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

[Rob0729]

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.

I admit that I do fall into the trap of saying if Asante just intercepts that ball, the Pats go 19-0, but the Pats could have easily won that game on any number of plays during the game. But even then I don't say the offense did enough to win and the defense just sucked all game.

Again, the defense played their part in the loss, but I was still encouraged by what I saw yesterday. The offense just playing average during the first three quarters and everyone would be talking about the huge steps this defense made.

 

[Dutchmaster617]

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

Chargers put up a ton more points on GB than they did us, I guess we are better on D, and hell V Jax killed them worse than us, time to put McCourty ahead of Woodson or whoever.

Also on the topic of 'if' the offense played decent first half, lets not fool ourselves. This defense is lazy and plays hardest when Brady struggles, for every TD we get first half they probably give it up in the second half. Lets say we go up 21-0 first half, that didn't get us a win against Buffalo did it? Now you add the fact that before Sunday Eli was leading the league with a solid 120 something QB rating in the 4th, I don't think we would have won 35-24 if Brady plays better first half, you have to look at situations in game not just numbers.

More offense = Less effort on D + more effort from Eli.

 

[RDS11]

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.

That's exactly what I think...
As for the stops, I remember the 2009 regular season game against the Ravens and the 2010 Chargers game, but both time it's the opponent offense that shot themselves in the foot, not the defense that did something great. In 2009, Clayton dropped an easy pass at the Pats 10 yard line on 4th down, and in 2010 I think it was a penalty that put the Chargers out of field goal range. I'm sure I'm forgetting a few ones though...

As for yesterday, I will agree that the offense didn't help at all. But it was the same scenario as Super Bowl 42, when the defense let the Giants came back 2 times in the 4th quarter. Fact is, yesterday the Giants had less time than in SB42 to score a TD. So even though the offense could have done a lot better, the game was in the hands of the defense at the end of the game, and they dropped the ball. Again.

 

[SteveBsFan]

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.

First off I never said holding them to a FG was horrible. I said stopping them there felt like a victory, but it got worse.

Other points ...

- Yes the offense put the defense in a lousy spot, but to gift wrap a TD was the bad part. Like I said, he could have walked in backwards.

- The Manning pick was a brutal lob up in the air which is something he's been known for in his career. A high school CB could have picked that off. Yes, he's improved this season, and has turned into a pretty good QB, but that pass was brutal and completely dumb. He actually made 2 or 3 of them during the game and was lucky to only come away with 1 pick.

- As far as people in this town. This is exactly what bothers me about the thread. People in this town fail to give credit and blame where it's due. Brady had a lousy first half.. Why is it when the Pats are held scoreless, it's because Brady sucked, but when they shut someone out, it's because their defense stepped up?
Maybe both QB's just flat out sucked?
Maybe both defenses were great?
Maybe both defenses were decent and both QB's were mediocre?

Personally, I think it was the 3rd option for the first half. Both defenses made good plays, but both QB's were clearly off their games. Neither defense put up a 'shutout' type of performance, they just got a bit lucky Manning and Brady were missing targets early on.

 

[TJ78]

The D should be good enough to stop Eli. He's prone to turnovers for crying out loud!

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Chargers put up a ton more points on GB than they did us, I guess we are better on D, and hell V Jax killed them worse than us, time to put McCourty ahead of Woodson or whoever.

Also on the topic of 'if' the offense played decent first half, lets not fool ourselves. This defense is lazy and plays hardest when Brady struggles, for every TD we get first half they probably give it up in the second half. Lets say we go up 21-0 first half, that didn't get us a win against Buffalo did it? Now you add the fact that before Sunday Eli was leading the league with a solid 120 something QB rating in the 4th, I don't think we would have won 35-24 if Brady plays better first half, you have to look at situations in game not just numbers.

More offense = Less effort on D + more effort from Eli.

Hey numbnuts

Way to miss the point.

