site's slideshows in order to read what is in actuality a medium to short column. Aside from multiple photos giving the reader the illusion that you've just read something quite substantial (eight pages long!), the only reason I can think of for this is that it is done for advertising stats (eight page views rather than one, in this case.)
In my opinion the misconception about the history of the Pats franchise prior to Tom Brady becoming the starting quarterback is from fans of opposing teams (Steelers in particular) repeating this opinion so often over the years that it has become accepted as fact. There's a huge difference between not winning a championship and being the worst franchise in the league, which is what opposing fans - and occasionally the media - attempt to incorrectly imply regarding the history of the Pats.
Patriots all-time winning percentage .526
Steelers all-time winning percentage .520
Most Steeler fans have actually convinced themselves, and will try to convince you or anyone else that says otherwise that nothing pre-merger counts. While the end of World War II is considered to be the definition of start of the Modern Era of football by everyone else, ask a Steeler fan and just about every one of them will tell you that the definition of the term Modern Era of the NFL is anything post AFL-NFL merger.
They'll also tell you that championships won before then don't count because (a) there were two leagues, and (b) it was easier to win a championship then because there were fewer team. Then ask them why, if that is the case, the Steelers didn't win any in their first forty years and you'll be amazed at some of the rationale.
I'm not sure I see the logic in your reasoning. While it's true that every minute you control the ball is one minute less your opponents' offense can score, it's equally true by definition that it's one minute off the clock that your offense could score in.
Football is essentially turn based. Teams alternate opportunities to be on offense. You can't score twice in one possession, so making your turn last longer doesn't change the even ratio of chances to score between you and your opponent (unless you're running out the time at the end of the half or game.)
Rather, what long drives do is reduce the total number of possessions both teams get, which increases the leverage value w/r/t win chance % of each individual possession. The fewer the total possessions in a game, the bigger a role the outcome of each individual possession will have on the game. This is why it's good for teams with the lead to kill the clock -- you know you've already 'won' the possessions that already happened, so the bigger the role they play in the final score, the better for you.
Of course, reducing the number of 'iterations' in the match and magnifying the effect of each iteration's outcome makes the winner more 'random.' The greater the sample size, the better the odds of 'normal' distribution. So if your offense is going to score on their defense 60 percent of the time, and their offense is going to score on your defense 50 percent of the time, the more possessions in the game, the better for you.
This, and not "keeping Manning/Brady on the sideline" is ultimately why keeping the number of possessions down turns out to often be the right strategy for teams when playing the Colts or (latter-day) Patriots. By increasing the leverage value of any iteration's fluke outcome, time of possession helps teams beat opponents that are overall better than they are.
didn't click, bleacher report, instant 1 star
Separate names with a comma.