Eric Mangini: How the jets stalled the Pats' offense

[jnug]

People are talking about Lloyd stretching the field as in getting over the top like Moss did and I don't see Lloyd as that kind of receiver. Don't think the Pats took him for that purpose either.

Lloyd in my view is supposed to be a younger, better Branch not a younger version of Moss, a guy that could get those long legs motoring and was suddenly inhaling yards. Lloyd does not appear to be that kind of long legged burner. Seems much more adept at those 20-25 yard routes as far as how far downfield he gets as opposed to somebody who is going to get you 35-40 on one play.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Hernandez outside could work in the EZ but it's a lost cause in the middle of the field. Seriously a TE on a CB on the outsides match-up goes to CB. Herandez is not Marquis Colston outside the numbers.

It's worked in the middle of the field.

 

[Deus Irae]

Don't know how that possible when he only had one great year.

Brandon Lloyd Stats - New England Patriots - ESPN

He was a quality receiver in both 2010 and 2011

 

[ivanvamp]

I'm not seeing your point here, unless it's to reinforce what I posted. If you take away the Jaguars and stick to only NFL quality offenses, you find that 17 ppg is the lowest being averaged this year. Last year, only the 5 worst defenses in the league scored below 17ppg as an average. It was 2 teams in 2010, and one of them was at 16.9. The Patriots have averaged 31,34 and 32 ppg in that time.


Holding a team that normally scores 31+ to something under 21 points is holding them to more than a touchdown and field goal less than normal, and to something more along the lines of the league average. I'd say that's keeping them in check.

Deus, I think you are under the impression that I exist here to argue with you. I'm pointing out that teams can hold the Pats "in check", but what "in check" means is usually holding them in the low 20's, with about 350 yards gained. If you can hold this Pats offense to that, you're doing a very good job.

If that reinforces your point, great.

 

[Deus Irae]

Deus, I think you are under the impression that I exist here to argue with you. I'm pointing out that teams can hold the Pats "in check", but what "in check" means is usually holding them in the low 20's, with about 350 yards gained. If you can hold this Pats offense to that, you're doing a very good job.

If that reinforces your point, great.

I just didn't see your point in terms of it being a response to my post. I still don't. They've been held to

17
21
14
14

in their last 4 playoff losses. Even taking away 2007, since that's from before the Brady injury, it's still an average of just about 17 ppg, which is bottom tier offense.

 

[Marqui]

He was a quality receiver in both 2010 and 2011

And he's been a quality receiver in 2012. Just because he's not 07 Moss perfect doesn't mean he sucks either.

 

[larryo]

Deus, I think you are under the impression that I exist here to argue with you.

Haha. Amazing how much he likes to argue and the time he spends on here. Ultimate patsfans troll.

 

[Deus Irae]

Haha. Amazing how much he likes to argue and the time he spends on here. Ultimate patsfans troll.

I wasn't arguing with the poster. I was noting that I didn't understand his point in the context of being a response to my post, and then I explained my earlier position in a different manner.


Thanks for taking the time to post though. The more the merrier.

 

[ivanvamp]

I just didn't see your point in terms of it being a response to my post. I still don't. They've been held to

17
21
14
14

in their last 4 playoff losses. Even taking away 2007, since that's from before the Brady injury, it's still an average of just about 17 ppg, which is bottom tier offense.

Ok, now you're cherry-picking stats. We were talking about how teams could hold the Pats "in check". I cited all the Pats' losses over the last 3 years, playoffs included. On average, those teams held NE to just over 20 points and 369 yards per game.

I didn't realize we were just talking about playoff games. I think you altered the subject slightly.

But again, if we look at some of the other dominant offenses in the league the past few years, here's what their scoring/yards have looked like in their losses:

GB
2010
Chi - 17 - 379
Was - 13 - 427
Mia - 20 - 359
Atl - 17 - 418
Det - 3 - 258
NE - 27 - 369

2011
KC - 14 - 315
NYG - 20 - 388

2012
SF - 22 - 324
Sea - 12 - 268
Ind - 27 - 356

That's 11 losses, and the average pts/yds per game in those losses is:

17.4 ppg
351 ypg

Both of those numbers are worse than NE's averages.

New Orleans
2010
Atl - 24 - 398
Ari - 20 - 358
Cle - 17 - 394
Bal - 24 - 269
TB - 13 - 305
Sea - 36 - 474

2011
GB - 34 - 477
TB - 20 - 453
StL - 21 - 283
SF - 32 - 472

2012
Was - 32 - 358
Car - 27 - 486
KC - 24 - 288
GB - 27 - 474

Averages:

25.1 ppg
392.1 ypg

So NO's offense is even harder to shut down than New England's. Which isn't surprising, considering the fact that their offense is also incredible.

The point is simply this: yes, teams can hold the Pats "in check", but "in check" is a relative term. It generally means holding them to around 20 points and 350 yards.

 

[moejr]

It's not nonsense. It appears to be exactly what defenses are doing.

And that is what the Giants D did in both SB's we handed them.

 

[Deus Irae]

Ok, now you're cherry-picking stats. We were talking about how teams could hold the Pats "in check". I cited all the Pats' losses over the last 3 years, playoffs included. On average, those teams held NE to just over 20 points and 369 yards per game...

I'm not cherry picking anything. I pointed to a clear and well publicized trend, nothing more. I've pointed out that I really don't get your point in context of my post. You keep bringing up yardage as if it's significant, and you included bad defenses like Buffalo's in your calculations.

