Are we not as far as we originally thought?

[emoney_33]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

The Pats failed to close out games on offensive, that is a fact. Perfect example is in the Indy game, with your reasoning just because they scored 34 points you think their job is done. The fact is that those 34 points meant nothing because they failed to close out the game.

This is where I draw the line with your idiocy.

They arent top 5. You made a statement and I proved it wrong, with facts. Deal with it

Reg. Season
Giants (45+44) new ave. 22.3
Colts (42+35) new ave. 28.1
Eagles (45+40) new ave. 24.6
SD (43+42) new ave. 26.3
GB (48+36) new ave. new ave. 27
MIN (44+38) new ave. 27.7
Saints (48+48) new ave. 26.3
Pats (59+35) new ave. 23.7

Now adjust for defense, or is that too hard of a concept?

I mean, I thought after the Giants Superbowl loss that when Brady sits in shotgun the entire game the DE's can pin their ears back and attack the quarterback, without putting any focus on the run. Personally when I watch any game in the NFL, not just the Patriots, you do not notice the team even with a great passing attack just sit in shotgun, its just too obvious its going to be a pass or MAYBE a draw which will get minimal yards.

Well Faulk mainly runs the draw, and he averaged 5.4 YPC. I don't think that the draws have gotten minimal yards at all. Plus the fact that the Patriots were able to gain so many yards with a difficult pass defense schedule seems to indicate that there wasn't as much predictability or shotgun struggles as some believe.

Even the Saints with their high octane passing attack made Indianapolis respect the run.

The Patriots put up 34 points on the Colts.

The Patriots need to get back to what won them their Superbowls and balance the pass and run.

The offensive balance is not what won them superbowls. I know it's fun to pretend there's a simple reason or solution or we can look back and mimic the past teams but that's a losing battle. The 2003-2004 defenses were really good. The 2003 offense was kind of bad, the 2004 offense had the monster year of Corey Dillon. It will cost a lot of money to find a RB that would produce that type of year, and the risk of putting so much money on a higher-probability of injury position when you have Tom Brady isn't the best strategy. 2007 was the best team the Patriots ever put together.

Why did they abandon the run this year? That could have been the difference between being 11-5 and a first round exit and 13-3 and a possible first round bye.

I don't think they abandoned the run. They abandoned it in the playoffs because of circumstance (i.e. 24-0 in the 1st quarter).

There is no need to have Brady pass the ball 40+ times a game when you have a first round pick at RB who has shown flashes of being a quality NFL running back when given the right amount of carries and other running backs who are capable of getting yards.

I think putting the ball in Brady's hands is the best decision you can make so long as you have the weapons. You don't strive to take the ball out of a guy like Brady's hands. He threw 35 times a game this season.

The pass/run splits on the season were 56%-44%. Incidentally that is the same exact splits for the Superbowl champion Saints. The other SB team the Colts had a worse ratio of 62% pass 38% run. It's a passing league, the balance argument doesn't work in today's league.

Interestingly the Saints and Patriots were eerily similar in pass attempts and run attempts. Saints 593/468, Patriots 592/466.

The Ravens game looked terrible and it was, but I trully believe if we had a healthy Welker the entire dynamic of the game changes. If the defense could have stuck together enough in the playoffs we had a decent chance of getting deep.

This team is NOT nearly as bad as some make it out to be. The offense is definitely not something to worry about unless the Patriots shock the universe and do absolutely nothing the entire offseason. The biggest question mark for the offseason is defense IMO. There are quite a few areas where things could turn one way or the other, for example Bodden and the secondary.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

They arent top 5. You made a statement and I proved it wrong, with facts. Deal with it

You have proven nothing but that you don't understand football.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | 2009 OFFENSE EFFICIENCY RATINGS

 

[The Dynasty]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

This is where I draw the line with your idiocy.

Will anyone remember that the Patriots scored 34 points vs the Colts? No, they remember the horrible 4th quarter and the 4th and 2. Scoring 34 points meant nothing because the offense couldnt play with a lead and the defense couldnt make a play.

Now adjust for defense, or is that too hard of a concept?

Ok, I told you that the Tenn. game and the TB game threw off the averages. You countered and said even with those games thrown out and the top 2 point totals from other teams they would still be top 5 in offensive categories. I actually did out the math and proved you wrong. Where did the defense ever come in?, feel free and do it if youd like. It isnt going to prove your point that the Pats were a top 5 offense this past year.

 

[The Dynasty]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

You have proven nothing but that you don't understand football.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | 2009 OFFENSE EFFICIENCY RATINGS

I have never even heard of this system in my life. Who uses it?

I am sure Belichick and the rest of the team is bragging about being #1 on the DVOA system for ranking offenses.

Honestly, stats have little relevance on the actual story, not just on this but in general. For example you have said that the Jets have one of the best defenses in the league, and you would say that they rush the passer pretty well but yet they were T-18 in sacks...

 

[ausbacker]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

^ how you know that someone's been owned. When they have to resort to "yeah, well I have too much of a life to go around supporting my arguments with facts and stuff. Loser"

Facts... what's the point of them?

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Will anyone remember that the Patriots scored 34 points vs the Colts? No, they remember the horrible 4th quarter and the 4th and 2. Scoring 34 points meant nothing because the offense couldnt play with a lead and the defense couldnt make a play.

What people remember is meaningless to the current discussion. You are a complete moron for stating that 34 points meant nothing.

Ok, I told you that the Tenn. game and the TB game threw off the averages. You countered and said even with those games thrown out and the top 2 point totals from other teams they would still be top 5 in offensive categories. I actually did out the math and proved you wrong. Where did the defense ever come in?, feel free and do it if youd like. It isnt going to prove your point that the Pats were a top 5 offense this past year.

You can't follow conversation either, nice. I never said the Patriots were or would be top 5 in PPG. Matter of a fact I've known all along they were 6th in PPG and have stated it numerous times. They were 3rd in yards and 1st in TOP. They were a top 5 overall offense. The defensive schedule actually matters to the discussion. You choose to isolate PPG and take away the 2 best games. Basically you want to hunt down whatever stat helps your argument, when the facts are your argument is down right moronic.

I have never even heard of this system in my life. Who uses it?

Nobody really cares about what you have heard about.

I am sure Belichick and the rest of the team is bragging about being #1 on the DVOA system for ranking offenses.

This is a stupid statement.

Honestly, stats have little relevance on the actual story, not just on this but in general.

It's very simple for people to ignore facts and declare stats to be wrong, but you will never be correct when you do that. Statistics are information, they are factual pieces of information. You can choose to misrepresent them, you can choose to ignore them, you can choose to study them, you can choose to learn from them, but they will never ever have little relevance in any world. They will continue to have a huge relevance to analyzing just about anything with any sort of complexity in life. But as they say, Ignorance is bliss.

For example you have said that the Jets have one of the best defenses in the league, and you would say that they rush the passer pretty well but yet they were T-18 in sacks...

Don't tell me what I would say, and no one who knows anything about the game would think that sacks alone determine how much pressure a team generated. But it's just like the uneducated to throw up one statistic to attempt to disprove all statistics.

The sacks statistic is a simple number that tells you one thing and one thing only: How many times did the team tackle the QB behind the LOS before he threw the ball. That is precisely and exactly what it tells you. If you want to attempt to extrapolate that to a deeper meaning of how good a pass rush was, the flaw is in your misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the data, not in the data itself.

 

[The Dynasty]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

What people remember is meaningless to the current discussion. You are a complete moron for stating that 34 points meant nothing.

The Patriots scored 34 points against the Colts, great. But also in the same game they failed to hold a lead and the offense is part of that. This was a microcosm of the season as a whole, getting a lead and then losing it. Part of losing the leads was the inability to call the proper plays with a lead. That is my point O'Brien struggled calling plays when the team had leads. Yeah the defense gave up the points, but football is a team team. You need to know how to close out games on offense and defense.

You can't follow conversation either, nice. I never said the Patriots were or would be top 5 in PPG. Matter of a fact I've known all along they were 6th in PPG and have stated it numerous times. They were 3rd in yards and 1st in TOP. They were a top 5 overall offense. The defensive schedule actually matters to the discussion. You choose to isolate PPG and take away the 2 best games. Basically you want to hunt down whatever stat helps your argument, when the facts are your argument is down right moronic.

If you took out the teams top 2 offensive games then the same thing would happen. The Pats would drop out of the top 5 in those categories. The Patriots were not a top 5 offense this year, they had 2 huge games that bent the stats and made them look a lot better than they actually were and have made people such as yourself confused about just how good this offense was.

Don't tell me what I would say, and no one who knows anything about the game would think that sacks alone determine how much pressure a team generated. But it's just like the uneducated to throw up one statistic to attempt to disprove all statistics.

The sacks statistic is a simple number that tells you one thing and one thing only: How many times did the team tackle the QB behind the LOS before he threw the ball. That is precisely and exactly what it tells you. If you want to attempt to extrapolate that to a deeper meaning of how good a pass rush was, the flaw is in your misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the data, not in the data itself.

Glad someone from the Harvard Law School could help you out with defining what a sack is. It would be nice to have people on this site that could actually look at the situation of this years team rationally instead of pulling up the DVAO system for ranking offenses that shows that the Patriots were the best offense in the league when anyone that actually watched what happened this season could easily tell that they werent even a top 5 offense.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

If you took out the teams top 2 offensive games then the same thing would happen. The Pats would drop out of the top 5 in those categories. The Patriots were not a top 5 offense this year, they had 2 huge games that bent the stats and made them look a lot better than they actually were and have made people such as yourself confused about just how good this offense was.

No dum dum, they played against a tough defensive schedule and people like you were dreaming about the 2007 offense so sat through the entire year with unreal expectations and a terribly warped perspective.

Glad someone from the Harvard Law School could help you out with defining what a sack is.

This comment just shows your basic lack of intelligence.

It would be nice to have people on this site that could actually look at the situation of this years team rationally instead of pulling up the DVAO system for ranking offenses that shows that the Patriots were the best offense in the league when anyone that actually watched what happened this season could easily tell that they werent even a top 5 offense.

Right so you claim your eyes watching on TV are better than the DVOA system and all the statistics in the universe. The offense was absolutely a top 5 offense. Now for you to claim that you can judge this as false based on watching them then you must be claiming to have the following qualifications:

1) A supernatural ability to remember all the details of 16 games worth of data of at least 6 teams including the Patriots. This would account for around 6000 plays.

2) A supernatural ability to judge how good each defense each team faced was and adjust accordingly.

3) A supernatural ability to gain more information from the TV feed than is available with regards to defensive responsibilities, pre-snap reads, play called, routes run, etc...

You basically believe that the DVOA system is crap and that you are a genius the likes of which would make Einstein jealous. Congratulations.

 

[SammyBlueCat]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Just off the top of my head here...

Colts game - pick up the first down and they win.
Dolphins game - take away that awful INT in the end zone and the Pats probably win.
Denver game - Missed FG, plus numerous other chances in an overtime game.

That would have put us at 13-3 without even trying to win the Houston game. Also, did you know that they led at halftime of every game except the first Bills game and the Saints?

How about the first Bills game & the first Ravens game?
We were closer to 8-8 than 13-3.

 

[ausbacker]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

How about the first Bills game & the first Ravens game?
We were closer to 8-8 than 13-3.

What about the facts that

The Patriots finished with a 10-6 record winning the AFC East

The Patriots Offense finished 3rd in total offense per game
The Patriots Offense finished 3rd in passing defense per game
The Patriots Offense finished 12th in rushing per game
The Patriots Offense finished 6th in scoring against

The Patriots Defense finished 11th in yards per game
The Patriots Defense finished 5th in scoring against
The Patriots Defense finished 11th in interceptions
The Patriots Defense finished 8th in force fumbles
The Patriots Defense finished 16th in fumble recoveries

How about you guys work with the mindset that the Patriots were as good as their record says they were.

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

How about you guys work with the mindset that the Patriots were as good as their record says they were.

The Pats were good? Awesome. All these threads lately, were leading me to believe we sucked all year.

I think people need to watch the season over again (i am), and they'll notice that the D was better than we thought it would be back in preseason. The offense wasnt bad, they were just inconsistant. Mistakes at the worst possible times are something we're not used to seeing from this team. Personally, im thinking the team (with another good offseason) will be really freaking good in 2010.

 

[ausbacker]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

The Pats were good? Awesome. All these threads lately, were leading me to believe we sucked all year.

