How dare pundits say the Chargers lost, when the Pats won

[The Predator]

you would know that many, many teams have put up great yardage against them, but have still lost. The Pats did a good job with Tomlinson. Though he did get several good runs, he had enough mediocre or poor ones to make your OC think twice when it was third and long.

You obviously didn't watch the same game that anyone else did.

LT had 123 yards on 23 carries with 2 TDs. That is a good job by the Pats D? That is a huge 5.3 yards a carry. That does not even take into consideration the two swing passes (which are essentially runs) for 64 yards. How do you call this a good job? 23 carries is not a big load in the NFL, it is fair. Then you claim they had success through the air? Rivers had 230 yards with 1 INT & no TDs. I wish we kept all QBs to that this season.

 

[lander]

I'm a Charger fan so I don't follow the Patriots at all. I thought that was clear from my initial post?

 

[SVN]

The Pats did a good job with Tomlinson. Though he did get several good runs, he had enough mediocre or poor ones to make your OC think twice when it was third and long.

iam not really sure how you can let the chargers OC off the hook...had this been my team i would be mad for those playcalls which didnt run LT for more than 9 times in the 2nd quarter and just ran once during second last drive..just my opinion

 

[lander]

Lander, Brady had poor numbers because the Chargers had good D, just as Manning had poor numbers because the Ravens had good D. By the same token, Rivers and Tomlinson were not as effectiveness as they could be because of the Pats D. While carelessness, nervousness and outright incompetence figure into every game, there is a direct correlation between effectiveness of a D and the effectiveness of the opposing O.

I don't think the Chargers (or the Pats for that matter) would have made as many mistakes if it wasn't for quality of the opponent. BB has said that if you force the opponent to make a lot of plays, you increase the chances that they'll make mistakes. I think that makes a lot sense. Almost all football games are games of mistakes. Obviously, the more talented teams make fewer mistakes and the Pats and Chargers were quite even.

Tomlinson nearly broke the Pats and maybe if he had more carries, he would have led the Chargers to victory. On the other hand, while Tomlinson's runs were an important part of the Chargers TDs, they were by no means the major part. The Chargers mostly moved the ball through the air so they naturally stuck with what worked.

If you had followed the Pats over the years (which I doubt you have), you would know that many, many teams have put up great yardage against them, but have still lost. The Pats did a good job with Tomlinson. Though he did get several good runs, he had enough mediocre or poor ones to make your OC think twice when it was third and long.

OK I have to agree with Predator here, you need to take your homer glasses off. NE did NOT do a good job with Tomlinson. He ran for two TDs in the red zone and had a 5.3 YPC average. Yes, you held him to numerous short gains, but every opponent does. And who runs on third and long anyway?

As far as sticking with what worked in the passing game....huh? We dropped 5 balls and had a number of other plays broken up. Rivers completed only 44% of his passes with no TDs. That is not "working" as I define it. We should have run more, especially on that last drive.

And as far as the Chargers making more mistakes b/c of the quality of the opponent, I think there is some truth to that, although I think it had more to do with the pressure of the playoffs in general.

 

[Patters]

Maybe Predator is not as familiar with the Pats during the BB era as I am (and I mean no disrespect by that), but the fact is many teams have racked up great yardage against the Pats but failed to win. Yardage in and of itself is meaningless unless it leads to points. Tomlinson is outstanding, and holding him to 123 yards is pretty good if it's part of an overall plan. Certainly neither the Chargers nor Pats offense put up incredible yards so it was very much a defensive struggle. We presented a lot of run defense, so the Chargers tried more passes than they otherwise might have. Obviously, the likes of Wilfork, Seymour, Warren, etc. was a major factor in the Chargers game plan. Who's to say if they used Tomlinson more, he might have run 0, 3, or 4 yards more often? Who's to say that if they used Tomlinson more, they might have used him on downs where the pass picked up good yardage? Sure, the Chargers could have done some things differently, but then so would have the Pats. Given what the Chargers did, the Pats outplayed them. The Pats play a very brainy game, so my guess is that if the Chargers chose to run Tomlinson 100 times, the Pats would have found a way to make the Chargers pay.

