Last year, it was all the rage here to attribute the Pats problems to a mythical "Fourth Quarter Meltdown," when the real problem, as I said at the time, was the entire second half (except for the Miami game after the blowout in New Orleans).
Here's a little more fuel for the fire.
I went back and looked at Pats scoring, first half vs. second half, from 2001 to 2008.
Over those eight years, the Pats scored 50.7% of their points in the first half and 49.3% in the second half; effectively, a 50--50 split.
Of course, every season is different and I also looked at each season. Between 2001 and 2008, the percent of points scored in the first half ranged from 43% to 57% (the latter in the great season of 2007).
So, the 66% of points scored in the first half in 2009 was an anomaly; for the statisticians among you, 2009's performance was two standard deviations off of the mean for the nine years between 2001 and 2009, so this was a statistically significant event.
Over those same years (2001--2008), the Defense gave up 48.2% of points scored in the first half and 51.8% in the second half. In 2009, the D's numbers were nearly right on the average at 49.0% in the first half and 51.0% in the second half.
So, as has been observed, the Pats won the first half 282--136 and lost the second half 146--145 in 2009, with the responsibility clearly residing with the Offense.
I also looked at the number of games in which the Pats scored seven or fewer points in the second half. Between 2001 and 2008, the average is 4.8. But, in 2009, they scored seven or fewer points in the second half in seven games.
So, this is not an "imaginary" problem. Like most of you, I am grappling to understand it, but it is, no doubt, very real. Is it due to predictability, lack of motivation, bad play calling or something else?