Stopping the other team when they need to only pass

[Ring 6]

NY took a page out the Pittsburgh play book.

Football | NFL | Boxscore - Patriots v Steelers - washingtonpost.com

Those long time consuming drives that take away possessions and destroy us in the field position battle, are more effective in stopping our offense than their defenses.

 

[Fencer]

In each of the three Super Bowl wins, the opponent was doing well on offense near the end. The narrative of Brady's final drive vs. the Rams is that the Rams were expected to score on the next opportunity, if they got one. The Carolina game ended in a shootout. The Philly game got nervous at the end too.

 

[Ring 6]

In each of the three Super Bowl wins, the opponent was doing well on offense near the end. The narrative of Brady's final drive vs. the Rams is that the Rams were expected to score on the next opportunity, if they got one. The Carolina game ended in a shootout. The Philly game got nervous at the end too.

Thats kind of a lazy comparison.
In SB 42 we allowed 2 80+ TD drives in the last possession up 4 both times.
In SB 46 we allowed an 88 yard TD drive on the last possession up 3.
In 2006 we allowed 28 second half points and an 88 yard TD drive in the last possession, up 3.
In the 2011 AFCCG if not for Evans drop, we would have allowed a 79 yard TD drive in 1:20 on the last drive.

In SB 36 with a 7 point lead we had a stop, then allowed a 55 yard game TYING TD.

In SB 38 we allowed an 80 yard game TYING TD drive.

In SB 39 the 4th quarter D was
3 and out
Int
TD with a 10 point lead
Int
The 4th quarter D in that game was excellent

There are some similarities, but its very different than 06,07,11

 

[MP-Logick]

Thats kind of a lazy comparison.
In SB 42 we allowed 2 80+ TD drives in the last possession up 4 both times.
In SB 46 we allowed an 88 yard TD drive on the last possession up 3.
In 2006 we allowed 28 second half points and an 88 yard TD drive in the last possession, up 3.
In the 2011 AFCCG if not for Evans drop, we would have allowed a 79 yard TD drive in 1:20 on the last drive.

I wonder, personally, if the schemes NE plays contribute to this as well...we played most of XLVI, for example, with the safeties back and trying to get Eli to throw underneath. Limiting big plays, keeping everything in front of them. But suddenly, when we absolutely had to get a stop because we couldn't allow them even into field goal range, they couldn't get it. It's like suddenly having to adopt a different mentality.

 

[letekro]

Does that excuse 28 second half points?

They were playing against an unbelievably hot Peyton in an unbelievably hot Peyton Dome. The offense couldn't string together three first downs at any point in the second half to give them a chance to regroup or rest. Do you understand how pathetic that is by the offense?

You keep saying 13 points but you conveniently fail to mention that 10 of those were due to an 80 yd KO return and a 60 yd KO return by Ellis Hobbs III. Again, their longest drive of the second half was 34 yards. You're telling me that is "clutch"?

Both units need to be upgraded. You are overlooking significant offensive deficiencies that have been plaguing the Pats since the SB years.

 

[letekro]

Thats kind of a lazy comparison.
In SB 42 we allowed 2 80+ TD drives in the last possession up 4 both times.
In SB 46 we allowed an 88 yard TD drive on the last possession up 3.
In 2006 we allowed 28 second half points and an 88 yard TD drive in the last possession, up 3.
In the 2011 AFCCG if not for Evans drop, we would have allowed a 79 yard TD drive in 1:20 on the last drive.

In SB 36 with a 7 point lead we had a stop, then allowed a 55 yard game TYING TD.

In SB 38 we allowed an 80 yard game TYING TD drive.

In SB 39 the 4th quarter D was
3 and out
Int
TD with a 10 point lead
Int
The 4th quarter D in that game was excellent

There are some similarities, but its very different than 06,07,11

Defenses across the league generally can't stop teams at the end of games, even when those teams are led by mediocre QBs. The pass rushers are tired, the defensive schemes have been figured out, and, in many cases, the offense has 4 pass plays to pick up 10 yards. That is very difficult to prevent. The Giants were offering limited resistance on that drive when Brady, Welker and Branch gave the game away with unforced errors. You can't win a SB where your offense does not score a single point in the last 26 minutes of the game. You simply have unrealistic expectations for the defense.

 

[andrewgarrr]

The Patriots lost SB 46 because Gronkowski wasn't 100%. He was the team's most consistent play-maker on either side of the ball. He was the team's best player and all-around most important player on offense (outisde of TB). When the Giants thought Gronkowski was 100% the offense was unstoppable. If Gronk was 100%, the game would've ended something like 35-21 Patriots.

Besides that...

If the defense or offense made one or two more plays the game would've been won. You can blame the offense or the defense. I choose to blame the lack of a clutch, championship clinching play. One deflected pass, one completed catch, one sack, something. The Giants made the clutch plays and the Patriots didn't. Game over.

 

[eom]

wasn't gronk healthy when the giants beat us in the regular season?

 

[Fencer]

So in sum, your premise is wrong because no team is good at shut-down defense any more.