From your list, the only teams/scores that would apply to my point are

2010 Jets - 14 points
2010 Jets - 21 points
2011 Steelers - 17 points
2011 Giants - 20 points
2011 Giants - 17 points

That's a 17.8 ppg average in those losses

One could, arguably, add the 3 losses this year to the list, since we don't know where those defenses will shake out to have fallen on the good/bad list, which would add

18
30
23

point games to the list. That's still just 20 points a game. I guess you could also toss in 2010 San Diego's defense, but that was a 23 point game that's not moving the average up much.


As I wrote:

[highlight]Good defenses[/highlight] can cover the non-Welker WRs one-on-one and clog the middle, and hold the Patriots in check by doing it. It's been that way since Moss was traded away. You buying it, or not, doesn't really matter. It is what it is.

:confused2:

Your posts seem to be saying "Well, yeah, they're in check, but they're in check with a lot of yardage, especially if we count a bad team like Buffalo in there too." I guess that's true in some of the cases, I just don't see where you're going with it.

 

[ivanvamp]

I'm not cherry picking anything. I pointed to a clear and well publicized trend, nothing more. I've pointed out that I really don't get your point in context of my post. You keep bringing up yardage as if it's significant, and you included bad defenses like Buffalo's in your calculations.

From your list, the only teams/scores that would apply to my point are

2010 Jets - 14 points
2010 Jets - 21 points
2011 Steelers - 17 points
2011 Giants - 20 points
2011 Giants - 17 points

That's a 17.8 ppg average in those losses

One could, arguably, add the 3 losses this year to the list, since we don't know where those defenses will shake out to have fallen on the good/bad list, which would add

18
30
23

point games to the list. That's still just 20 points a game. I guess you could also toss in 2010 San Diego's defense, but that was a 23 point game that's not moving the average up much.


As I wrote:



:confused2:

Your posts seem to be saying "Well, yeah, they're in check, but they're in check with a lot of yardage, especially if we count a bad team like Buffalo in there too." I guess that's true in some of the cases, I just don't see where you're going with it.

The bold is the long story short, and I guess I can't help you there. Oh well.

 

[FredFromDartmouth]

It is good to see that Mangini is reading my posts and stealing my concepts.

Lloyd would be great as a number two or three WR but he he does not have the speed
or quickness to be a number one. He is almost always covered. Branch is over the hill and also easily covered leaving the two safeties to roam and shut down the middle.

Too bad that Felger and the other douches drove Randy Moss out of town. The Patriots are dying for a true number one WR and it is not like they can draft one. So they have to settle for broken down mules ....

 

[nekromantique]

Without welker this offense is screwed. LLoyd is not the answer for the deep threat , maybe make him run more routes intermediate but he cant seem to create seperate AND catch the ball and run at the same time. Maybe JMcD is assuming what he did with moss here he can do with lloyd thats why he is being force fed so much.

there were a few times where he gained good separation...one was a drop (the overthrown pass)...2 were thrown well out of bounds despites Lloyd having plenty of room.

that opi was very soft and was no worse than the push off by the jets on their previous drive.

it was a bad day for sure...but people are overreacting to a ridiculous degree. (swear there was a cut lloyd thread)




Posted from Patsfans.com App for Android

 

[ivanvamp]

there were a few times where he gained good separation...one was a drop (the overthrown pass)...2 were thrown well out of bounds despites Lloyd having plenty of room.

that opi was very soft and was no worse than the push off by the jets on their previous drive.

it was a bad day for sure...but people are overreacting to a ridiculous degree. (swear there was a cut lloyd thread)




Posted from Patsfans.com App for Android

He had that awful drop on the first drive. And you are right..on a couple of other occasions he gained separation by at least 3 yards and Brady just flat-out missed him. Better passes there and we're talking about how easily Lloyd beat the Jets defenders deep all day long.

 

[SeymourTrophies]

And that is what the Giants D did in both SB's we handed them.

Not send this thread into two pairs of posters going at each other, but the Giants didn't do anything special in the secondary in either Super Bowl. Their gameplan included banking on total domination in the trenches against our o-line and dropping 7 into coverage with the occasional delayed blitz which worked gloriously in SB42 and to a lesser extent in SB46. To be honest, 46 probably isn't close with a healthy Gronk because clogging the middle doesn't work and their line was hit an miss as opposed to total obliteration.

But please, back to the Lloyd talk.

 

[Kontradiction]

And that is what the Giants D did in both SB's we handed them.

In Super Bowl XLVI, maybe. But not XLII. In XLII the Giants simply got pressure with a four man rush, dropped the rest into coverage, kept a safety deep to help with Moss, and rolled a good amount of coverage over to stop the screen game. In XLVI, they clogged the middle, but the Patriots still had success until the Tuck hit on Brady.

 

[grux]

How come they didn't clog the middle on the last two drives?

 

[Kontradiction]

How come they didn't clog the middle on the last two drives?

They did. That could be evidenced by the sheer amount of bodies around Gronk on the drive to tie in the 4th quarter. But the blocking held up and Brady was able to fire a beautiful pass into a tight window.

 

[NewFeep]

It's crystal clear that we need a big, strong, FAST receiver next year. I don't care if it's FA or the draft. While I am on the subject a big, strong cover corner wouldn't hurt either! Make McCourty a free safety full time next year....