BradyManny
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2006
- Messages
- 11,103
- Reaction score
- 1,520
After we lost to the Steelers, I made this post:
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...er-possession-why-bend-dont-break-broken.html
I'll spare the rehash on the importance of points per possession. Let's just jump right into SB46 and what it means. The Patriots offense had a total of 9 possessions this past Sunday night. The first was the one play safety, the last was a drive destined for hail mary futility as soon as Brady & Branch didn't connect.
So if we take those two drives out of the equation, we see they really only had 7 possessions of consequence. I believe the NFL average is between 11 to 12.
So, consider. On the Patriots 7 actual drives, they scored 17 points, tallied 320 yards, and had one turnover. This equates to:
Points per possesion: 2.43 (would rank 4th in the league, season average was 2.79)
Yards per possession: 46 (would rank 1st in the league; season average was 39.5)
Turnovers per possesion: .14 (would rank 20th in the league, season average was .9)
Now, on the other side of the ball, here is how the Patriots defense performed. The Giants had 9 possessions, 1 was a kneeldown, so we'll call it 8.
Points per possesion: 2.63 (would rank 32nd in the league, season average was 1.9)
Yards per possession: 49.5 (would rank 32nd in the league, season average was 37.5, which was last in the league as well)
Turnovers per possesion: 0 (obviously, would rank 32nd in the league, season average was .18, which was good for 3rd in the league)
Conclusions:
1) The Patriots offense performed with roughly the same efficency it had all year. With a notable exception. Looking at a high level and ignoring point 2 which I will make, the safety to start the game, and Brady's INT arguably cost this team the game. I hate to say it b/c I think his play was largely brilliant in between, but the possession he cost the team with the grounding (and I still think the call is iffy) ended up being the difference.
2) The Patriots defense performed far worse than to the naked eye. Per possession, it's efficiency would be worst in the league in points (narrowly over the Bucs) and by yards (blowing away their own last place regular season average) The long slow drives and inability to get off the field led to fewer possessions for its offense and poor starting field position, both which were HUGE factors in the outcome of the game.
3) In the other thread, I mentioned the importance of increasing the number of possessions in the game because it increases the sample size, and the likelihood that numbers return to norm. In this case, the big one was that the Patriots defense caused zero turnovers. If the Giants had had say 11 possessions, the Pats likely would've caused a turnover in the game. If they had, they would have won. The Patriots defense is bend don't break - and relies heavily on turnovers. But with a small sample size - with a small amount of possessions - they may not force that critical turnover. It's clear to see in this game - they caused three fumbles, but luck was not on their side in any case.
What it means going forward:
Lack of possessions has cost this team two Super Bowls now. Shortening the game does not do this team justice anymore. It might've against the Rams in 2001, but not in its current construction. Belichick needs to go out and find some defenders that can get this team off the field on 3rd down. Plain and simple. Until then, we will not win a title.
On a side/personal note, this will be my last post for a while as I take my now annual "get away from football" holiday. Hopefully this year, I last longer and stay away longer. Each year I'm reminded I take the Pats too seriously, and get way too caught up in the outcome of their season. I can't take another offseason of replaying in my mind certain plays from the SB that could've gone a different way. A lot of fans on this forum are able to see that these are just games, and have proper perspective - and remain diehard fans without being obsessed. For some reason I am not great at that, and I definitely need to stay away from any sports media indefinitely, and unfortunately that includes patsfans.com. If anyone sees me on here in the next couple months, please tell me to leave...
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...er-possession-why-bend-dont-break-broken.html
I'll spare the rehash on the importance of points per possession. Let's just jump right into SB46 and what it means. The Patriots offense had a total of 9 possessions this past Sunday night. The first was the one play safety, the last was a drive destined for hail mary futility as soon as Brady & Branch didn't connect.
So if we take those two drives out of the equation, we see they really only had 7 possessions of consequence. I believe the NFL average is between 11 to 12.
So, consider. On the Patriots 7 actual drives, they scored 17 points, tallied 320 yards, and had one turnover. This equates to:
Points per possesion: 2.43 (would rank 4th in the league, season average was 2.79)
Yards per possession: 46 (would rank 1st in the league; season average was 39.5)
Turnovers per possesion: .14 (would rank 20th in the league, season average was .9)
Now, on the other side of the ball, here is how the Patriots defense performed. The Giants had 9 possessions, 1 was a kneeldown, so we'll call it 8.
Points per possesion: 2.63 (would rank 32nd in the league, season average was 1.9)
Yards per possession: 49.5 (would rank 32nd in the league, season average was 37.5, which was last in the league as well)
Turnovers per possesion: 0 (obviously, would rank 32nd in the league, season average was .18, which was good for 3rd in the league)
Conclusions:
1) The Patriots offense performed with roughly the same efficency it had all year. With a notable exception. Looking at a high level and ignoring point 2 which I will make, the safety to start the game, and Brady's INT arguably cost this team the game. I hate to say it b/c I think his play was largely brilliant in between, but the possession he cost the team with the grounding (and I still think the call is iffy) ended up being the difference.
2) The Patriots defense performed far worse than to the naked eye. Per possession, it's efficiency would be worst in the league in points (narrowly over the Bucs) and by yards (blowing away their own last place regular season average) The long slow drives and inability to get off the field led to fewer possessions for its offense and poor starting field position, both which were HUGE factors in the outcome of the game.
3) In the other thread, I mentioned the importance of increasing the number of possessions in the game because it increases the sample size, and the likelihood that numbers return to norm. In this case, the big one was that the Patriots defense caused zero turnovers. If the Giants had had say 11 possessions, the Pats likely would've caused a turnover in the game. If they had, they would have won. The Patriots defense is bend don't break - and relies heavily on turnovers. But with a small sample size - with a small amount of possessions - they may not force that critical turnover. It's clear to see in this game - they caused three fumbles, but luck was not on their side in any case.
What it means going forward:
Lack of possessions has cost this team two Super Bowls now. Shortening the game does not do this team justice anymore. It might've against the Rams in 2001, but not in its current construction. Belichick needs to go out and find some defenders that can get this team off the field on 3rd down. Plain and simple. Until then, we will not win a title.
On a side/personal note, this will be my last post for a while as I take my now annual "get away from football" holiday. Hopefully this year, I last longer and stay away longer. Each year I'm reminded I take the Pats too seriously, and get way too caught up in the outcome of their season. I can't take another offseason of replaying in my mind certain plays from the SB that could've gone a different way. A lot of fans on this forum are able to see that these are just games, and have proper perspective - and remain diehard fans without being obsessed. For some reason I am not great at that, and I definitely need to stay away from any sports media indefinitely, and unfortunately that includes patsfans.com. If anyone sees me on here in the next couple months, please tell me to leave...
Last edited: