Tired of the "Offense did enough to win this game and the defense blew it" spin

[BradyFTW!]

First, the Giants were going to pass the ball no matter what because of the team they were playing. So Bradshaw was not going to be a big part of the Giants' gameplan whether he played or not. So he was not a big factor.

The Giants ran the ball 29 times without their #1 RB, and you're claiming that they wouldn't have run the ball with him? That makes no sense. Does the name Tom Coughlin mean anything to you? Did you watch yesterday's game?

Second, even though Jacobs sucks, Bradshaw is just average. He is on pace for under a 1000 yards (would have been a 1000 if he played yesterday and kept his average). He is better than Jacobs, but the Giants are a pass first team this year which means he would have a minimal impact.

This makes absolutely no sense. They ran the ball 30 times using inferior/terrible backs because their #1 back wasn't playing. If you want to call a feature back with a career 4.7 YPC is average, then go ahead, but you're simply wrong.

I did hyperbolize there, but you have no evidence that the Giants are a below average team without Nick and Bradshaw. They are currently the 6th ranked passing offense and the 29th ranked rushing offense. So they were not a great rushing offense with Bradshaw there. So you are over-emphasizing his impact. I pointed out that Cruz is on pace to be about a 1,200 yard receiver and Ballard leads the league in TD for a TE and on pace for 800 yards. They still have a pretty good offense even without those two.

So, by your own words, you have a one-dimensional offense that's missing its top weapon in the one area where it is supposed to be exceptional, and is missing its *only* weapon in the area where it's already weak. A good defense would throttle that offense, which, to the Patriots' credit, they did.... for a while. I don't have any problem with how the D played for 3+ quarters.

But they blew two leads in the last half-quarter of the game, on two touchdowns that spanned virtually the entire field twice in a combined 5 and a half minutes. It wouldn't matter if they had shut the Giants out prior to that; it's still unacceptable.

 

[BradyManny]

It is basically been spun that even though the offense had a slow start, they stepped up when they had to and gave the defense the win and the defense just blew it. I am arguing that this game was just as lost in the first half as it was in the final 5 minutes.

That's fine - I agree the offense sucked hard for huge chunks of the game.

The problem with your argument is this:

You can never say 100% definitively that had the offense played better in the first half it would have won the game. No one really knows how the rest of the game would've played out. Is it likely? Yes, perhaps. What percentage? 60%? Maybe, I don't know. But just as it did in the fourth quarter, sometimes one team's scoring spurs on another and we really do not know what situations would have resulted.

You can say 100% definitively that had the defense prevented that TD with 1:20 left and 80 yards to yield that the Patriots would have at least sent it into overtime; and had they prevented a FG, they would have won the game.

That is a fact. That is why people harp on the final drives. I don't see how you can be at all confused by this dynamic. It doesn't excuse the offense of it woes. But it does explain why the defense gets more grief for laying an egg in Q4, then the offense did in Q1-3.

 

[SteveBsFan]

The whole team didn't suck in all phases of the game. The defense was great for 3 1/3 quarters. The offense was great for a quarter and a 1/3. To say that is to diminish was the defense did for most of the game.

The defense wasn't 'great' for 3 1/3 quarters. I'd say they were pretty solid in the first half, especially on 3rd down when they've been typically awful. I only used "pretty solid" as well because some of the blame came from the poor performance by Manning. It's not like the Pats were giving him a 1st half from hell.. they got in his face a few times, but he also made some generally lousy throws.

In the second half, they were awful through and through. First the 57 yard drive FG, which we felt was a victory, and sadly it probably was because it only got worse from there.

After the turnover, Jacobs could have moonwalked into the end zone from 10 yards in.

Then, a nice 94 yard drive that was saved by Manning making a Manning type of throw, resulting in a pick in the end zone. A smart QB wouldn't have made that throw and it would have resulted in a FG.

Then we all know the 4th quarter meltdown. Two straight 8 play / 80 yard drives for the loss.

