Crayton - "Defensively, they are not the real deal."

[Oswlek]

I was only responding to the fact that you implied the defense had its ***** covered by the offense. I didn't consider it Anti-Patriot, just short-sighted.
You can criticize the defense for 3 drives. Other than that they were almost perfect.
I think I am OK with a defense that is perfect 70% of the time, no matter what happens the other 30% (again with the understanding that was a very good offense on the other side of the ball getting paid to score on them)

Chicago just played Dallas a few weeks back, and we now know that their once revered defense is no longer very good. Admittedly, some of that was due to injuries in this game, but nonetheless, they have been downright lousy since that game.

Why do I mention them? Because Dallas had the following stats offensively against them in a 34-10 victory:

12.3 yards per minute of possession (mop)
.6 first downs/mop
.98 points/mop

Against NE they looked like this:

13.5 yards/mop
.62 fd/mop
.95 points/mop

Very similar isn't it? The difference, amazingly enough was the fact that Chicago has a terrible offense and NE's is amazing, this keeping their offensive minutes down. What I am saying isn't "short-sighted" in the least, nor is it that big of an indictment of NE's defense. Why is it that hard to accept that NE's dominance over Dallas' campared to their prior offensive stats was impacted by how well NE's own offense played?

Of course teams are likely to need to do even better than they usually do comsidering how potent NE's offense is. And NE is very good at the "slow bleed" type win where they take away what you really want to do and make things uncomfortable, creating drive ending mistakes or turnovers. I am aware of this and the fact that teams often end the game with OK stats but still wondering why they seemed to do poorly in spite of them.

But my original post was in response to someone pointing out how much lower than their averages NE held Dallas. And, frankly, there is no way anyone can reasonably disagree with it.

 

[Jilla]

He's right, Pats defense is OLD and SLOW. :singing:

 

[Deus Irae]

Chicago just played Dallas a few weeks back, and we now know that their once revered defense is no longer very good. Admittedly, some of that was due to injuries in this game, but nonetheless, they have been downright lousy since that game.

Why do I mention them? Because Dallas had the following stats offensively against them in a 34-10 victory:

12.3 yards per minute of possession (mop)
.6 first downs/mop
.98 points/mop

Against NE they looked like this:

13.5 yards/mop
.62 fd/mop
.95 points/mop

Very similar isn't it? The difference, amazingly enough was the fact that Chicago has a terrible offense and NE's is amazing, this keeping their offensive minutes down. What I am saying isn't "short-sighted" in the least, nor is it that big of an indictment of NE's defense. Why is it that hard to accept that NE's dominance over Dallas' campared to their prior offensive stats was impacted by how well NE's own offense played?

Of course teams are likely to need to do even better than they usually do comsidering how potent NE's offense is. And NE is very good at the "slow bleed" type win where they take away what you really want to do and make things uncomfortable, creating drive ending mistakes or turnovers. I am aware of this and the fact that teams often end the game with OK stats but still wondering why they seemed to do poorly in spite of them.

But my original post was in response to someone pointing out how much lower than their averages NE held Dallas. And, frankly, there is no way anyone can reasonably disagree with it.

The 27 points Dallas scored was that team's SECOND LOWEST scoring output of the season, behind only the turnover bowl the week before, and that's including the 7 points directly attributable to the offense on the sack. If you take those 7 points away, it's the LOWEST scoring output of Dallas' season. Dallas had only one really good quarter of play during the entire game and, coincidently, that quarter was sparked by the Brady fumble. Prior to that, Dallas had amassed a grand total of 3 points in the game.

 

[Oswlek]

The 27 points Dallas scored was that team's SECOND LOWEST scoring output of the season, behind only the turnover bowl the week before, and that's including the 7 points directly attributable to the offense on the sack. If you take those 7 points away, it's the LOWEST scoring output of Dallas' season. Dallas had only one really good quarter of play during the entire game and, coincidently, that quarter was sparked by the Brady fumble. Prior to that, Dallas had amassed a grand total of 3 points in the game.

