The Offense

[Deus Irae]

Those are facts, but they don't provide the context. How did a 10+ minute drive with multiple 3rd down conversions affect the Pats offense (getting tighter and more anxious/frustrated by the minute on the sidelines)? How did that drive amp up the Giants defense, knowing that the game just got a lot shorter? How did that drive bolster Eli's confidence if the game fell on his shoulders late?

We will never know. We shouldn't have to wonder.

New England turned around and scored a touchdown to take the lead with a 5 minute drive of its own. This was followed up by a Giants drive which ended in an interception. New England's offense, rather than seizing the momentum, went 3-and-out. The Giants then went 3 and out as well, followed by yet another 3-and-out by the Patriots' offense that felt going 14 yards in the wrong direction was a good idea. This was followed up by an 18 yard drive by the Giants, who then punted to New England. New England then began to move the ball as the half approached. With the possibility of a 14-3 halftime lead in sight, or at least 10-3 (ball on NYG 44 with 22 seconds left), Brady gets sacked and fumbles the ball away.

Now, you can claim that the Giants getting 3 points on the long first drive was the key to that half and the game. I look to the 'context' and see a New England team that blew 2 beautiful chances to put the Giants in an 11 point hole (or more) in the first half. Had the offense done its job, the score is 21-3 at halftime and the 30 minutes before 19-0 is just a formality.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, that example does not equate.
See what you are doing is pretending. What if this, what if that. I am dealing in reality.
The reality is not a 0-0 game and a last minute FG.
The reality is a LEAD at the start of the 4th quarter.
Then the defense surrendering it.
Then the offense GETTING IT BACK.
Then the defense surrendering it.

I hope we aren't going to go back into the silliness of expecting the offense to score in 29 seconds again, are we?

You're living in a fantasy land and insisting that everyone else is seeing things.

The reality is blown opportunities, penalties, turnovers and penalties by the offense.

The reality is a defense that got essentially no help from its offense.

The reality is a fluke 'helmet catch' that would never have been important had the offense done its job.

The problem is that you choose to ignore more than 3/4 of the game simply to shift blame to where it does not belong.

 

[Ring 6]

You're living in a fantasy land and insisting that everyone else is seeing things.

The reality is blown opportunities, penalties, turnovers and penalties by the offense.

The reality is a defense that got essentially no help from its offense.

The reality is a fluke 'helmet catch' that would never have been important had the offense done its job.

The problem is that you choose to ignore more than 3/4 of the game simply to shift blame to where it does not belong.

No, the reality is we started the 4th quarter with a lead. The reality is the defense gave it away. The reality is the offense took it back, and the reality is the defense gave it back again.

See, here is the difference. I can live with an offense that plays poorly in a big game, but plays well enough to be in the lead. (Please dont start the ignorant argument that we would have been behind if the defense allowed more points because we all know football is about SITUATIONAL football and you play differently when ahead of behind) Then when it falls behind it takes the lead back.

I cannot live with a defense that fails to protect a lead, twice in this case, and more than that in the 2006 season ender.

You need to stop living for statistics and what ifs, and look at reality.
How many times did the offense fail to score when behind?
How many times did the defense fail to protect a lead?

 

[Deus Irae]

No, the reality is we started the 4th quarter with a lead. The reality is the defense gave it away. The reality is the offense took it back, and the reality is the defense gave it back again.

No, see.... this is where you keep going off the tracks. What you call 'the reality' is only the fractional part of 'the reality' that you choose to acknowledge, as you prove with the next paragraph:

See, here is the difference. I can live with an offense that plays poorly in a big game, but plays well enough to be in the lead. (Please dont start the ignorant argument that we would have been behind if the defense allowed more points because we all know football is about SITUATIONAL football and you play differently when ahead of behind) Then when it falls behind it takes the lead back.

The SITUATIONAL football was that the defense held the Giants to only 3 points through 3 quarters despite the Giants starting with advantageous field position for much of the game.

SITUATIONAL football was the defense preventing the Giants from scoring on their second offensive possession after the kicker had put the ball out of bounds and given the Giants possession at the 40 yard line.