-----

I'm not blaming the entire game on the defense.. Brady was flat out awful early and didn't really show until the 4th, so it was both sides of the ball, but I'm not going to pretend the defense just had some 2 drive meltdown. They were weak the entire second half, just like all season.

Like everyone complained about all off-season, there is still almost 0 pass rush and it's killing the team.

 

[Kontradiction]

I blame Brady far more for yesterday than Bill O'Brien. Brady made two stupid INT passes and missed several wide open receivers yesterday.

I blame Belichick for not doing more to upgrade the receiver position when he had a chance, personally. If the opposing defense can clog up the middle and stop our TE's, then limit Welker, they either slow down or shut down our offense. It's a shame that that's all they have to do, but it is what it is.

 

[Rob0729]

The Giants ran the ball 29 times without their #1 RB, and you're claiming that they wouldn't have run the ball with him? That makes no sense. Does the name Tom Coughlin mean anything to you? Did you watch yesterday's game?

What does the name Tom Couglin have to do with it. The Giants have changed their offensive identy this year. The Giants are 12th in rushing attempt per game and 29th in rushing yards per game. Their running game sucks even with Bradshaw.

This makes absolutely no sense. They ran the ball 30 times using inferior/terrible backs because their #1 back wasn't playing. If you want to call a feature back with a career 4.7 YPC is average, then go ahead, but you're simply wrong.

I am talking about this year. Bradshaw is averaging 4.0 YPC this year that is average. Just because he averaged 8.3 YPC in 2007, 5.3 YPC in 2008, and 4.8 YPC in 2009 to get his career average to 4.7 YPC doesn't mean he is above average now. If Bradshaw played 16 games, he was on pace for 1,005 yards and 4.0 YPC which is average.

So, by your own words, you have a one-dimensional offense that's missing its top weapon in the one area where it is supposed to be exceptional, and is missing its *only* weapon in the area where it's already weak. A good defense would throttle that offense, which, to the Patriots' credit, they did.... for a while. I don't have any problem with how the D played for 3+ quarters.

So if the Pats are without Welker, that means Hernadez and Gronkowski isn't there. The fact of the matter is Eli is a top QB and has 3-4 legitimate top targets to throw to. He has three receivers high up in the position they play with. It isn't like the entire passing game is Hakeem Nick. They have two WRs on pace to get over 1,200 yards. The team the Pats face this week has none.

But they blew two leads in the last half-quarter of the game, on two touchdowns that spanned virtually the entire field twice in a combined 5 and a half minutes. It wouldn't matter if they had shut the Giants out prior to that; it's still unacceptable.

It is bad that they did that, but if the offense and special teams actually showed up they would have never been in that position. Fact of the matter is this defense is progressing and becoming much better, but they are not going to turn into the 2000 Ravens. They played spectacular for 3 1/2 quarters, but they still need to work on consistency and when you gotta play your sixth LB and 4th safety on the final drive due to injuries, you are in a tough situation.

 

[Dutchmaster617]

I blame Belichick for not doing more to upgrade the receiver position when he had a chance, personally. If the opposing defense can clog up the middle and stop our TE's, then limit Welker, they either slow down or shut down our offense. It's a shame that that's all they have to do, but it is what it is.

Agreed, although some of it has to do with Hernandez being injured, the fact is we shouldn't have relied on a rookie TE being healthy and productive last year, and after failing a great year rely on him as a sophomore the next.

I thought the Ocho signing was ok, I understand they don't like to make big moves, but now it has went from ok to plain pathetic when you look at what was out there and how they are performing with inferior QBs.

 

[Rob0729]

The defense wasn't 'great' for 3 1/3 quarters. I'd say they were pretty solid in the first half, especially on 3rd down when they've been typically awful. I only used "pretty solid" as well because some of the blame came from the poor performance by Manning. It's not like the Pats were giving him a 1st half from hell.. they got in his face a few times, but he also made some generally lousy throws.

In the second half, they were awful through and through. First the 57 yard drive FG, which we felt was a victory, and sadly it probably was because it only got worse from there.

After the turnover, Jacobs could have moonwalked into the end zone from 10 yards in.