 

[unoriginal]

Who mentioned Denver? I think most people in this forum would agree that Shanahan knows how to prepare teams against BB and Brady. Last year, the Bronco's did a great job putting pressure on the Pats and getting a lead. As a result of that, we made mistakes, they capitalized, and they won. They were the better team. I'm taking issue with the fact that pundits seem to be saying the Chargers defeated themselves, while I think that the Pats caused them to make mistakes that led to their defeat.

I mentioned Denver because I believe it is an applicable parallel. If I had to characterize the initial reaction to that game, it would be that the Pats were playing well enough to win except for a few bone-headed plays; Brady's killer TD-reversal toss to Champ Bailey, Sauerbrun dislocating the ball from Ellis Hobbs, Troy Brown muffing a punt (sound familiar, Eric Parker?) etc. Also, there was a lot of this:

Actually, last year, the officials played an enormous part in the Patriot defeat. This year, the officials sided with San Diego on a face mask penalty that was not enforced, on a challenge that didn't have indisputable evidence, on a receiver absolutely leveling a Patriot DB on a pick play that sprung Gates for his wide open catch, and on several blatant holding calls against the Chargers O-line that weren't called. I'm not saying that was or was not the reason New England lost. I'm merely pointing out a major difference that could legitimately affect perception.

Just a quick note for others: the play Deus referring to was a 15 yard out route Gates ran underneath two posts, the outside one of which collided with Artrell Hawkins, who was in over-the-top cushion coverage of Gates.

The play looked completely natural, the offensive player did not grab Hawkins, and it was a good non-call; it is Hawkins' job to avoid the cluster****. Lest we forget Faulk scored last week on a similar pick play from the Jets 8, where all the receivers on the right side "cracked" in on the linebackers and safeties, freeing up a bubble route to Faulk that he walked in. If anything, that play was more unfair than what happened to Hawkins, as Hawkins had much more space to maneuver around the receivers. Understand I'm not blaming Hawkins, these things happen to the best, but that was great execution by San Diego and not a penalty.

Of the rest, the facemask non-call on Colvin was the only one I would send in to the league. I felt the San Diego referees got all the fumble calls right, much as I wanted it to be otherwise. Sometimes the slo-mo makes the "possession" of the football look longer than it really is.

For all the talk about San Diego, the only real difference in the game was field position. Yardage numbers and the score were both very close, as was time of possession. What made the game seem as if San Diego was dominating was the field position in the first half, particularly in the first quarter. Had San Diego won the game, the punter would have deserved the MVP.

The Broncos game was a game of field position as well, and it is also a game we had several good drives in, and had far more yards, ~420 to less than 300, yet lost by a bundle. Time of possession was also pretty equal.

Again, it seems like there is a tendency for folks to claim we beat ourselves when we lose and point out all the ways we might have won, yet come right back and claim we had the game under control and were the better team on the day whenever we win a close one. That's horse****. We've had plenty of threads on this board by sane people pointing out that the other team gets paid too, and is just as much an arbiter of the game's outcome as we are. Give credit to the Charges, they played a hell of a game, and if not for several just unbelievable atrocities they committed with and without the football, they would have walked away with it.

 

[SVN]

Maybe Predator is not as familiar with the Pats during the BB era as I am (and I mean no disrespect by that), but the fact is many teams have racked up great yardage against the Pats but failed to win. Yardage in and of itself is meaningless unless it leads to points.

pats play bend dont break with red zone D when i have watched them in the BB era. SD was 3/3 in the redzone on sunday.Again pats deserve all the credit but any team which loses makes mistakes and SD made a share of those .
No 2 teams play perfect and one ends up winning..doesnt happen .Mistakes what makes sports watchable since they decide outcomes... my 2 cents

 

[Deus Irae]

Just a quick note for others: the play Deus referring to was a 15 yard out route Gates ran underneath two posts, the outside one of which collided with Artrell Hawkins, who was in over-the-top cushion coverage of Gates.

The play looked completely natural, the offensive player did not grab Hawkins, and it was a good non-call; it is Hawkins' job to avoid the cluster****. Lest we forget Faulk scored last week on a similar pick play from the Jets 8, where all the receivers on the right side "cracked" in on the linebackers and safeties, freeing up a bubble route to Faulk that he walked in. If anything, that play was more unfair than what happened to Hawkins, as Hawkins had much more space to maneuver around the receivers. Understand I'm not blaming Hawkins, these things happen to the best, but that was great execution by San Diego and not a penalty.

