But thats exactly my point. You (and others) say every time a team plays a certain style against us they stop us. Since the Jets were the start of that thinking, if it were true, they would continue playing that style.
Take the Jets out of the equation, please - that one game was an aberration, I agree.
The argument has now become listing the teams/games we didn't play well and pretending they are similar teams with similar approaches and they simply aren't.
most of those games were playoffs or Superbowls
Thats a game, not proof a style that owns us.
Thats not really a style, that is a team effectively pass rushing. The clogging the middle is a gratuitious throw in.
The Ravens didn't play the scheme the Jets did in 10, they gambled, took chances, held on every play, and hoped to get big plays. The Jets plan was to drop up to 8 in coverage and hit after the catch.
Didnt we score 38 points?
followed by 14, 20 and 17
Fluke? What catch was a fluke?
I had gone on to the AZ Superbowl - helmet catch to beat us
Umm, no their offense kept them in the game. Their defense barely slowed us down. We had 400 yards of offense, 38 points, and Brady was 32-42-356 with 0 ints and was sacked once.
If the Giants confidence was based on how they 'handled' our offense in that game, they wouldn't have shown up for the SB.
They played vanilla and still damn near beat us - Giants didn't show all schemes in 2007 finale vs. Patriots, which was key to Super Bowl upset - NY Daily News
So you have named the losses. I agree we lost those games. You have done nothing to show a trend of how, or what teams do to beat us. You can't because it isn't there.
Yet, we pretty much see the same things - Brady having off games, many sacks, frustrated offense, offense performing below expectations, even Brady saying he "sucked", whatever the reason, when we play ravens or giants our offense is really not answering the bell. If you want to eliminate "trend" and chalk it up to simply two superior defenses, fine.
Every offense needs to score points.
You make it like a great offense that scores less against a good team is worse than having a bad offense that scores less against good teams, because everyone scores less against good teams, after all.
Because they are historically a good defense. Do you expect us to score more against good teams? How much have they allowed per game?
They allowed 18 ppg over those years, so we exceeded what they allow by 25%.
Conversely, we scored 31 per game over that time, which means we averaged
27% less vs them than our average.
So in other words, when we faced a good D we beat what they allow by almost exactly the same amount as they cut what we score. So, there is no abnormal difference here.
So, the Giants beat us 3 out of 4.
What does that have to do with your argument. The Giants play a very different style of defense than either the Jets or Ravens. In fact, the Giants had different coordinators in 07 and 11 and a bunch of different players.
We have had games where we don't score a lot of points.
The teams you are pulling out a handful of games over a 6 year stretch are not similar at all.
They do not cover the same as each other, they do not generate pressure the same. Hell, some of those games (including this year) had absolutely nothing to so with pass rush.
Sometimes other teams play good defense. Sometimes they score more points than we do.
There really are no other similarities.