Then, a nice 94 yard drive that was saved by Manning making a Manning type of throw, resulting in a pick in the end zone. A smart QB wouldn't have made that throw and it would have resulted in a FG.

Then we all know the 4th quarter meltdown. Two straight 8 play / 80 yard drives for the loss.

-----

I'm not blaming the entire game on the defense.. Brady was flat out awful early and didn't really show until the 4th, so it was both sides of the ball, but I'm not going to pretend the defense just had some 2 drive meltdown. They were weak the entire second half, just like all season.

Like everyone complained about all off-season, there is still almost 0 pass rush and it's killing the team.

So you stop a drive after 57 yards and force a field goal and it was horrible? It is not great, but against a top offense even without some of their top weapons it is pretty good.

As it only getting worse from there, the Pats did force a three and out, intercepted Manning, and forced another punt after that field goal. There was still a lot of good play by the defense in the second half. The Jacobs' TD run was not good, but that was mostly the offenses fault that they put the defense in that situation.


Also, where is this mythical Manning type throws this year? I swear people are so provincial in this town. An Eli Manning type throw this year is money. The guy has been solid all year. People believe the perception of Manning from previous years is the Eli Manning of this year. He has been more consistent than Brady although not hitting Brady's highs.

 

[Rob0729]

That's fine - I agree the offense sucked hard for huge chunks of the game.

The problem with your argument is this:

You can never say 100% definitively that had the offense played better in the first half it would have won the game. No one really knows how the rest of the game would've played out. Is it likely? Yes, perhaps. What percentage? 60%? Maybe, I don't know. But just as it did in the fourth quarter, sometimes one team's scoring spurs on another and we really do not know what situations would have resulted.

You can say 100% definitively that had the defense prevented that TD with 1:20 left and 80 yards to yield that the Patriots would have at least sent it into overtime; and had they prevented a FG, they would have won the game.

That is a fact. That is why people harp on the final drives. I don't see how you can be at all confused by this dynamic. It doesn't excuse the offense of it woes. But it does explain why the defense gets more grief for laying an egg in Q4, then the offense did in Q1-3.

Games are not won and lost on one or two drives. They are won or lost on a how the game is done throughout the game.

People put too much focus on final drives and don't analyze the game as a whole. It is completely a reactionary thing to put the entire blame or credit on one or two drives.

It is a fact that if Brady doesn't throw a stupid pick just outside the red zone that the Pats would have had at least an opportunity for at least 3 before the half. It is a fact that if Brady isn't strip sacked on the 10 yard line, the Giants don't score an 1 play, 10 yard TD drive which even if the Pats stopped him would have gotten them 3 points.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I am talking about this year. Bradshaw is averaging 4.0 YPC this year that is average. Just because he averaged 8.3 YPC in 2007, 5.3 YPC in 2008, and 4.8 YPC in 2009 to get his career average to 4.7 YPC doesn't mean he is above average now. If Bradshaw played 16 games, he was on pace for 1,005 yards and 4.0 YPC which is average.

Unless you're claiming that he's on the downside of his career, at age 25 with 640 career carries, then it certainly does matter. And even if Bradshaw is simply an average back (I'll grant this hypothetically for the sake of argument even though it isn't true), your point still doesn't stand, because you've already acknowledged that everybody behind him is awful. If they were bad with an average running back, then they've got to have the worst running game in the league with Brandon Jacobs leading the way.

So the Patriots played good defense for three quarters against probably the worst-rushing team in the NFL that was also missing its #1 WR. If we've resorted to throwing parades over that, then that says it all for how little we expect from this D. Because it's bad.

So if the Pats are without Welker, that means Hernadez and Gronkowski isn't there. The fact of the matter is Eli is a top QB and has 3-4 legitimate top targets to throw to. He has three receivers high up in the position they play with. It isn't like the entire passing game is Hakeem Nick. They have two WRs on pace to get over 1,200 yards. The team the Pats face this week has none.