I think people need to watch the season over again (i am), and they'll notice that the D was better than we thought it would be back in preseason. The offense wasnt bad, they were just inconsistant. Mistakes at the worst possible times are something we're not used to seeing from this team. Personally, im thinking the team (with another good offseason) will be really freaking good in 2010.

Our single playoff appearance this year showed exactly where the Patriots are at. The blocks are there for future success and presently we're on the bottom end of the better teams.

 

[upstater1]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

How about the first Bills game & the first Ravens game?
We were closer to 8-8 than 13-3.

How do you get that from the Ravens game?

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Our single playoff appearance this year showed exactly where the Patriots are at. The blocks are there for future success and presently we're on the bottom end of the better teams.

One game doesn't really mean anything as an indicator where the Pats are. I am not sure that if the Pats played the Ravens 9 more time that their record wouldn't be 9-1. The Ravens came in fired up and a strong gameplan and the Pats were flat and not ready for it. Does that mean that the Ravens are a better team or just a better team that day? We don't know that.

I think the Pats do have holes to fill, but they may not be that far away from elite status.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

What about the facts that

The Patriots finished with a 10-6 record winning the AFC East

The Patriots Offense finished 3rd in total offense per game
The Patriots Offense finished 3rd in passing defense per game
The Patriots Offense finished 12th in rushing per game
The Patriots Offense finished 6th in scoring against

The Patriots Defense finished 11th in yards per game
The Patriots Defense finished 5th in scoring against
The Patriots Defense finished 11th in interceptions
The Patriots Defense finished 8th in force fumbles
The Patriots Defense finished 16th in fumble recoveries

How about you guys work with the mindset that the Patriots were as good as their record says they were.

which happened to be 4-4 over the 2nd half of the season......4-5 if you include the playoff game.

the pats are far right now.......you can conjure up memories of 2002, but the big difference is that the pats don't have an LB unit like they had, and there aren't good LB's hanging around on street corners looking for work......which is what any team wishing to play the 3-4 needs most importantly

 

[DonBlackmon55]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

which happened to be 4-4 over the 2nd half of the season......4-5 if you include the playoff game.

the pats are far right now.......you can conjure up memories of 2002, but the big difference is that the pats don't have an LB unit like they had, and there aren't good LB's hanging around on street corners looking for work......which is what any team wishing to play the 3-4 needs most importantly

C'mon...the posters are all up for signing MerriRoid. And we have AD and Burgess (cough !) who are still "good"

and then we can always sign Peppers and move him to OLB, or sign Jason TalorD)

 

[The Dynasty]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

One game doesn't really mean anything as an indicator where the Pats are. I am not sure that if the Pats played the Ravens 9 more time that their record wouldn't be 9-1. The Ravens came in fired up and a strong gameplan and the Pats were flat and not ready for it. Does that mean that the Ravens are a better team or just a better team that day? We don't know that.

I think the Pats do have holes to fill, but they may not be that far away from elite status.

Look at the season at a whole though, their best win of the year was against the Ravens. They only beat 3 teams with winning records and only 2 playoff teams. This team is in the list of the good teams in the league, but at the bottom of that list.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Look at the season at a whole though, their best win of the year was against the Ravens. They only beat 3 teams with winning records and only 2 playoff teams. This team is in the list of the good teams in the league, but at the bottom of that list.

I think this post sums it up.

Toughness, execution, play-making, depth, talent. That's how you beat good teams.

 

[patsfan55]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

the pats are far right now.......you can conjure up memories of 2002, but the big difference is that the pats don't have an LB unit like they had, and there aren't good LB's hanging around on street corners looking for work......which is what any team wishing to play the 3-4 needs most importantly

Which is one of the main reasons why I originally thought (as I stated in the first post of the thread) we were 2 years away. However, we may only need two more solid front seven guys added to this defense to truly compete. Of course that's figuring Wilfork sticks around. Which is a huge question mark (no pun intended).

 

[patsfan55]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Look at the season at a whole though, their best win of the year was against the Ravens. They only beat 3 teams with winning records and only 2 playoff teams. This team is in the list of the good teams in the league, but at the bottom of that list.

This is very true. We beat the teams we were supposed to and that's about it.