SITUATIONAL football was the offense not being able to give the defense a rest after it made the interception because it couldn't get 2 yards in 2 rushing attempts after an 8 yard completion on first down.

SITUATIONAL football was the Giants soon getting the ball at their 43 yard line because the offense surrendered back-to-back sacks and had a net loss of 14 yards during the 1 minute and 50 second drive, and the defense preventing the Giants from scoring.

SITUATIONAL football was the offense failing to convert a 1st and 10 from the Giants 28 yard line into points, in part because yet another sack of Brady which changed a 3rd and 7 into a 4th and 13.

SITUATIONAL football was Matt Light committing a false start on 2nd and 10 from the Giants 49 yard line and helping to kill yet another scoring drive (it had started on the New England 10).

SITUATIONAL football was the offense throwing on 1st and goal from the Giants 6 with 2:55 left in the game instead of taking time off the clock by running the ball.

SITUATIONAL football was the offense throwing on 2nd and goal from the Giants 6 with 2:49 left in the game instead of taking time off the clock by running the ball.

Where's all your mention of these SITUATIONAL football failures of the offense?

I cannot live with a defense that fails to protect a lead, twice in this case, and more than that in the 2006 season ender.

That's just silly, given the totality of the game's circumstances and the fluke that was the Tyree catch.

You need to stop living for statistics and what ifs, and look at reality.
How many times did the offense fail to score when behind?
How many times did the defense fail to protect a lead?

You must be kidding about this. I'm not the one living out a fantasy where the defense was the problem, you are.

Penalties:

Gostkowski kicking out of bounds
Watson, holding
Light, false start
Watson, false start
Light, false start
Hochstein, holding

So, every penalty was against the offense, negatively impacting its ability to score points and move the football. SITUATIONAL football.

Sacks allowed (this doesn't even include pressures or runs blown up): 5

Sometimes statistics are just statistics. In this game, statistics showed just how the offense pissed the game away.

 

[Ring 6]

Of COURSE the argument translates to other games. In fact, the irony is that you want to exclude everything that proves you wrong. The offense scored its lowest point total of the season, fumbled away a scoring possibility at the half, blew a first and 10 on the Giants 28, and you blame the defense. I showed you the data on teams scoring fewer than 20 points, and you just ignored it because it kills your argument.

Your two minute argument is faulty (I'm being kind), as several people have pointed out, so your defense is to simply avoid all the data that proves it.

Those teams were not playing in this game. The points we scored in the regular season did not count in this game.
Nothing that happened before kickoff mattered.
You seem to be basing your opinion on what you expected to happen.

As I have said, it was a defensive game. Overall our defense played better than our offense.
But the DECISIVE part of the game was our defense being incapable of stopping an 83 yard drive in 2 minutes.

I have no clue what you mean by the 2 minute argument being faulty?
The reality is a Championship is in our hands if the defense can complete the task of preventing an 83 yard TD drive, which by the way is a situation that a good defense would convert 95% of the time. They did not.

 

[pats1yes]

With the signing of Moss, the offensive side of the off-season is coming clear to me. I think we are close to done.

QB- Yes, it would be nice if we have the spare cap room to bring in a veteran, like Huard or someone, but thats a luxury.
RB- Maroney, Morris, Faulk set
FB- Evans, Eckel set
TE- Need to replace Brady, ideally with a behemoth blocker
WR- I think we are close to done at WR. Gaffney is still out there, and a possibility but I'm feeling OK with what we have plus minor additions.
With Moss and Welker, as well as Maroney and Watson, doesn't it make perfect sense to make Chad Jackson the other outside receiver opposite Moss? Really the 3rd receiver although a lot of people like to put that title on Welker, but production-wise he really is #2. Having Gaffney back, basically in the same role would be fine, but Washington can fill it. We added Aiken as a ster and WR depth. Maybe we add one more guy, sort of a Gaffney from 2 years ago.
I think Jackson has enormous potential, and if he can make it, he will with those players around him. What is the risk? We didnt need much out of Stallworth last year, and were the best offense ever. Spend the money on D.
OL- We bring back the same group, probably mixing in another later draft pick if he can make the team. I'd personally like to see OCallaghan progress and take over/back the RT spot. But we are set, outside of them playing their worst game of the year in the one that matters most.