Who are his 3-4 "legitimate top targets"? Cruz, Manningham, Ballard? Seriously? By receptions, these are their top receivers:

1) Nicks
2) Cruz
3) Manningham
4) Bradshaw
5) Ballard
(Ballard only trails Bradshaw by one reception, so cutting it off at 4 wouldn't have made a lot of sense)

2 of those guys, including the #1, didn't even play yesterday. The Giants' #3 WR was Ramses Barden, who was playing his first game in over a year. There were exactly 3 receiving threats that the Patriots had to pay any attention to whatsoever.

In short, this was anything but a high-powered offense. Take the top receiver and top RB off of just about any team, and the offense becomes ordinary at best. They were the 11th-ranked offense in the NFL playing without 2 of its top 3 or 4 weapons, with no depth at WR with which to exploit Molden and Adams. The fact is, I can probably name 20 teams with a better top three receivers than the Giants put on the field yesterday. If you think that it's going to get easier on the secondary from here, then you're in for a rude awakening. That was true last week, but not now.

This game was basically served up to the Pats' D on a platter, and they did well for three quarters and then imploded. You're apparently fine with that, because you apparently think that the Pats can march all the way to a SB win without the defense ever actually needing to win a game. I'm not. If the offense gives you a 3 point lead with 80 yards of field and 90 seconds to go, you'd better finish the job. I don't care if the score is 3-0 or 40-37.

 

[BradyToAmendola]

The silver lining that I take from that game is that Brady played terribly. Why is that a good thing? Because there is no chance that he continues that kind of play. He's too good, he will turn it around soon. I thought the defense was solid all-around yesterday, to be honest. They're going to give up plays when you have career special teamers like Tracy White and Sergio Brown running around out there. Did the defense give the team a chance to win the game though? Absolutely, they shut the Giants out in the 1st half when our offense was anemic. We should have been down 10-20 points at the half had our defense not stepped up the way it did.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

The defense wasn't 'great' for 3 1/3 quarters. I'd say they were pretty solid in the first half, especially on 3rd down when they've been typically awful. I only used "pretty solid" as well because some of the blame came from the poor performance by Manning. It's not like the Pats were giving him a 1st half from hell.. they got in his face a few times, but he also made some generally lousy throws.

In the second half, they were awful through and through. First the 57 yard drive FG, which we felt was a victory, and sadly it probably was because it only got worse from there.

After the turnover, Jacobs could have moonwalked into the end zone from 10 yards in.

Then, a nice 94 yard drive that was saved by Manning making a Manning type of throw, resulting in a pick in the end zone. A smart QB wouldn't have made that throw and it would have resulted in a FG.

Then we all know the 4th quarter meltdown. Two straight 8 play / 80 yard drives for the loss.

-----

I'm not blaming the entire game on the defense.. Brady was flat out awful early and didn't really show until the 4th, so it was both sides of the ball, but I'm not going to pretend the defense just had some 2 drive meltdown. They were weak the entire second half, just like all season.

Like everyone complained about all off-season, there is still almost 0 pass rush and it's killing the team.

My god, this is horrible.

Look, at some point, patsfans.com has to come to the realization that teams score points. Exactly how many games end with shutouts?

If you give a team enough drives, something eventually works. That's why there are so few shutouts.

Here's how you can tell this is truly stupid:

"I only use "pretty solid" (first half)". Are you serious? The Giants punted every time. Your excuse for marginalizing the defense is by making the stops a function of Manning making mistakes.

A ten yard drive? You really want to argue a TEN yard drive?

Also, last night, the Steelers defense surrendered a 92 yard, 2 minute drive to lose the game. Does this mean they suck? The 23 points surrendered didn't even have the benefit a 10 yard TD.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

The team was bad all around. But I didn't see any failure by any part of the team that comes close to what the defense did in the last 7 minutes of the game. While it's true that the offense could have made it so that the defense could suck late, that point just doesn't seem that important to me.

165 yards for two td drives in about 5:30 of clock time in the fourth quarter at home. There is nothing the offense did at any stretch of the game that is that bad. Not close. That is absolutely putrid. To me, the point about the offense being bad is simply this: You can't really say the defense lost the game. I don't think they did. But they had two chances to win it and were absolutely horrible.