If the Cardinals can put up 29 on the Giants, shouldn't an elite offense be expected to perform at that level?

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

Offense has been bad for the last 3 weeks but they DID do enough to win this game.

In spite of how bad Brady played and how poorly the offense executed in general, they still gave the defense TWO fourth quarter leads that were blown.

Brady drives you down and gets you a FG to go up 13-10 with around 7 minutes left. The defense subsequently gives up a 4 minute TD drive to the Giants to give the Giants the lead 17-13.

Brady comes down on his next possession and scores AGAIN for what should be the game winning TD to put the Pats up 20-17 with a minute and a half left to go. The defense subsequently gives up an 80 yard TD drive in a minute in a half.

Maybe people don't remember, but that's how the Pats used to win games. They played a ton of tight games where Brady would take over in the fourth quarter and lead this team on game winning drives, and if he left any time on the clock, the defense would finish it off.

Now you're saying a game winning TD drive isn't good enough, Tom. You also have to time it out perfectly so you leave no time left on the clock. You can't score too quickly because then our defense will actually have to sack up and make a stop. God forbid.

Listen to how ridiculous that sounds.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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.

McCourty is a good CB. He's pretty much what play over the last year and a half would indicate, ye.

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.

That's the whole point- it doesn't do anything to my argument, as I stated in my last two posts and you chose to ignore. If we can agree that Bradshaw's a whole hell of a lot better than Jacobs and Ward (who you already acknowledged are terrible), then the Giants ran the ball 30 times with crap RBs. They were far below full-strength, and where they ranked in the league prior to Bradshaw's injury has absolutely no bearing on that.

I mean't at full strength.

What does that have to do with anything? We both acknowledged that they're a very good passing team at full-strength. I pointed out that yesterday they were missing two of their top four receivers (by receptions). If your point is that the Pats' secondary won't be completely outmatched provided that every team agrees to sit its #1 WR, then I guess I agree... most of the time.

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.

Not when you're missing two of your top four receivers. The personnel that the field yesterday wasn't even close to the personnel that achieved that #6 ranking. When Nicks takes the field, the gameplan revolves around stopping him first and foremost.

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.

Before I do this, let me remind you of what you said in the first place: that the Giants, yesterday, had 3-4 "top receiving threats" on the field. The teams that I'm about to list off, IMO, can put 3-4 threats on the field that are as good as or better than Cruz, Manningham, Ballard, (and Ramses Barden). This year.

New Orleans: Graham, Colston, Sproles, Moore
Pittsburgh: Wallace, Miller, Lewis, Brown
New England: Welker, Gronkowski, Hernandez, Branch
Green Bay: Jennings, Nelson, Finley, Jones
San Diego: Jackson, Floyd, Gates, Tolbert
Dallas: Witten, Bryant, Robinson, whoever else (because Austin's hurt again)
Carolina: Smith, Olsen, Shockey, whoever (Lafell, Stewart)
Philadelphia: Maclin, Jackson, Avant, Celek, McCoy
Oakland: Heyward-Bey, Moore, Ford, Boss
Buffalo: Johnson, Nelson, Jackson, Chandler
Lions: Johnson, Pettigrew, Young, Burleson/Best
Atlanta: White, Jones, Gonzalez, whoever
Cincy: Green, Gresham, Simpson, Caldwell
Indy: Garcon, Wayne, Clark, Collie
NYJets: Holmes, Keller, Burress, Tomlinson
Washington: Davis, Gaffney, Moss, Helu

Before you complain that I'm not playing fair, I left out a couple of teams because they too have injuries, most notably Houston and KC. But all of those teams have 3-4 receiving options who are better, right now, than what the Giants put out on the field against the Pats. In some cases, like with the Jets, Colts, and Skins, terrible quarterback play has made their reception and yardage numbers slightly underwhelming, but that's not what you said. You said that the Giants had 3-4 elite receiving threats on the field. The fact of the matter is that, when Nicks is healthy, you can defensibly say that they have three. When Nicks isn't healthy, Barden becomes their #3 receiver. Yesterday they had 2 good receivers (Cruz, Ballard) and one pretty good one (Manningham). And then nothing. Jacobs and Barden are generously described as JAGs.

