Our biggest problem.... The 2 minute defense.

[cupofjoe1962]

We would probably have 3 more championships (2006, 2007, 2011) if we could stop our opponent from going the length of the field in the last 2 minutes.

The defense played great in the superbowl, right up until the Giants got
the ball for the last drive.

The samething happened in the AFC Championship game against the
Ravens. On their last drive Flacco marched the Ravens down the field.

 

[onegr8om]

This is frustrating and true. Remember back to our last Superbowl WIN vs Philly? That Patriots team SHUT the eagles DOWN when they had their last drive, ending iit with that INT by Rodney. The good news is i think we're close enough to just add a couple pieces and compete again, hopefully suring up that 2 minute D and getting us that Lombardi at LEAST one more time under Brady/Belichick.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I think there is already an in depth thread discussing this.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...ping-other-team-when-they-need-only-pass.html

 

[black&gold]

Personally, I think it's defense between the 20 yard lines that does it, and the timing issue is just a symptom of that. Their inability to play man coverage is sort of masked when they get in the red zone and the secondary can use the end line to their advantage.

 

[ATippett56]

Our biggest problem .... The 2 minute defense.

Our biggest problem .... the defense. Fixed it for ya!

 

[Hardboiled]

This is frustrating and true. Remember back to our last Superbowl WIN vs Philly? That Patriots team SHUT the eagles DOWN when they had their last drive, ending iit with that INT by Rodney. The good news is i think we're close enough to just add a couple pieces and compete again, hopefully suring up that 2 minute D and getting us that Lombardi at LEAST one more time under Brady/Belichick.

You should remember that the Eagles scored on their previous drive. I don't know how much of a SHUT down it was. The Pats couldn't get a 1st down to seal the deal (sound familar). The Eagles got the ball back on their 4 with 46 seconds left. The interception was with 4 seconds left. If that pass was incomplete or even completed, the Eagles had no time to do anything.

So I wouldn't call the Eagles Super Bowl the exception. Carolina and St. Louis scored on their last drives.

But the point about the last drive is well-taken. But let me pose it in a different light. If you allow 17 points or 19 points in a game, does it really matter when you did?

If the Football Gods tap you on the shoulder and say, "The Giants offense will score 19 points." You might "Great!" But then the Football Gods add, "Also the Giants will score 6 on their final drive." You'd say, "So what?! It's only 19 points. Wait, hold on - how many points to we score?"

 

[convertedpatsfan]

This is frustrating and true. Remember back to our last Superbowl WIN vs Philly? That Patriots team SHUT the eagles DOWN when they had their last drive, ending iit with that INT by Rodney. The good news is i think we're close enough to just add a couple pieces and compete again, hopefully suring up that 2 minute D and getting us that Lombardi at LEAST one more time under Brady/Belichick.

It's amazing how the good old days look. Yeah, we stopped the Eagles on the last drive. But that wasn't exactly a shut-down performance by the D, which gave up 79 yards for a TD on the previous possession. It was a huge break for Westbrook to catch that pass as well, which forced them to chew up a lot of clock.

Think about the win over Carolina. The Panthers scored TDs on their final 3 drives of the game, even taking the lead for a brief moment.

Think about the win over the Rams. They scored on their final drive, outscoring us 14-3 in the 4th quarter before Brady led the team down the field for the winning field goal.

There's all this revisionist history that goes on when we compare championship teams to those that fell short, but the simple truth is we gave up 17 and 19 points in losses to the Giants, and 17, 21, and 29 points in victories.

Was the D better back in the day? Absolutely. More stars, more big plays. But is our current D the only one that had trouble stopping a hot QB in the 4th quarter of the last game of the year? Nope.

 

[Deus Irae]

You should remember that the Eagles scored on their previous drive. I don't know how much of a SHUT down it was. The Pats couldn't get a 1st down to seal the deal (sound familar). The Eagles got the ball back on their 4 with 46 seconds left. The interception was with 4 seconds left. If that pass was incomplete or even completed, the Eagles had no time to do anything.

So I wouldn't call the Eagles Super Bowl the exception. Carolina and St. Louis scored on their last drives.

But the point about the last drive is well-taken. But let me pose it in a different light. If you allow 17 points or 19 points in a game, does it really matter when you did?

If the Football Gods tap you on the shoulder and say, "The Giants offense will score 19 points." You might "Great!" But then the Football Gods add, "Also the Giants will score 6 on their final drive." You'd say, "So what?! It's only 19 points. Wait, hold on - how many points to we score?"

Yes, because when points are scored can change a game just as total number scored can.

 

[condon84]

Both defense and offense converting on crucial game ending plays are the problem. Brady completes that third down play against BMore and the defense doesn't have to go on the field again. Brady throws a better ball to Branch on that third down play after the Welker drop, the drive keeps going. While the defense deserves some blame, it's not like we didn't know they can't stop anyone when it counts. It's been that way for a couple of years. I'm more disappointed in Brady and the offense.

 

[DonBlackmon55]

We would probably have 3 more championships (2006, 2007, 2011) if we could stop our opponent from going the length of the field in the last 2 minutes.