I think history is important too in how one judges any particular game. In two of the biggest games in NEP history since the 2004 super bowl -- a super bowl and an AFCCG -- the Patriots lost because the defense couldn't get off the field with a lead. I actually have trouble remembering when is the last time the team actually preserved a 3 or 4 point game by stopping another team's drive in a game of even modest importance. The Chargers I think, maybe. I'm sure it's happened more, but I can't remember it. (In fact, fourth quarter defense has been an issue throughout the Belichick era -- two super bowls were won after fourth quarter defensive horror shows because the Patriots had the ball last. Another should have been an easy win, but was a nail biter because the defense let the Eagles score in about 70 seconds.)

The offense let us down terribly yesterday. So did our kicker. So did special teams. But no matter what, no team wins a super bowl with being ahead by two scores with 5 minutes left to go every single game. At some point in ever year there comes a time when your defense needs to get off the field with the other team in 4-down mode. The Buffalo drive at the end of that game was bad news. It's hard to give up 80 yards as fast as this defense did. Yesterday was astounding. 165 yards in less than 6 minutes at home in the fourth quarter. There are just no words for that.

 

[drew4008]

Yup I made more or less the exact same thread after last week's loss.

It's about expectations as well. We know the defense has holes, but for it to go into halftime not allowing a point, that's huge. Even the final number should've been adequate. Our offense is supposedly loaded... but WTF is going on? We can't even score 3 touchdowns? And SHUT OUT in the first half? Wow.

Brady's playing like a f*cking idiot right now...

 

[West Philly Patriot]

Games are not won and lost on one or two drives. They are won or lost on a how the game is done throughout the game.

People put too much focus on final drives and don't analyze the game as a whole. It is completely a reactionary thing to put the entire blame or credit on one or two drives.

It is a fact that if Brady doesn't throw a stupid pick just outside the red zone that the Pats would have had at least an opportunity for at least 3 before the half. It is a fact that if Brady isn't strip sacked on the 10 yard line, the Giants don't score an 1 play, 10 yard TD drive which even if the Pats stopped him would have gotten them 3 points.

The Pats D played their best game of the year. How anyone could say that the Offense (followed by ST's) wasn't our biggest problem is beyond me. I am very down on Eli but the numbers this year say he is top 5 statistically. That's a fact.

Without Nicks and Bradshaw we should temper our judgement of the D's good showing but to ignore it, is silly. The O looked like complete trash for the entire game outside of the end of the 3rd and 4th quarter. They went away from the success they had in the running game early. Brady played one of the worst games in his career mostly due to the fact that every route is run within a cloud of DB's in the same area.

The O and ST's put the D in bad situations the entire game. One drive doesn't take that away. 60 minutes of football.

 

[Rob0729]

Unless you're claiming that he's on the downside of his career, at age 25 with 640 career carries, then it certainly does matter. And even if Bradshaw is simply an average back (I'll grant this hypothetically for the sake of argument even though it isn't true), your point still doesn't stand, because you've already acknowledged that everybody behind him is awful. If they were bad with an average running back, then they've got to have the worst running game in the league with Brandon Jacobs leading the way.

So the Patriots played good defense for three quarters against probably the worst-rushing team in the NFL that was also missing its #1 WR. If we've resorted to throwing parades over that, then that says it all for how little we expect from this D. Because it's bad.

Ok, you win, even though Bradshaw has been averaging 4.0 YPC this year, he is really getting 4.7 YPC. McCourty is also a top CB because he had all those INTs last year.

I never said that Bradshaw is washed up, but for whatever reason he has been average this year and the Giants' running game has been below average. It is also a fact that Bradshaw's YPC has declined every year he has been in the league.

You can ignore the fact that Bradshaw has been average this year and the Giants' running game has been below average because it blows your argument, but you are arguing a BS case. This year is this year. We are halfway through it. We have a good sample on Bradshaw this year.