I'd further note that the Pats have gotten to the AFCC or beyond 6 times under BB. In each case, the last game of the postseason was decided by 4 points or less. In the last two cases, the Patriots scored 17 points each time.

Improving either the offense or the defense would seem like a valuable thing to do.

 

[DonBlackmon55]

Thats kind of a lazy comparison.
In SB 42 we allowed 2 80+ TD drives in the last possession up 4 both times.
In SB 46 we allowed an 88 yard TD drive on the last possession up 3.
In 2006 we allowed 28 second half points and an 88 yard TD drive in the last possession, up 3.
In the 2011 AFCCG if not for Evans drop, we would have allowed a 79 yard TD drive in 1:20 on the last drive.

In SB 36 with a 7 point lead we had a stop, then allowed a 55 yard game TYING TD.

In SB 38 we allowed an 80 yard game TYING TD drive.

In SB 39 the 4th quarter D was
3 and out
Int
TD with a 10 point lead
Int
The 4th quarter D in that game was excellent

There are some similarities, but its very different than 06,07,11

Offense
2007 Pats - 36.8 ppg
2011 Pats - 32.1 ppg

Defense
2007 Pats - 17.1 ppg
2011 Pats - 21.4 ppg


SB42
-Offense scores 14 (22.8 below avg)
-Defense allows 17 (avg) - that too on last drive with one of the greatest SB lucky catch

SB46
-offense scores 17 (15.1 below avg)
-Defense allows 19 (2.1 below avg) - plus 2 points for Safety blame goes on offense.


DEFENSE DID ITS JOB IN BOTH SB's. OFFENSE CHOKED IN BOTH SB.

CASE CLOSED .

 

[Ring 6]

Defenses across the league generally can't stop teams at the end of games, even when those teams are led by mediocre QBs. The pass rushers are tired, the defensive schemes have been figured out, and, in many cases, the offense has 4 pass plays to pick up 10 yards. That is very difficult to prevent. The Giants were offering limited resistance on that drive when Brady, Welker and Branch gave the game away with unforced errors. You can't win a SB where your offense does not score a single point in the last 26 minutes of the game. You simply have unrealistic expectations for the defense.

OK, gotcha the defense is supposed to allow 80+ yard drives on the last drive of the game and we should be happy with that. I guess it was unrealistic to even expect a 3rd down to have to be converted on the defenses most important drive of the season.

 

[Ring 6]

Offense
2007 Pats - 36.8 ppg
2011 Pats - 32.1 ppg

Defense
2007 Pats - 17.1 ppg
2011 Pats - 21.4 ppg


SB42
-Offense scores 14 (22.8 below avg)
-Defense allows 17 (avg) - that too on last drive with one of the greatest SB lucky catch

SB46
-offense scores 17 (15.1 below avg)
-Defense allows 19 (2.1 below avg) - plus 2 points for Safety blame goes on offense.


DEFENSE DID ITS JOB IN BOTH SB's. OFFENSE CHOKED IN BOTH SB.

CASE CLOSED .

Oh wow, you said case closed I guess you win.

Were both SBs not Patriot victories if the defense could have gotten off the field on its last drive?
I'll answer for you yes.

 

[Ring 6]

So in sum, your premise is wrong because no team is good at shut-down defense any more.

So we shouldnt try to improve a defense that is incapable of stopping an 80 yard drive with the game on the line because you think no one is good?

I'd further note that the Pats have gotten to the AFCC or beyond 6 times under BB. In each case, the last game of the postseason was decided by 4 points or less. In the last two cases, the Patriots scored 17 points each time.

And in the 3 they lose they allowed game winning TD drives of 80+ yards the last time the defense took the field, and each time with a lead.

Improving either the offense or the defense would seem like a valuable thing to do.

Yes, if you improve you are better. It still doesn't address that there is a distrurbing trend in every championship loss.

Are you telling me you are happy with our pass defense, nickel and dime package and ability to stop a team on game winning or losing last minute drive?

 

[Ring 6]

The Patriots lost SB 46 because Gronkowski wasn't 100%. He was the team's most consistent play-maker on either side of the ball. He was the team's best player and all-around most important player on offense (outisde of TB). When the Giants thought Gronkowski was 100% the offense was unstoppable. If Gronk was 100%, the game would've ended something like 35-21 Patriots.

Besides that...

If the defense or offense made one or two more plays the game would've been won. You can blame the offense or the defense. I choose to blame the lack of a clutch, championship clinching play. One deflected pass, one completed catch, one sack, something. The Giants made the clutch plays and the Patriots didn't. Game over.

Is it too much to ask the defense to make one of those plays when a stop = a championship and a TD = a loss with 88 yards at its back?
They didn't even force a 3rd down.

 

[Ring 6]

They were playing against an unbelievably hot Peyton in an unbelievably hot Peyton Dome. The offense couldn't string together three first downs at any point in the second half to give them a chance to regroup or rest. Do you understand how pathetic that is by the offense?