Funny, I saw it completely differently, as did the crew in the booth once they saw the replay. It was clearly an offensive penalty.

Again, it seems like there is a tendency for folks to claim we beat ourselves when we lose and point out all the ways we might have won, yet come right back and claim we had the game under control and were the better team on the day whenever we win a close one. That's horse****. We've had plenty of threads on this board by sane people pointing out that the other team gets paid too, and is just as much an arbiter of the game's outcome as we are. Give credit to the Charges, they played a hell of a game, and if not for several just unbelievable atrocities they committed with and without the football, they would have walked away with it.

There's also a tendency for folks to not see what really happened. In this game, despite having the ball on the New England side of the field for much of the first half, the Chargers were unable to pull away. The reason? New England's defense. The difference in the game, as is almost always the case when the Patriots play other top end teams, was the ability of the Patriots to keep applying pressure to their opponent until the opponent wilts. You err because you seem to wish to eliminate this factor from the equation, and you forget that this is precisely how New England wins playoff games. Just ask the Rams, the Colts (Hey, who's that McGinest guy?), the Panthers, the Raiders, etc.... As you point out, the "other team" gets paid, too. Unfortunately, for you, the "other team" that's being forgotten about in your post is the team that actually won the game.

In the very same sentence, you claim the Chargers "played a hell of a game", AND they had "several just unbelievable atrocities". How can both be true? If they had "several" huge errors, how can that equate to playing a "hell of a game", particularly when their quarterback, and passing game, was mediocre at best? In your zeal to disqualify the Patriots role in the outcome of the game, you throw your own post under the bus with that sentence. And, again, you simply ignore the impact that the Patriots pressure had on the opponent. The simple reality is that Scifres was able to pin New England inside the 20 on 5 out of 7 punts and, in a field position game, that made things seem a lot more lopsided than they were. As I've said before, if San Diego had won the game, Scifres would have been the MVP.

If it makes you feel better, though, I'll agree that the Chargers' special teams did a hell of a job covering punts. I'm not claiming that Chargers' mistakes had nothing to do with the outcome of the game or that New England dominated the game in any fashion. I'm simply noting that a) the famous "atrocities" were caused, at least in part, by good Patriots plays and pressure, and b) handling pressure is a part of the game that New England forces opponents to struggle with by always grinding it out.

 

[The Predator]

Maybe Predator is not as familiar with the Pats during the BB era as I am (and I mean no disrespect by that), but the fact is many teams have racked up great yardage against the Pats but failed to win. Yardage in and of itself is meaningless unless it leads to points. Tomlinson is outstanding, and holding him to 123 yards is pretty good if it's part of an overall plan. Certainly neither the Chargers nor Pats offense put up incredible yards so it was very much a defensive struggle. We presented a lot of run defense, so the Chargers tried more passes than they otherwise might have. Obviously, the likes of Wilfork, Seymour, Warren, etc. was a major factor in the Chargers game plan. Who's to say if they used Tomlinson more, he might have run 0, 3, or 4 yards more often? Who's to say that if they used Tomlinson more, they might have used him on downs where the pass picked up good yardage? Sure, the Chargers could have done some things differently, but then so would have the Pats. Given what the Chargers did, the Pats outplayed them. The Pats play a very brainy game, so my guess is that if the Chargers chose to run Tomlinson 100 times, the Pats would have found a way to make the Chargers pay.

Ummm nope wrong yet again. I have been a Pats fan since the early 80's. I do love how you lift yourself up though by thinking that the length of time one has been a fan makes one more knowledgeable about football. Is it possible a new fan has studied more data than an old fan? Well ya.

The rest the points you make seem delusional at best. You claim that yards do not matter if they do not score. Ummmm LT scored 2 times, and Turner once on a nice run.

Guessing that we would have stopped LT is pure homerism. Tell Marge I said hello.

 

[Patters]

Ummm nope wrong yet again. I have been a Pats fan since the early 80's. I do love how you lift yourself up though by thinking that the length of time one has been a fan makes one more knowledgeable about football. Is it possible a new fan has studied more data than an old fan? Well ya.