And nothing you are saying disagree with what I wrote.

 

[Deus Irae]

And nothing you are saying disagree with what I wrote.

That's because you're making broad, inapplicable claims that don't prove, or disprove, a thing. Dallas got a total of 4 rushing first downs, 1 penalty first down and 8 passing first downs, for a total of 13 first downs against New England. They attempted 29 (18-29) passes to just 15 rushes.

Against Chicago, Dallas rushed 25 times and had 35 (22-35) passing attempts. That translates to more time off the clock due to the higher running percentage. Dallas got 5 rushing first downs and 16 passing for a total of 21 first downs.

The above numbers are from NFL.com.


Against New England, Dallas had 11 drives (the last one was just 1 play at the end) vs 11 against Chicago.

Plays per drive vs. Chicago: 3,3,3,7,9,3,9,10,8,8,3

vs. New England: 3,3,3,10,8,7,3,4,5,1,1

So, not including that last play/drive of the game, New England held Dallas to drives of 3 plays or fewer on 5 of 10 drives, and had allowed a 4 play and 5 play drive. So, that makes 7 out of 10 legitimate drives that were 5 plays or less, surrendering only 3 points on the 5 play drive that STARTED in field goal range on the New England 23 yard line. Those numbers are much better than Chicago's, who allowed drives of 7 plays or more in 6 of 11 Dallas drives.

 

[fourthandmiles]

Chicago just played Dallas a few weeks back, and we now know that their once revered defense is no longer very good. Admittedly, some of that was due to injuries in this game, but nonetheless, they have been downright lousy since that game.

Why do I mention them? Because Dallas had the following stats offensively against them in a 34-10 victory:

12.3 yards per minute of possession (mop)
.6 first downs/mop
.98 points/mop

Against NE they looked like this:

13.5 yards/mop
.62 fd/mop
.95 points/mop

Very similar isn't it? The difference, amazingly enough was the fact that Chicago has a terrible offense and NE's is amazing, this keeping their offensive minutes down. What I am saying isn't "short-sighted" in the least, nor is it that big of an indictment of NE's defense. Why is it that hard to accept that NE's dominance over Dallas' campared to their prior offensive stats was impacted by how well NE's own offense played?

Of course teams are likely to need to do even better than they usually do comsidering how potent NE's offense is. And NE is very good at the "slow bleed" type win where they take away what you really want to do and make things uncomfortable, creating drive ending mistakes or turnovers. I am aware of this and the fact that teams often end the game with OK stats but still wondering why they seemed to do poorly in spite of them.

But my original post was in response to someone pointing out how much lower than their averages NE held Dallas. And, frankly, there is no way anyone can reasonably disagree with it.

I was trying to make sense of these stats that you posted Oswelk. Off the top of my head it would seem that the Pat defense should look better than the Bears. Could it be that the Cowboys simply did not have posession long. But when they did put together a series that ate up at least a minute, (as opposed to the 3 and outs to start the game that took up maybe a minute total.) Pats defense was more in line with the Bears, IN THAT particular period of time. The rest of the time, we shut them down. They simply did not posses the ball for any meaningful amount of time. Did I interpret this correctly? Cowboys time of pos. against Bears 35:21 Against Pats 21:45

Anyway, in the "not giving up the big one" area we did better than the Bears did against a most of the Cowboys. None of these went for a TD that I can see. I thought that there might be some bigger differences.

Longest gain Bears Pats
Receiving
Terrell Owens 35 13
Jason Witten 34 25
Patrick Crayton 10 11
Julius Jones 15 2
Sam Hurd 25 0
Marion Barber 10 7
Anthony Fasano 3 26

Rushing
Jones 54 25
Barber 7 17
Romo 0 -1

 

[DisgruntledTunaFan]

With all the positive Jarvin Green talk...