If we add NO ONE, we are basically returning the best offense ever, with a young talented guy stepping into the role of Stallworth, and Washington stepping in for Gaffney, but will need to fill out the TE spot. It wont take much to replace/upgrade what K Brady gave us anyway.

We should spent almost all of the draft, and the rest of FA on the defensive side of the ball, find talent, and let coaching take over.
Its not a stetch to say that the largest overhauls, and highest use of young players were in 01 and 03 when we won SBs. 04 also, not by design, fits this category because we had so many injuries.
Many fans object to the idea of counting on young, or even new players on defense, but BB has had a very good record of doing it successfully.

I like your analysis with one exception. Our OL needs an upgrade, big time. Brady is so good that he has managed to avoid many potential problems. But when the rest of the league figured us out -- just rush Brady, well we were exposed.

I would spend every last dime of our draft and FA on an upgrade to our OL and LB positions. Oh, and a very good blocking TE, Brady did not cut the mustard.

Otherwise, we are quite fine.

 

[Deus Irae]

Those teams were not playing in this game. The points we scored in the regular season did not count in this game.
Nothing that happened before kickoff mattered.
You seem to be basing your opinion on what you expected to happen.

As I have said, it was a defensive game. Overall our defense played better than our offense.
But the DECISIVE part of the game was our defense being incapable of stopping an 83 yard drive in 2 minutes.

I have no clue what you mean by the 2 minute argument being faulty?
The reality is a Championship is in our hands if the defense can complete the task of preventing an 83 yard TD drive, which by the way is a situation that a good defense would convert 95% of the time. They did not.

The reality, or at least the great likelihood, is a championship in 'our' hands if the offense runs out the clock instead of tossing incomplete passes inside the 10 yard line on the second touchdown drive. As I noted, you chose to ignore 90% of the reality rather than admit the obvious. It's the same thing with trying to make it all about one game, when any game in the same situation would have the same applicable rule you are wrongly attempting to affix to this one.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

You made my point though.
The defense coming thorough wins a Championship.
The defense failed to do so.

If next year, in every game we play, we are ahead by 4 points, with 2 minutes left, what would be an acceptable record?
You would have to be kidding if you said anything less than 13-3 and a SB win.

I just don't understand why everyone wants to let the defense off the hook for handing away a game that was won.

I'm not letting the D off the hook. i can still see that INT sailing through the fingers of the NFL's newest multi-millionaire. i'm just saying that, on balance, if i'm assigning more than 50% of the "blame" for that loss, I put it on the offense's play and coaching.

Could the D have done a better job at the end? Abso-effing-lutely.

Could the Offense have made a play on the last drive? It's a lot to ask in 42 seconds, but it's also a lot to ask a guy to catch a ball on his helmet.

Do I feel that the D let us down by not making a play in the last two minutes? Fer shure.

Do I hold them primarily responsible for the loss? No way.

If the D developes a consistent pattern of blowing leads late in the game next season, as you describe, will I join you in railing at them? Without a doubt.

Otherwise, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not letting the D off the hook. i can still see that INT sailing through the fingers of the NFL's newest multi-millionaire. i'm just saying that, on balance, if i'm assigning more than 50% of the "blame" for that loss, I put it on the offense's play and coaching.

Could the D have done a better job at the end? Abso-effing-lutely.

Could the Offense have made a play on the last drive? It's a lot to ask in 42 seconds, but it's also a lot to ask a guy to catch a ball on his helmet.

Do I feel that the D let us down by not making a play in the last two minutes? Fer shure.

Do I hold them primarily responsible for the loss? No way.

If the D developes a consistent pattern of blowing leads late in the game next season, as you describe, will I join you in railing at them? Without a doubt.

Otherwise, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Well, they developed a habit of doing it the SB this year and AFCC last year.