The rest the points you make seem delusional at best. You claim that yards do not matter if they do not score. Ummmm LT scored 2 times, and Turner once on a nice run.

Guessing that we would have stopped LT is pure homerism. Tell Marge I said hello.

You're just too rude to respond to, and you don't even respond to my point. I had no intention of making this personal, so I won't waste my time with you. It sounds like you're a Chargers fan. I on the other believe that the Pats are superior to the Chargers, and my evidence is that we beat them on their field. Bye-bye.

 

[The Predator]

You're just too rude to respond to, and you don't even respond to my point. I had no intention of making this personal, so I won't waste my time with you. It sounds like you're a Chargers fan. I on the other believe that the Pats are superior to the Chargers, and my evidence is that we beat them on their field. Bye-bye.

Rudeness comes from the fact that you lift yourself over everyone because you think you are the only one who has watched the Pats for the last 20 years. How many times are you going to make it personal by doubting a fans loyalty and trying to smother them with your length of being a fan. Who really cares how long you have been a fan. That has nothing to do with the conversation, but you bring it up thinking it gives you authority. It's crap.

It sounds like I am a Charger's fan? What are you going to do next, insult my mother? Grow up. It doesnt matter what you believe when you have the majority of people posting in this thread agaisnt your opinion because it is a homerism. Snap back into reality. Try reading other's opinions and adjusting yours to facts instead of emotion.

FACT: LT=187 all purpose yards on 5.3 yards a carry, +30 yard avg on receptions, and two TDs. Anybody who says that we did a good job stopping him is either a total idiot or the biggest homer on the planet. Get a clue as to which one you are.

I do like how you, as a moderator, try to insult someone by refering to them as not a Pats fan. Isn't your job to help promote the Pats instead of ripping Patriot Nation? You are a disgrace. Bye Bye.

 

[onegameatatime]

Originally Posted by onegameatatime
As I posted in another thread, from the time the Pats had 1st and 10 on the SD32, Pats needed at least FG+TD or TD+2pt+FG to take the lead. SD had many ways and opportunities to stop the Pats, but the Pats got it done.

Of all the mistakes -- going on 4-11, head-butt, etc -- none happened after the 1st and 10 on the SD 32. It was about execution and getting it done when it mattered most.

THE PREDATOR: Oh ok, so if Troy had not stripped a ball that should have been batted down we still would have found a way to win? No that is not true at all. Again, Pats deserve credit, but SD make the mistakes so we could stay in the game.

onegameatatime: As my post indicates, SD made planty of mistakes -- 4th and 11, head-butt, etc. I do not think McCree made a mistake -- I think Brown made a great play -- and saying he should bat down a ball he was able to return on the run is just result-oriented hindsight (had he been leaping at the 5 yard line, I'd agree that you bat it down). Any DB with a clean shot at the ball on the run would have taken it.

Yes, SD helped the Pats stay in the game, although by the end of the game SD only had about 20 more yards in penalties and one more turnover.

BUT, even after the mistakes up to 1/2 way through Q4, SD still had a lead and the Pats still needed a score, a stop, and a score, and one of the scores had to be a TD. Patriots executed when they had to and took the win -- it was not given to them.

(Same thing with the Raiders -- Pats got the call (the right call under the rule) and still needed score, stop, score to go on to win.)

 

[The Predator]

Originally Posted by onegameatatime
As I posted in another thread, from the time the Pats had 1st and 10 on the SD32, Pats needed at least FG+TD or TD+2pt+FG to take the lead. SD had many ways and opportunities to stop the Pats, but the Pats got it done.

Of all the mistakes -- going on 4-11, head-butt, etc -- none happened after the 1st and 10 on the SD 32. It was about execution and getting it done when it mattered most.

THE PREDATOR: Oh ok, so if Troy had not stripped a ball that should have been batted down we still would have found a way to win? No that is not true at all. Again, Pats deserve credit, but SD make the mistakes so we could stay in the game.

onegameatatime: As my post indicates, SD made planty of mistakes -- 4th and 11, head-butt, etc. I do not think McCree made a mistake -- I think Brown made a great play -- and saying he should bat down a ball he was able to return on the run is just result-oriented hindsight (had he been leaping at the 5 yard line, I'd agree that you bat it down). Any DB with a clean shot at the ball on the run would have taken it.