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.

Where did I say that? (Hint: I didn't). I think he's easily a top-10 NFL QB.

You think Coughlin is using a run first philosophy even though he hasn't.

Where did I say that? (Hint: I didn't). I pointed out that they ran the ball 30 times even without their one good running back, when you said that they wouldn't have bothered running even with him. (are you saying that they prefer to run when their #1 RB is hurt, or are you saying that 30 rushes constitutes ignoring the run game? Because you must be saying one or the other)

You think Bradshaw is an above average back when he has been average.

He is an above average back, although at this point you're quibbling over a subjective term.

You think Cruz isn't very good even though he is on pace for 1200 yards.

Where did I say that? (Hint: I didn't). I think that he's a good WR.

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.,

Where did I say that? (Hint: I didn't). His production speaks for itself

What I actually did say is that the Giants had three receiving threats yesterday: Cruz, Manningham, and Ballard. That's it. Not their #1 WR, not their RB who is a threat out of the backfield. The Patriots did not play against an elite passing team yesterday.

From here on out, how about you try to argue against actual points that people actually made rather than straw men? Doing what you've done here just shows that you're unable, for whatever reason, to respond to actual points.

 

[BradyFTW!]

The D should be good enough to stop Eli. He's prone to turnovers for crying out loud!

Last year he was throwing INTs at a pretty alarming rate, but this year he only has 6 (compared to Brady's 10). He's been pretty good about taking care of the ball.

 

[Rob0729]

New Orleans: Graham, Colston, Sproles, Moore
Pittsburgh: Wallace, Miller, Lewis, Brown
New England: Welker, Gronkowski, Hernandez, Branch
Green Bay: Jennings, Nelson, Finley, Jones
San Diego: Jackson, Floyd, Gates, Tolbert
Dallas: Witten, Bryant, Robinson, whoever else (because Austin's hurt again)
Carolina: Smith, Olsen, Shockey, whoever (Lafell, Stewart)
Philadelphia: Maclin, Jackson, Avant, Celek, McCoy
Oakland: Heyward-Bey, Moore, Ford, Boss
Buffalo: Johnson, Nelson, Jackson, Chandler
Lions: Johnson, Pettigrew, Young, Burleson/Best
Atlanta: White, Jones, Gonzalez, whoever
Cincy: Green, Gresham, Simpson, Caldwell
Indy: Garcon, Wayne, Clark, Collie
NYJets: Holmes, Keller, Burress, Tomlinson
Washington: Davis, Gaffney, Moss, Helu

I don't have time to respond to anything else. You clearly failed at this. Go and look at the actual production of the players you posted rather than your perception. For example, the Jets' receivers are clearly not better unless you ignore the fact that Holmes has been mediocre this year. Or Oakland.

Don't go by your perception which is clearly out of sync with reality, but go by actual production.

 

[Rob0729]

Not when you're missing two of your top four receivers. The personnel that the field yesterday wasn't even close to the personnel that achieved that #6 ranking. When Nicks takes the field, the gameplan revolves around stopping him first and foremost.

I'll answer this one too. Bradshaw is no longer in the top four in receiving yards. Which goes to show you that he was not nearly as much of a factor in the passing game as you intimate. The guy has 210 receiving yards in 7 games. That production is easily replaced. Nick's receiving production isn't, but the Giants still have several big weapons in the passing game.

 

[ATippett56]

The current offensive philosophy is severely flawed.

First, aside from third and long, scrap the shotgun formation. The offensive formation should be two tight ends, two wide receivers, one running back with the quarterback directly under center. Play action passes and screen passes to the running back are best implemented from the aforementioned offensive formation.

