Were NFL defenses catching up to the tricky 2007 Pats?

[AzPatsFan]

I agree with those who way there is no "Blue Print" for figure out our offense because it wasn't a GIMMICK offense like the "Wild Cat" was.

It was a matter of talent, not hocus pocus. The weak links were the running game (mostly because of injuries as I believe that a healthy Sammy Morris all year would have been servicable enough) and the offensive line.

I don't think our Oline was horrible... just less talented than other areas of our offense. The giants found a chink in the armor and they used their incredibly talented DLine to hammer away at it all game, neutralizing much of the power the rest of our offense had because we didn't have the time necessary to use it.

A better Oline or a great rushing attack to counter the pressure would have been enough to overcome it. As it was, we still had a great shot at winning the game despite these factors.

I agree with the OP in that I don't believe teams have "caught up" to us or have some "blue print" for beating us. The offense will continue to roll this year.

People forget that Hochstein was hurting BEFORE the Superbowl game. Then Neal went down early and the Offensive line tried to adapt to losing a starter, and the prime reserve. It barely did so, and was still 38 seconds from winning. Any one of three defensive plays could have done it. Asante's would be INT; the Refs callinng "in the the grasp"; or the helmet catch being jarred loose and dropped would have done it.

So much for might have beens...

 

[Deus Irae]

Except I've never once dismissed the idea that the weather played a role. Or the idea that the Giants were had a great D line. I don't cherry pick stats, or use black and white reasoning, or strawman arguments.

I'm sure the weather it limited their ability to go deep. It sure that been the case in alot of bad weather games. But it's never been that bad for Brady.

Also, if the weather made conditions so unbearable for throwing; why didn't it stop an awful QB like Kyle friggin Boller from throwing with efficiency all over the field? He consistently threw over the middle and even a couple passes deep. He threw at a high percentage too - which is saying something because he is usually so god awful.

What ever you do, don't click this link! It will ruin your unthrowable wind theory! (See I can be a jerk too).

NFL Videos: Week 13: Kyle Boller highlights

1.) Boller throws with less touch. His passes are harder, therefore they'll be affected less.

2.) Some Boller passes were clearly affected.

3.) The winds weren't constant, which is one of the problems.

You have dismissed the weather, you have cherry picked stats, you have used strawman arguments, and you have used black and white reasoning, all on this topic. It's funny of you to claim you haven't, actually.

 

[g-fresh]

I'll take a career of stats to note his play in poor weather over the argument of "it happened" and "you know this" any day of the week. Especially, coming from someone who has thrown out almost every excuse in the book to explain what happened toward the end of 07 instead of giving the other team/coaches their due credit...

Just chiming in to say that Shock is my new favorite poster. He's made valid arguments post after post and backing them up with evidence while others cite points that have already been refuted, get snooty and go back to disproved points. The way they are unable to legitimately counter, its almost like they are unable to adapt...

As for the weather game issue: if you throw out the two low games, for whatever reason it doesn't matter why, you have to throw out the two high games as well. This is how statistical analysis is done.

I came into this thread not leaning one way or the other, but I am enjoying seeing Shock run circles around people.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I think you may have lost the farm. I already posted this on the previous page. Brady's number do indeed look solid in bad weather. There is a reasonable dropoff, but certainly not to to the degree that we saw in the Jets/ Ravens game. Certainly not enough to explain why he could only complete around 50% of his passes, or post 76.3 and 51.5 QB ratings.

I think you and Sicilian are effectively arguing the same point from different sides. Seems like you both agree that:

a) Brady is a better QB in bad weather than most, and his dropoff is less than other QBs'
b) There is still a notable dropoff nonetheless (and how could there not be?)

 

[Shockt327]

1.) Boller throws with less touch. His passes are harder, therefore they'll be affected less.

2.) Some Boller passes were clearly affected.

3.) The winds weren't constant, which is one of the problems.

Brady has a stronger arm than Boller, other than that I don't disagree. But it wasn't to the point where he became a sub 50% passer. Boller passed with efficiency. He passed it well mid-range. Brady also seemed to be able to compensate for the wind; it's just that his passes were getting knocked down because the receivers weren't open, and he wasn't getting time to throw.

You have dismissed the weather,

No I've taken the rational assumption that it affected Brady to a degree that is consistent with both his usual dropoff and the play of the opposing QB in the same game.

you have cherry picked stats,

I used one chart that graphed the overall downward trend over the entire 19 game season - so this certainly isn't cherry picking because absolutely nothing was discarded. Then, as a counterpoint to eom's cherrypicking, I used a scientifically approved method of eliminating outliers, to get a more "robust" statistical trend.

you have used strawman arguments, and you have used black and white reasoning, all on this topic. It's funny of you to claim you haven't, actually.

Where and where? Really, I want to see it. Direct quotes.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

NO!

I forget the thread and the poster, but some guy on here's claiming our 2009 offense can't be as good as that of 2007 because he's got some graph of the offensive output declining as a result of the nfl getting all this film on us throughout the year, and thwarting our schemes --- culminating, of course, w/the unmentionable game.
I've actually heard this crock of **** from a few other people, so I promised I'd enlighten him --- but I forgot the thread.
so, here it is........

if that's what you're so concerned about heading into next year, then you're more worried than I am.

CROCK!!

Great post! I agree. Can't wait to see the new, improved Brady and Co. unleashed in September 2009! This time we win in the end.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

Maybe the blueprint is to physically dominate at the line of scrimmage, which has pretty much been the standard blueprint for winning football games for well over 100 years. That's what happened in the games we looked even a little vulnerable and for sure what happened in the game that we lost. Nothing fancy that the Giants players or coaches figured out on film, just that many guys would win their battle, keep the chains from moving on D and keep the chains moving on O.

Maybe the perceived decline was playing more physical teams later in the year, or key guys getting physically worn down later in the year.

IMO, there's truth to this. I heard that after the 2007 season the Pats had actually played an entire extra season over the previous six years.