Yes, SD helped the Pats stay in the game, although by the end of the game SD only had about 20 more yards in penalties and one more turnover.

BUT, even after the mistakes up to 1/2 way through Q4, SD still had a lead and the Pats still needed a score, a stop, and a score, and one of the scores had to be a TD. Patriots executed when they had to and took the win -- it was not given to them.

(Same thing with the Raiders -- Pats got the call (the right call under the rule) and still needed score, stop, score to go on to win.)

I am not arguing with your points, but you are very shortsighted in one area. You assume that the score would be the same if the Chargers had not made the mistakes. You assume that the mistakes made only have a short-term effect and not a gamelong effect.

Here are some thoughts:
1. Marty goes for 4th & 11 instead of the FG. He has a probowl kicker who has done well all season. Would he have made the kick? We can't say for sure, but the guy who missed the last FG of the game is the same guy who kicked a 60 yarder this season.

2. The headbutt gave us the first down we needed that led a FG. No headbutt, most likely no FG. Pats down by more points.

3. The stupid challenge. Marty waisted a TO. With 8 seconds left in the game, that to gould have bought some yardage to get the kicker closer.

4. The Troy strip. Say what you want, but on 4th & game the defender cannot give up that ball. An incomplete pass would have won the game for SD. IMO, that is a coaching error of not expressing to your players the right defensive action.

5. If Parker didnt fumble the kick return, we would have not gotten the ball.

6. If Rivers didnt throw the pick to Colvin, more time would have been off the clock.


There were more, but that is off the top of my head. Each error had a game impact, not just a little thing that happened and didn't go further as you imply. When they did or didn't happen is irrelevant because they effected the game as a whole.

I agree 100% that the Pats stepped up and executed what they needed to. They did a great job, but I also realize that SD made gamebreaking mistakes so we could make those plays.

 

[The Predator]

PS...about Mcree's fumble. A fumble is always a mistake. He could have also laid down after the catch. That would have been classy.

 

[unoriginal]

on the wide receiver pick of Artrell Hawkins:
Funny, I saw it completely differently, as did the crew in the booth once they saw the replay. It was clearly an offensive penalty.

Fine. I'll defer the argument of this point to a third party that has tape of it.

There's also a tendency for folks to not see what really happened. In this game, despite having the ball on the New England side of the field for much of the first half, the Chargers were unable to pull away. The reason? New England's defense. The difference in the game, as is almost always the case when the Patriots play other top end teams, was the ability of the Patriots to keep applying pressure to their opponent until the opponent wilts. You err because you seem to wish to eliminate this factor from the equation, and you forget that this is precisely how New England wins playoff games. Just ask the Rams, the Colts (Hey, who's that McGinest guy?), the Panthers, the Raiders, etc.... As you point out, the "other team" gets paid, too. Unfortunately, for you, the "other team" that's being forgotten about in your post is the team that actually won the game.

I don't really see your point here. Staying in the game is applying pressure? In that case the pressure must be reciprocal. I'd agree unequivocally that New England won the game if they didn't commit mistakes despite the pressure of a close game, with the Chargers winning the field position game all day long, but they did. Brady had more picks than he's ever had in a playoff game, and two more could-have-beens. (though the first quarter pop-up by McCree was not anyone's fault, just a good play by the safety - was Kiel the one who dropped that?)

In the very same sentence, you claim the Chargers "played a hell of a game", AND they had "several just unbelievable atrocities". How can both be true? If they had "several" huge errors, how can that equate to playing a "hell of a game", particularly when their quarterback, and passing game, was mediocre at best? In your zeal to disqualify the Patriots role in the outcome of the game, you throw your own post under the bus with that sentence. And, again, you simply ignore the impact that the Patriots pressure had on the opponent. The simple reality is that Scifres was able to pin New England inside the 20 on 5 out of 7 punts and, in a field position game, that made things seem a lot more lopsided than they were. As I've said before, if San Diego had won the game, Scifres would have been the MVP.