Just curious-how much of a DIFFERENCE will Richard Seymour make when he gets back? If Green is really that good, that is.

Also-is Rodney in full game shape yet? He looked a bit not himself in that game.

 

[Ahriman]

With all the positive Jarvin Green talk...

Just curious-how much of a DIFFERENCE will Richard Seymour make when he gets back? If Green is really that good, that is.

Also-is Rodney in full game shape yet? He looked a bit not himself in that game.

The running game will go bye-bye against the Patriots when Seymour hits the field. That allows Ty Warren to become the primary rusher, when it's called for, on the left side of the line (which he's pretty good at) instead of the pass rush coming off the right where Green has been filling in for Seymour.

And no, Rodney doesn't look all that good. He was a liability in the Dallas game. Not sure how much better he'll get, but it can't be much worse than what we saw on Sunday.

 

[spacecrime]

He has a point. When Romo was on, he pretty much passed at will.

If Romo passed at will, I guess he doesn't have much will because he only passed for 199 yards.

Not to mention:

From yesterday's Dallas Morning News game story:

The Cowboys' offense, which entered the game as the top-ranked unit in the NFL, put up season lows in yards (283), first downs (13), plays (46) and points (20). It had the ball for only 21 minutes, 45 seconds.

 

[emoney_33]

What exactly are these anything/mop supposed to show? If the defense is doing their job the opposing offense TOP is lowered. Thus any points, yards or first downs raise the average "per minute of play" since you hold the ball for a less amount of time. The cowboys still only put together TWO good drives all game, and they didn't only have the ball twice.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I guess I won't have to worry about losing to the Cowboys in the Super Bowl now - what a bunch of idiots.

IF New England gets there. Notice that Dallas will see us IF we do.

Oh God, I hope we play those clowns again LOL

PFnV

 

[patsox23]

Just curious-how much of a DIFFERENCE will Richard Seymour make when he gets back? If Green is really that good, that is.

Also-is Rodney in full game shape yet? He looked a bit not himself in that game.

Seymour will make a tangible difference on the D - and provide a ripple effect, is my guess - as will Jarvis going back to being in rotation, giving Seymour and Warren breaks and keeping them fresh. It will provide a noticeable difference.

As for Rodney, could be he's hitting the wall, but I suspect it's still a matter, at least somewhat, of knocking off the rust. He looked better than he had in a couple years during pre-season. We'll have to see, but I'm betting he won't play WORSE than he did against Dallas.

 

[Metaphors]

And no, Rodney doesn't look all that good. He was a liability in the Dallas game. Not sure how much better he'll get, but it can't be much worse than what we saw on Sunday.

What do you base this on?

R.Harrison 2 TKL, 1.0 SACK 11.0 YDS, 1 PD, 1 ST TKL

Here are the plays he was recorded to be involved with:

3-11-DAL 19 (7:03) (Shotgun) T.Romo sacked at DAL 8 for -11 yards (R.Harrison).
1-10-NE 28 (1:25) (Shotgun) T.Romo pass short right to J.Witten to NE 17 for 11 yards (R.Harrison).
2-9-DAL 39 (1:03) T.Romo pass short middle to T.Owens to NE 38 for 23 yards (R.Harrison).
PENALTY on DAL-T.Owens, Illegal Shift, 5 yards, enforced at DAL 39 - No Play.
S.Gostkowski kicks 65 yards from NE 30 to DAL 5. T.Thompson pushed ob at NE 23 for 72 yards (R.Harrison).
1-10-DAL 19 (3:54) (Shotgun) T.Romo pass short middle INTERCEPTED by J.Seau (R.Harrison) at DAL 25. J.Seau to DAL 20 for 5 yards
(A.Gurode).

Where do you see the liability? Just from the "eye test" in watching the game, I wouldn't say this was one of his best. He was around the ball a lot and had the opportunity to make a bigger impact than he did. That is a far cry from being a liability. Your criticism may be valid, but I am curious what you are basing it on...