Who are his 3-4 "legitimate top targets"? Cruz, Manningham, Ballard? Seriously? By receptions, these are their top receivers:

1) Nicks
2) Cruz
3) Manningham
4) Bradshaw
5) Ballard
(Ballard only trails Bradshaw by one reception, so cutting it off at 4 wouldn't have made a lot of sense)

2 of those guys, including the #1, didn't even play yesterday. The Giants' #3 receiver was Ramses Barden, who was playing his first game in over a year. There were exactly 3 receiving threats that the Patriots had to pay any attention to whatsoever.

I mean't at full strength.

In short, this was anything but a high-powered offense. Take the top receiver and top RB off of just about any team, and the offense becomes ordinary at best. They were the 11th-ranked offense in the NFL playing without 2 of its top 3 or 4 weapons, with no depth at WR with which to exploit Molden and Adams. This game was basically served up to the Pats on a platter, and they did well for three quarters and then imploded. You're apparently fine with that. I'm not.

The Giants are the 11th ranked offense because they are 29th in running the ball. They are the 6th ranked passing offense. That is pretty high powered.

The fact is, I can probably name 20 teams with a better top three receivers than the Giants put on the field yesterday. If you think that it's going to get easier on the secondary from here, then you're in for a rude awakening. That was true last week, but not now.

LOL! Name them! And I am talking about this year, not last year or over the last 5 years. It is this year that matters.

Your ignorance of what is going on in this league this year (at least with the Giants) is astounding. You think Eli is just average eventhough he has been great. You think Coughlin is using a run first philosophy even though he hasn't. You think Bradshaw is an above average back when he has been average. You think Cruz isn't very good even though he is on pace for 1200 yards. You think Ballard isn't even worthy to know his name eventhough he is a top 10 TE and the #1 scoring TE in the league.,

 

[BradyManny]

It is a fact that if Brady doesn't throw a stupid pick just outside the red zone that the Pats would have had at least an opportunity for at least 3 before the half. It is a fact that if Brady isn't strip sacked on the 10 yard line, the Giants don't score an 1 play, 10 yard TD drive which even if the Pats stopped him would have gotten them 3 points.

Those aren't facts. In the first scenario, maybe someone fumbles, maybe there's a sack - maybe there's a holding call. In the second scenario, maybe the Pats punt and the Giants drive down and score anyway.

You're proving my point - in one case, you have an F up that very likely led to a loss; and in another case you have an F up that absolutely caused to a loss. Human nature - for right or wrong - is to focus on the later. It is completely futile to fight this.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

The team was bad all around. But I didn't see any failure by any part of the team that comes close to what the defense did in the last 7 minutes of the game. While it's true that the offense could have made it so that the defense could suck late, that point just doesn't seem that important to me.

165 yards for two td drives in about 5:30 of clock time in the fourth quarter at home. There is nothing the offense did at any stretch of the game that is that bad. Not close. That is absolutely putrid. To me, the point about the offense being bad is simply this: You can't really say the defense lost the game. I don't think they did. But they had two chances to win it and were absolutely horrible.

I think history is important too in how one judges any particular game. In two of the biggest games in NEP history since the 2004 super bowl -- a super bowl and an AFCCG -- the Patriots lost because the defense couldn't get off the field with a lead. I actually have trouble remembering when is the last time the team actually preserved a 3 or 4 point game by stopping another team's drive in a game of even modest importance. The Chargers I think, maybe. I'm sure it's happened more, but I can't remember it. (In fact, fourth quarter defense has been an issue throughout the Belichick era -- two super bowls were won after fourth quarter defensive horror shows because the Patriots had the ball last. Another should have been an easy win, but was a nail biter because the defense let the Eagles score in about 70 seconds.)

The offense let us down terribly yesterday. So did our kicker. So did special teams. But no matter what, no team wins a super bowl with being ahead by two scores with 5 minutes left to go every single game. At some point in ever year there comes a time when your defense needs to get off the field with the other team in 4-down mode. The Buffalo drive at the end of that game was bad news. It's hard to give up 80 yards as fast as this defense did. Yesterday was astounding. 165 yards in less than 6 minutes at home in the fourth quarter. There are just no words for that.

This makes sense if the score was 38-34. It's not applicable for yesterday.