It might be a fault of mine, but I think both can be true, that the overall the level of play of the Chargers was sufficient to win the game, except for bizarre things I just can't understand: McCree running back a 4th down pick into a crowd; Florence walking up to and head-butting Graham, a man who could tear Florence apart if he so wished; Olivea trying to throttle one of our lineman. I CAN understand things like McNabb nearly vomiting under pressure, or McCree making the initial interception, or Shottenheimer being too aggressive early and too passive late. Those are pressure things. The other stuff isn't even football. It's extracurricular. Those people need to be psychologically evaluated. I recall that many of the same things occured at the end of the Titans game, and many times before in garbage time in just about every game in the NFL. Headcases are headcases with and without pressure. They lost their cool. Did we win it from them?

And as I tried to show with my Denver example, some of these pressure things we are hypothetically immune to, such as muffing a punt, we've done before, and not just "we," but clutch people, like Troy Brown.

If it makes you feel better, though, I'll agree that the Chargers' special teams did a hell of a job covering punts. I'm not claiming that Chargers' mistakes had nothing to do with the outcome of the game or that New England dominated the game in any fashion. I'm simply noting that a) the famous "atrocities" were caused, at least in part, by good Patriots plays and pressure, and b) handling pressure is a part of the game that New England forces opponents to struggle with by always grinding it out.

Yes, the Patriots are more battle tested than the Chargers. Yes, all things being equal, we're much better statistically in big games. The Patriots made many plays today when they had to. I just think the Chargers botched many more plays when they really didn't have to, when there was nothing like, say, the applied pressure of a defensive lineman in Brady's face. Hence, I say the Chargers lost the game. It's a very slight, even subjective thing, but I think the Chargers gave us the opportunity to win that game, we didn't really make it ourselves.

 

[Lansdowne]

The Patriots definitely made plays when they had to, but the Chargers beat themselves up with mistake after mistake. If you read Tuesday Morning Quarterback on ESPN's Page 2, it illustrates this in full detail. So whether you say the Patriots won or the Chargers lost, it's really the same thing, both mean the Patriots move on to the AFC Championship game.

 

[AzPatsFan]

You obviously didn't watch the same game that anyone else did.

LT had 123 yards on 23 carries with 2 TDs. That is a good job by the Pats D? That is a huge 5.3 yards a carry. That does not even take into consideration the two swing passes (which are essentially runs) for 64 yards. How do you call this a good job? 23 carries is not a big load in the NFL, it is fair. Then you claim they had success through the air? Rivers had 230 yards with 1 INT & no TDs. I wish we kept all QBs to that this season.

Six big runs out of 23. Yes the average was high, but if you run 10 times once for 100 yards and 9 times for 0, the average is still a gaudy (and misleading ), 10 YPC.

Phony stats, not to take anything away from LT's phenomenal talent. They couldn't or didn't sustain a running game. Just three scoring drives and one was a almost one play screen.

What was the mean? or the weighted average?

 

[Kdo5]

To me this was the second biggest comeback in Pats playoff history obviously and definitley the second biggest comeback in quite a while. Lets see other teams pull that **** off after being intercepted with 6 minutes left down 8 points and been unable to move the ball nearly all day long.

 

[The Predator]

Six big runs out of 23. Yes the average was high, but if you run 10 times once for 100 yards and 9 times for 0, the average is still a gaudy (and misleading ), 10 YPC.

Phony stats, not to take anything away from LT's phenomenal talent. They couldn't or didn't sustain a running game. Just three scoring drives and one was a almost one play screen.

What was the mean? or the weighted average?

You can interpret the stats any way you wish, but at the end of the day LT had a nice stat day, and our D did not play well against him. Stats are still stats that are facts. When is the last time we had a RB who had +180 all purpose yards with 2 TDs in a single game? We would wet our pants over that.

Why did SD have only three scoring drive?
1.) Marty went for it on 4-11. Could have ben a FG.
2.) Rivers thew an INT to Colvin which stopped that drive.
3.) NK missed the tieing FG with 8 seconds left.

The possibility of 6 scoring drives is not shabby. So you are guilty of your own stat mismanagement claim.

 

[The Predator]

To me this was the second biggest comeback in Pats playoff history obviously and definitley the second biggest comeback in quite a while. Lets see other teams pull that **** off after being intercepted with 6 minutes left down 8 points and been unable to move the ball nearly all day long.

We all agree with that 100%, but that isn't what we are discussing.