 

[Ring 6]

The reality, or at least the great likelihood, is a championship in 'our' hands if the offense runs out the clock instead of tossing incomplete passes inside the 10 yard line on the second touchdown drive. As I noted, you chose to ignore 90% of the reality rather than admit the obvious. It's the same thing with trying to make it all about one game, when any game in the same situation would have the same applicable rule you are wrongly attempting to affix to this one.

So now we are going to blame the WAY the offense scored a TD instead of putting ANY responsibility on the defense to actual stop a game winning drive? Unbelievable.

 

[Ring 6]

No, see.... this is where you keep going off the tracks. What you call 'the reality' is only the fractional part of 'the reality' that you choose to acknowledge, as you prove with the next paragraph:



The SITUATIONAL football was that the defense held the Giants to only 3 points through 3 quarters despite the Giants starting with advantageous field position for much of the game.

SITUATIONAL football was the defense preventing the Giants from scoring on their second offensive possession after the kicker had put the ball out of bounds and given the Giants possession at the 40 yard line.

SITUATIONAL football was the offense not being able to give the defense a rest after it made the interception because it couldn't get 2 yards in 2 rushing attempts after an 8 yard completion on first down.

SITUATIONAL football was the Giants soon getting the ball at their 43 yard line because the offense surrendered back-to-back sacks and had a net loss of 14 yards during the 1 minute and 50 second drive, and the defense preventing the Giants from scoring.

SITUATIONAL football was the offense failing to convert a 1st and 10 from the Giants 28 yard line into points, in part because yet another sack of Brady which changed a 3rd and 7 into a 4th and 13.

SITUATIONAL football was Matt Light committing a false start on 2nd and 10 from the Giants 49 yard line and helping to kill yet another scoring drive (it had started on the New England 10).

SITUATIONAL football was the offense throwing on 1st and goal from the Giants 6 with 2:55 left in the game instead of taking time off the clock by running the ball.

SITUATIONAL football was the offense throwing on 2nd and goal from the Giants 6 with 2:49 left in the game instead of taking time off the clock by running the ball.

Where's all your mention of these SITUATIONAL football failures of the offense?




That's just silly, given the totality of the game's circumstances and the fluke that was the Tyree catch.



You must be kidding about this. I'm not the one living out a fantasy where the defense was the problem, you are.

Penalties:

Gostkowski kicking out of bounds
Watson, holding
Light, false start
Watson, false start
Light, false start
Hochstein, holding

So, every penalty was against the offense, negatively impacting its ability to score points and move the football. SITUATIONAL football.

Sacks allowed (this doesn't even include pressures or runs blown up): 5

Sometimes statistics are just statistics. In this game, statistics showed just how the offense pissed the game away.

I now understand your logic. You are blaming LUCK.
Let me just understand this correctly.
Even though we were ahead with 2 minutes left you do not find the defense at all accountable for the loss when they allow an 83 yard TD drive to lose the game. Why? Because you feel it was due to a lucky catch? Because you feel it is the offenses responsiblity to not put the defense in a postion to have to do such a difficult thing as to allow an 83 yard drive in 2 minutes with a 4 point lead?

See, everything you want to say good about what the defense did is negated by the fact that ALL THEY HAD TO DO was not allow an 83 yard TD drive in 2 minutes. That is not a tall order. The game is on the line, and our defense is on the field, and all you can come up is we shouldn't have put the poor defense in the position to have to play good football in the final 2 minutes?

If you were paying attention, the Patriots theme this year was PLAY 60 MINUTES. The defense for the 2nd year in a row sent us home without a title, because they couldn't play 60 minutes, and were abused by Eli freaking Manning when the entire season was on the line.

Out of curiousity, who did you blame last year?

 

[Ring 6]

I like your analysis with one exception. Our OL needs an upgrade, big time. Brady is so good that he has managed to avoid many potential problems. But when the rest of the league figured us out -- just rush Brady, well we were exposed.

I would spend every last dime of our draft and FA on an upgrade to our OL and LB positions. Oh, and a very good blocking TE, Brady did not cut the mustard.

Otherwise, we are quite fine.

Cant agree with you on the OL. They were the best in the NFL for 18 weeks. I'm not ready to say one bad performance means you have an inherent problem.
The league figured us out? When. We were 18-0. The Giants did a great job rushing the passer. They didn't figure us out, they played a great game rushing the passer. They did what all other 18 teams tried, they just did it very well on that day.