Two, the pass-run distribution is completely out of whack. A 50-50 pass-run distribution needs to be implemented from now on. The New England Patriots have five running backs on the roster, so depth is not an issue at the running back position. The running game should not be abandoned whatsoever in the first half of games.

By running the ball more often, the New England Patriots offense will more likely stay out of third and long situations thereby achieving a higher third down conversion rate. Running the ball more often shortens the game, thus the New England Patriots defense will not be on the field as long which will less likely lead to fourth quarter collapses. Protect the lead by running the football which was not effectively employed in the Buffalo Bills game.

On another note, aside from Wes Welker the pass offense does not achieve consistent production from the other wide receivers. The New England Patriots running backs need to contribute more in the passing game.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I don't have time to respond to anything else. You clearly failed at this. Go and look at the actual production of the players you posted rather than your perception. For example, the Jets' receivers are clearly not better unless you ignore the fact that Holmes has been mediocre this year. Or Oakland.

Don't go by your perception which is clearly out of sync with reality, but go by actual production.

I already addressed this. The only problem with the Jets' top 3 receivers is that Mark Sanchez is throwing them the ball. Holmes, Burress, Keller, and Tomlinson are objectively superior receiving threats to Cruz, Ballard, Manningham and Barden. It's just a fact. You're trying to drag the quarterbac into this debate, because it's the only shot that you have at making a plausible point, but that isn't what you said.

If you'd said that we were going by yardage, or receptions, you'd still largely be wrong (since Barden doesn't have any of either), but that's not what you said. You said that they had 3-4 elite threats in the passing game on the field on Sunday, which is ridiculous.

 

[juny]

Have to agree with the premise of the thread title. In 2 of the 3 losses, the offense (Brady) turned it over 4 times. Doesn't matter how good your defense is, you don't win many of those games. On the plus side, somehow, the Pats only lost by one score in their 3 losses. In no way does the defense deserve a pass, they have to get tons better, but these losses are a shared effort.

 

[Dutchmaster617]

The current offensive philosophy is severely flawed.

First, aside from third and long, scrap the shotgun formation. The offensive formation should be two tight ends, two wide receivers, one running back with the quarterback directly under center. Play action passes and screen passes to the running back are best implemented from the aforementioned offensive formation.

Two, the pass-run distribution is completely out of whack. A 50-50 pass-run distribution needs to be implemented from now on. The New England Patriots have five running backs on the roster, so depth is not an issue at the running back position. The running game should not be abandoned whatsoever in the first half of games.

By running the ball more often, the New England Patriots offense will more likely stay out of third and long situations thereby achieving a higher third down conversion rate. Running the ball more often shortens the game, thus the New England Patriots defense will not be on the field as long which will less likely lead to fourth quarter collapses. Protect the lead by running the football which was not effectively employed in the Buffalo Bills game.

On another note, aside from Wes Welker the pass offense does not achieve consistent production from the other wide receivers. The New England Patriots running backs need to contribute more in the passing game.

Yes have Brady go 50-50 with Benjarvus, that is the key to winning ball games.

Seriously? Even game managing QBs get more than 50%, it is a passing league.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Offense has been bad for the last 3 weeks but they DID do enough to win this game.

In spite of how bad Brady played and how poorly the offense executed in general, they still gave the defense TWO fourth quarter leads that were blown.

Brady drives you down and gets you a FG to go up 13-10 with around 7 minutes left. The defense subsequently gives up a 4 minute TD drive to the Giants to give the Giants the lead 17-13.

Brady comes down on his next possession and scores AGAIN for what should be the game winning TD to put the Pats up 20-17 with a minute and a half left to go. The defense subsequently gives up an 80 yard TD drive in a minute in a half.

Maybe people don't remember, but that's how the Pats used to win games. They played a ton of tight games where Brady would take over in the fourth quarter and lead this team on game winning drives, and if he left any time on the clock, the defense would finish it off.