The defense played great in the superbowl, right up until the Giants got
the ball for the last drive.

The samething happened in the AFC Championship game against the
Ravens. On their last drive Flacco marched the Ravens down the field.

So, let me get this straight...

It is the DEFENSE that was unable to stop the Giants on last drives in SB42 and 46 thus to be blamed for the losses

BUT

It is the DEFENSE that also to be blamed for the loss against the Colts where they were standing on the sidelines on the last drive when Brady had 1minute to go and get a tying FG, and he drives them down and throw an INT with 17 seconds left, inside Colts 45yard line where a safe sideline 10 yard completion or maybe even two gives them good chance to attempt tying FG. So, the D is to be blamed for the loss since Brady threw INT. :bricks:

you even conveniently forget that Pats would not have made it to the AFCCG had it not been for Troy Brown strip of Mcree INT in the game against Chargers. Colving also intercepted Rivers and Pats O could not convert that. Mcree hangs onto that INT, and another loss for Pats, just like in 2006 season when Brady threw INT to Champ Bailey in playoff game - 101 yarder that effectively killed the Pats , and then another one to John Lynch to close out that loss. Or the Troy Brown muffed punt. Hey, the Pats D is to blame for that loss too, right.

 

[Ring 6]

You should remember that the Eagles scored on their previous drive. I don't know how much of a SHUT down it was. The Pats couldn't get a 1st down to seal the deal (sound familar). The Eagles got the ball back on their 4 with 46 seconds left. The interception was with 4 seconds left. If that pass was incomplete or even completed, the Eagles had no time to do anything.

So I wouldn't call the Eagles Super Bowl the exception. Carolina and St. Louis scored on their last drives.

But the point about the last drive is well-taken. But let me pose it in a different light. If you allow 17 points or 19 points in a game, does it really matter when you did?

If the Football Gods tap you on the shoulder and say, "The Giants offense will score 19 points." You might "Great!" But then the Football Gods add, "Also the Giants will score 6 on their final drive." You'd say, "So what?! It's only 19 points. Wait, hold on - how many points to we score?"

But its football and you have to play in the context of the game.
If they said you allow 21 points and 6 on the final drive but cant get off the field and the other team has 38 minutes of possession, that changes things too.
The bottom line is that its about making plays when they need to be made. In most games the offense has done that, and in virtually every big loss the defense has not.

 

[Hardboiled]

Yes, because when points are scored can change a game just as total number scored can.

Certainly a score a certain point can mean different things. Clear example was Howard's TD return in the Packers Super Bowl. A game changer of sorts. But that is a different issue. When the Bills scored 21 in the first quarter, would you have rather they scored them in the 4th?

In another thread, you made a point of the Giants scoring less than 21 points in 6 games. You seemed less concerned about when during the game they scored them. That's probably because the deciding factor in those games was whether the opposing team scored 21 points. In this last Super Bowl, the Giants offense scored less than 21 points and the opposing team didn't score 21 points.

Back to the Football Gods. This time they tell you that the Patriots and Giants play again next year in the Super Bowl. In next year's Super Bowl, the Giants will score 7 points. What are you concerned about? If the Giants score their 7 points on the last drive or if the Patriots have over 7 points? If you are worried that the Patriots might have 0 or 3 points, then the issue isn't the defense on the last drive.

 

[Ring 6]

So, let me get this straight...

It is the DEFENSE that was unable to stop the Giants on last drives in SB42 and 46 thus to be blamed for the losses

BUT

It is the DEFENSE that also to be blamed for the loss against the Colts where they were standing on the sidelines on the last drive when Brady had 1minute to go and get a tying FG, and he drives them down and throw an INT with 17 seconds left, inside Colts 45yard line where a safe sideline 10 yard completion or maybe even two gives them good chance to attempt tying FG. So, the D is to be blamed for the loss since Brady threw INT. :bricks:

you even conveniently forget that Pats would not have made it to the AFCCG had it not been for Troy Brown strip of Mcree INT in the game against Chargers. Colving also intercepted Rivers and Pats O could not convert that. Mcree hangs onto that INT, and another loss for Pats, just like in 2006 season when Brady threw INT to Champ Bailey in playoff game - 101 yarder that effectively killed the Pats , and then another one to John Lynch to close out that loss. Or the Troy Brown muffed punt. Hey, the Pats D is to blame for that loss too, right.

How hard is it to understand that 45 players contribute to every loss and many things go wrong, but for the Patriots each tough loss has come when the defense took the field with 80+ yards behind them for a win or lose drive and failed.
Why does that fact have to be clouded by whatever else happened?
Does it make it more acceptable that the Giants drove 88 yards like a hot knife thorugh butter because the offense only scored 17 points? Are you saying it would be less acceptable if the score was 31-28?

 

[Hardboiled]

The bottom line is that its about making plays when they need to be made. In most games the offense has done that, and in virtually every big loss the defense has not.

You're calling scoring 14 points and 17 points in Super Bowls making big plays? I'd call that a lack of big plays (especially for an team known for its offense).