Bottom line, if a team has an all world franchise QB, surrendering 10 points off of turnovers with 57 minutes played should NEVER result in the game being close.

If the game is still being decided, you have to question the why you are paying a franchise QB $18 million or what's going on with the offense.

Arizona hung 29 points on the Giants. Baltimore put 23 points on the Steelers.

 

[Rob0729]

Those aren't facts. In the first scenario, maybe someone fumbles, maybe there's a sack - maybe there's a holding call. In the second scenario, maybe the Pats punt and the Giants drive down and score anyway.

You're proving my point - in one case, you have an F up that very likely led to a loss; and in another case you have an F up that absolutely caused to a loss. Human nature - for right or wrong - is to focus on the later. It is completely futile to fight this.

So if the Pats don't turn over the ball just outside the 20 they aren't guaranteed a shot at field goal. If the Pats don't turnover the ball on the 10 yard line, they are not guaranteed to give the opposing team the ball with only ten yards for a TD?

It may be human nature to focus on the latter, but it doesn't mean it is the reality of the situation. I can point to plenty of things the offense and special teams did in that game that had just as much or more reason the Pats were even in that situation in the first place. It is human nature to get upset and flip off a guy when they cut you off in traffic, it doesn't mean it is the right response.

 

[BradyManny]

So if the Pats don't turn over the ball just outside the 20 they aren't guaranteed a shot at field goal. If the Pats don't turnover the ball on the 10 yard line, they are not guaranteed to give the opposing team the ball with only ten yards for a TD?

It may be human nature to focus on the latter, but it doesn't mean it is the reality of the situation. I can point to plenty of things the offense and special teams did in that game that had just as much or more reason the Pats were even in that situation in the first place. It is human nature to get upset and flip off a guy when they cut you off in traffic, it doesn't mean it is the right response.

I've been neutral in this thread on whether I think the reaction is right or wrong, I'm merely explaining why the reaction exists. I'd go case by case.

In SB42, for instance, I think that reaction would apply (the defense blew too easy an opportunity to let them off the hook).

Yesterday, where the offense just had way more chances at it through three quarters, I would probably agree with you that the offense was just so damn bad for chunks of the game that one might want to dig further in the game in assessing blame. And again - I think the conclusion either way is that both sides are very culpable in the loss, but there are some legitimate silver linings in the clutchness of the offense, and the improved play of the defense.

 

[bob85ne]

The team was bad all around. But I didn't see any failure by any part of the team that comes close to what the defense did in the last 7 minutes of the game. While it's true that the offense could have made it so that the defense could suck late, that point just doesn't seem that important to me.

165 yards for two td drives in about 5:30 of clock time in the fourth quarter at home. There is nothing the offense did at any stretch of the game that is that bad. Not close. That is absolutely putrid. To me, the point about the offense being bad is simply this: You can't really say the defense lost the game. I don't think they did. But they had two chances to win it and were absolutely horrible.

I think history is important too in how one judges any particular game. In two of the biggest games in NEP history since the 2004 super bowl -- a super bowl and an AFCCG -- the Patriots lost because the defense couldn't get off the field with a lead. I actually have trouble remembering when is the last time the team actually preserved a 3 or 4 point game by stopping another team's drive in a game of even modest importance. The Chargers I think, maybe. I'm sure it's happened more, but I can't remember it. (In fact, fourth quarter defense has been an issue throughout the Belichick era -- two super bowls were won after fourth quarter defensive horror shows because the Patriots had the ball last. Another should have been an easy win, but was a nail biter because the defense let the Eagles score in about 70 seconds.)

The offense let us down terribly yesterday. So did our kicker. So did special teams. But no matter what, no team wins a super bowl with being ahead by two scores with 5 minutes left to go every single game. At some point in ever year there comes a time when your defense needs to get off the field with the other team in 4-down mode. The Buffalo drive at the end of that game was bad news. It's hard to give up 80 yards as fast as this defense did. Yesterday was astounding. 165 yards in less than 6 minutes at home in the fourth quarter. There are just no words for that.

This. 10char