Now you're saying a game winning TD drive isn't good enough, Tom. You also have to time it out perfectly so you leave no time left on the clock. You can't score too quickly because then our defense will actually have to sack up and make a stop. God forbid.

Listen to how ridiculous that sounds.

My god,that's stupid.

Exactly how many four turnover games did they win in the dynasty years?

If the offense simply does not turned the ball over, it's an easy victory.

 

[Rob0729]

I already addressed this. The only problem with the Jets' top 3 receivers is that Mark Sanchez is throwing them the ball. Holmes, Burress, Keller, and Tomlinson are objectively superior receiving threats to Cruz, Ballard, Manningham and Barden. It's just a fact. You're trying to drag the quarterbac into this debate, because it's the only shot that you have at making a plausible point, but that isn't what you said.

If you'd said that we were going by yardage, or receptions, you'd still largely be wrong (since Barden doesn't have any of either), but that's not what you said. You said that they had 3-4 elite threats in the passing game on the field on Sunday, which is ridiculous.

LOL! So even though the Giants passing offense is better than the Jets even without Hakeem Nicks, it really is worse because Sanchez is the Jets' QB and they get a free pass.

Also, I never said elite. I said top targets which doesn't mean elite. I also said at full strength not what was fielded on Sunday which includes Nick. So that still gave them at least two top targets to throw to on Sunday.

So are you saying the Pats defense should play much better this upcoming week because at full strength, the Jets are worse than the Giants missing their two best weapons?

BTW, if Cruz lives up to form, he will get more yards in a season than Holmes has gotten since 2009 which was the only season of his career he had over 1,000 yards in a season.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Two, the pass-run distribution is completely out of whack. A 50-50 pass-run distribution needs to be implemented from now on. The New England Patriots have five running backs on the roster, so depth is not an issue at the running back position. The running game should not be abandoned whatsoever in the first half of games.

By running the ball more often, the New England Patriots offense will more likely stay out of third and long situations thereby achieving a higher third down conversion rate. Running the ball more often shortens the game, thus the New England Patriots defense will not be on the field as long which will less likely lead to fourth quarter collapses. Protect the lead by running the football which was not effectively employed in the Buffalo Bills game.

.

I'm trying to think of the last time we actually ran the ball on 1st and 2nd down. It's like we'll try a run on 1st and if it doesn't gain more than 5-6 yards there's absolutely no chance we attempt to run the next play. It's pathetic how predictable we are offensively, no defense has any reason to respect the run against us.

 

[Rob0729]

I'm trying to think of the last time we actually ran the ball on 1st and 2nd down. It's like we'll try a run on 1st and if it doesn't gain more than 5-6 yards there's absolutely no chance we attempt to run the next play. It's pathetic how predictable we are offensively, no defense has any reason to respect the run against us.

The Pats ran on first and second down on the first drive on Sunday.

 

[supafly]

I'm trying to think of the last time we actually ran the ball on 1st and 2nd down. It's like we'll try a run on 1st and if it doesn't gain more than 5-6 yards there's absolutely no chance we attempt to run the next play. It's pathetic how predictable we are offensively, no defense has any reason to respect the run against us.

I think one compliments the other, and when one is not properly effective, you're going to see lessened production from the other (for most teams in some form).

The run sets up the pass, and vice-versa, depending upon the situation and personnel of course.

In an offense where Tom Brady is the #1 weapon, I have no problem passing more than running. I think you'd be dumb not to. What they need is better balance, and better production from the offensive line--in BOTH areas, pass protection and run support.

In a perfect world, one would think that it's going to be about 60-40 pass in this offense at worst. I don't know the numbers this year overall, but off the top of my head I would guess that it's likely closer to the high 60's in terms of passes. We could certainly use more balance, and more production.

I don't have anything to back this theory up, but I am going to take a guess that we see more Steven Ridley this week. If we cannot run effectively this week, we will lose--simple as that.