 

[Patriot Missile]

How hard is it to understand that 45 players contribute to every loss and many things go wrong, but for the Patriots each tough loss has come when the defense took the field with 80+ yards behind them for a win or lose drive and failed.
Why does that fact have to be clouded by whatever else happened?
Does it make it more acceptable that the Giants drove 88 yards like a hot knife thorugh butter because the offense only scored 17 points? Are you saying it would be less acceptable if the score was 31-28?

It almost seems like your view of the defense has taken a 180 since your "A Balanced Look at the Defense" thread in week 12. You defended the defense tooth and nail through out the season when there weren't too many cheerleaders out there and now when they play their best the last 4 or 5 games they are at fault for every tough loss?

BB is going to fix this. He has the picks and the cap room to make this one hell of an off season.

 

[Deus Irae]

Certainly a score a certain point can mean different things. Clear example was Howard's TD return in the Packers Super Bowl. A game changer of sorts. But that is a different issue. When the Bills scored 21 in the first quarter, would you have rather they scored them in the 4th?

In another thread, you made a point of the Giants scoring less than 21 points in 6 games. You seemed less concerned about when during the game they scored them. That's probably because the deciding factor in those games was whether the opposing team scored 21 points. In this last Super Bowl, the Giants offense scored less than 21 points and the opposing team didn't score 21 points.

Back to the Football Gods. This time they tell you that the Patriots and Giants play again next year in the Super Bowl. In next year's Super Bowl, the Giants will score 7 points. What are you concerned about? If the Giants score their 7 points on the last drive or if the Patriots have over 7 points? If you are worried that the Patriots might have 0 or 3 points, then the issue isn't the defense on the last drive.

When you take a point from one thread and use it out of context, and incorrectly in another, you get the sort of complete miss you have here.

You've been following football long enough to know that scoring 17 points in the first 10 minutes of a football game can lead to massive changes in how the two teams play both offense and defense, as well as lead to a likely change in specific special teams plays and coaching decisions.

So, YES, and again, when the points are scored can make a huge difference.

 

[Joker]

or conversely, when the points are NOT scored...you take the first half...they get the ball, ONE play.safety....loss of possession..Giants immediately drive and score...1st quarter time of possession for NE?...3 minutes and 24 seconds....horrible start to a Super Bowl game...0 points and just over 3 minutes with the ball...forces you to essentially crawl uphill to get back INTO the game...

 

[letekro]

How hard is it to understand that 45 players contribute to every loss and many things go wrong, but for the Patriots each tough loss has come when the defense took the field with 80+ yards behind them for a win or lose drive and failed.
Why does that fact have to be clouded by whatever else happened?
Does it make it more acceptable that the Giants drove 88 yards like a hot knife thorugh butter because the offense only scored 17 points? Are you saying it would be less acceptable if the score was 31-28?

Again. The Pats offense scores 3 points all game. They lead 3-0. On the last drive, an exhausted defense gives up a TD. Pats lose 7-3. According to your illogic, the defense is to blame in that scenario.

Our offense scored a grand total of 5 times in SB 42 and 46. That is great in soccer, but it won't cut it in American football. Just like the defense, the offense has problems that good teams can exploit and which need to be remedied this offseason.

 

[DonBlackmon55]

Again. The Pats offense scores 3 points all game. They lead 3-0. On the last drive, an exhausted defense gives up a TD. Pats lose 7-3. According to your illogic, the defense is to blame in that scenario.

Our offense scored a grand total of 5 times in SB 42 and 46. That is great in soccer, but it won't cut it in American football. Just like the defense, the offense has problems that good teams can exploit and which need to be remedied this offseason.

The defense is at least consistent, 17pts in SB42(same as season avg), 19pts in SB46(2 below season avg)

The offense is a jeckyl and Hyde reg season to post season, and this is what they've scored since 2008 AFCCG

21 Chargers AFCCG
14 SB42
14 Ravens
21 Jets, with a garbage time TD to make score look closer
45 Broncos with non existent QB
23 Ravens AFCCG
17 SB46

 

[Hardboiled]

When you take a point from one thread and use it out of context, and incorrectly in another, you get the sort of complete miss you have here.

You've been following football long enough to know that scoring 17 points in the first 10 minutes of a football game can lead to massive changes in how the two teams play both offense and defense, as well as lead to a likely change in specific special teams plays and coaching decisions.

So, YES, and again, when the points are scored can make a huge difference.

When you start using "out of content" and calling a post "complete miss," I know I'm on to something. Your reputation is well-earned.

As I already pointed out, a score can change the momentum of a game. Not a big thought if that is all you got. Certainly the Bills going up 21-0 changed that game. But in the end, who has the most points wins regardless of when they were scored.

You might note that this thread is about a 2 minute defense and how the Patriots can't stop a team on the last drive (just to put these posts into context for you).

While the continual last drive scores stand out in Super Bowls, the impact of that last score is determined by the previous scores - or lack thereof. As I mentioned before, if the Giants make their only score on the last drive, your concern should be how many points the opposing team has. If Patriots and their record-breaking offense lose 7-3, I'm less concerned about when that 7 points was scored and more of why there was only 7 points scored.