 

[unoriginal]

The game is on the line, and our defense is on the field, and all you can come up is we shouldn't have put the poor defense in the position to have to play good football in the final 2 minutes?

If you were paying attention, the Patriots theme this year was PLAY 60 MINUTES.

If you were paying attention to what you wrote, you would notice that what you are actually doing is evaluating the team based on the last half of the 4th quarter, not the full 60 minutes.

The whole game considered, I think both defenses played better than the offenses, and the final scores reflects that.

 

[Deus Irae]

So now we are going to blame the WAY the offense scored a TD instead of putting ANY responsibility on the defense to actual stop a game winning drive? Unbelievable.

No, what's unbelievable is that you brought up the SITUATIONAL football argument and now you're crying because I pointed out how badly the offense played it, and you're trying to act as if I'm the one who came up with the notion. Don't act as if teams don't kill clock. You're better than that.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Think, guys: Who did we let go, and why?

Colvin - cap casualty
Asante - cap casualty
Gay, E Wilson - not key pivotal parts of the D; weak links

Offense
Stallworth - bad fit/cap casualty. He has a deal structured to really whomp us in 08, based on the idea he would wow us in 07. Moss made that unlikely when he arrived.

We're getting rid of 2 JAGs and 2 guys who were good but did not justify their deals with the Pats, on defense.

On offense, we really don't have a huge hole. If Reche Caldwell was a 1 in 06, Gaffney can certainly be a 3 now. (Don't fool yourself; our slot guy Welker is the 2.)

Look what we ditched: Good players at OLB and CB. A good receiver we did not need. We wanted him to grow into a 1... then Moss "happened." and Moss turned out to be for real.

Then, of course, the JAGs.

Nobody is sitting in the bowels of Foxboro thinking "The OFFENSE ruined our season! No, the DEFENSE ruined our season!"

They are making the moves they need to make. The attrition at D and O respectively dictate that the Pats are going to put their money and attention into shoring up the D, where they have new holes brought on by the salary cap, and a general need to bring relative youth to the LB corps. I say relative because a 30 yo veteran LB for the Pats is "young."

Let's get real. The calculations aren't about "Who lost that #$*(&%*(& Giants game!?!?!?!?!??" They're about how we build the team as a whole going forward.

And as boring as it sounds that boils down to not paying above value to the patriots to sign a patriot, and to bringing in upgrades at weak links. I just don't see the horrible weakness on the offense. I do see two new major holes on D.

PFnV

 

[JR4]

oops PFnV, misread what you intended to say.

I agree. I doubt anyone is pointing fingers in locker room .

 

[Hamtown]

Chad Jackson is a sure fire STUD next year! #17 is going to emerge as an elite Wideout and BB knows it! See ya, Stallworth. UNO OCHO! Not OCHO CINCO! I mean hey, #1 is #1! So "UNO"- Ocho. GO PATS!............ P.S. Chad Jackson's Birthday is day after tomorrow, March 6th, Happy Birthday "UN OCHO"!

 

[PatsFan37]

Nobody is sitting in the bowels of Foxboro thinking "The OFFENSE ruined our season! No, the DEFENSE ruined our season!"

PFnV

Well said.

 

[RayClay]

If you were paying attention to what you wrote, you would notice that what you are actually doing is evaluating the team based on the last half of the 4th quarter, not the full 60 minutes.

The whole game considered, I think both defenses played better than the offenses, and the final scores reflects that.

Hate to ratchet this up, but i do think our defense getting tired at the end of seasons/games was a problem last year and this.

Biggest reason we lost was not running at them in the second half, though.

They were cramping up and letting our line beat on them a few series could very well have turned that game around.

 

[unoriginal]

Hate to ratchet this up, but i do think our defense getting tired at the end of seasons/games was a problem last year and this.

I agree with you, but the Giants defense was wearing down on our touchdown drive in the 4th, and we all agree they played a hell of a game overall. It's normal to see defenses wear out a bit towards the end of very competitive games. It's not something to point fingers over.