You keep saying 13 points but you conveniently fail to mention that 10 of those were due to an 80 yd KO return and a 60 yd KO return by Ellis Hobbs III. Again, their longest drive of the second half was 34 yards. You're telling me that is "clutch"?

Both units need to be upgraded. You are overlooking significant offensive deficiencies that have been plaguing the Pats since the SB years.

No I am looking at 3 Championship games where the defense was on the field with the offense pinned back and a stop = a championship and in each case they all drove right down the field and took the game from us.
You seem to want think there is nothing wrong with that. I don't.
But go ahead keep making excuses for them.
I will ask you also. Are you saying you are happy with our pass D, sub package D, 3rd down D, and ability to stop 80 yard drives with the game hanging in the balance?

 

[Ring 6]

They were playing against an unbelievably hot Peyton in an unbelievably hot Peyton Dome. The offense couldn't string together three first downs at any point in the second half to give them a chance to regroup or rest. Do you understand how pathetic that is by the offense?

You keep saying 13 points but you conveniently fail to mention that 10 of those were due to an 80 yd KO return and a 60 yd KO return by Ellis Hobbs III. Again, their longest drive of the second half was 34 yards. You're telling me that is "clutch"?

Both units need to be upgraded. You are overlooking significant offensive deficiencies that have been plaguing the Pats since the SB years.

So you are saying yes, that does excuse the defense allowing 28 points in the second half. I'm sorry, it was actually 32.

 

[andrewgarrr]

Is it too much to ask the defense to make one of those plays when a stop = a championship and a TD = a loss with 88 yards at its back?
They didn't even force a 3rd down.

No it isn't.

All I said is that someone needed to come up with a play. I specifically specified either offense or defense.

 

[VJCPatriot]

The Patriots lost SB 46 because Gronkowski wasn't 100%. He was the team's most consistent play-maker on either side of the ball. He was the team's best player and all-around most important player on offense (outisde of TB). When the Giants thought Gronkowski was 100% the offense was unstoppable. If Gronk was 100%, the game would've ended something like 35-21 Patriots.

Besides that...

If the defense or offense made one or two more plays the game would've been won. You can blame the offense or the defense. I choose to blame the lack of a clutch, championship clinching play. One deflected pass, one completed catch, one sack, something. The Giants made the clutch plays and the Patriots didn't. Game over.

Yup Pats couldn't make enough plays on either side of the ball. Welker dropped a sure fire first down. Pats dropped 2 passes in a row on the final drive of the game burning away 10 seconds. The challenge really killed us as well because it wasted a precious timeout that could have made a 1 minute drive possible.

Of course our D didn't make playes either. But the safety at the very beginning of the game is what really did us in. First it took away a valuable possession from the offense. And secondly when the Giants had the ball it allowed them to win with a mere field goal. Take away the 2 pts from the safety, and the Giants would have been forced to score a touchdown to win the game. That changes the entire mindset of the defense!

 

[andrewgarrr]

Yup Pats couldn't make enough plays on either side of the ball. Welker dropped a sure fire first down. Pats dropped 2 passes in a row on the final drive of the game burning away 10 seconds. The challenge really killed us as well because it wasted a precious timeout that could have made a 1 minute drive possible.

Of course our D didn't make playes either. But the safety at the very beginning of the game is what really did us in. First it took away a valuable possession from the offense. And secondly when the Giants had the ball it allowed them to win with a mere field goal. Take away the 2 pts from the safety, and the Giants would have been forced to score a touchdown to win the game. That changes the entire mindset of the defense!

Hm.

I like to ignore the safety. It was an important part of the game, but it wasn't the most pivotal moment.

Five minutes left to go in the 4th quarter, the Patriots were up two points and were driving down the field. If they got 2 more first downs and came up with at least a field goal, it would make it very tough on the Giants. The offense doesn't do it's job.

Now we go on defense. If the defense can force one stop, make one game changing play, the Patriots are SB Champs for the 4th time. The defense doesn't do it's job.

When the game was on the line, no one made the championship play.

Everyone needs to quit arguing defense or offense. The team blew it.

The offense and defense both need work this off-season.

The defense needs more work than the offense; anyone who disagrees is stupid.

 

[Harry Yelreh]

The Patriots lost SB 46 because Gronkowski wasn't 100%. He was the team's most consistent play-maker on either side of the ball. He was the team's best player and all-around most important player on offense (outisde of TB). When the Giants thought Gronkowski was 100% the offense was unstoppable. If Gronk was 100%, the game would've ended something like 35-21 Patriots.

I tend to think that the game still would have been close, but I agree with your basic premise re: Gronkowski. Giants players were repeatedly mocking his inability to play full speed, and they were repeatedly telling each other that he was effectively nothing but a decoy. If he's healthy AND New England makes certain other plays (such as getting the fumble recoveries), then I definitely see the Pats winning by 2-plus TDs.

If the defense or offense made one or two more plays the game would've been won. You can blame the offense or the defense. I choose to blame the lack of a clutch, championship clinching play. One deflected pass, one completed catch, one sack, something. The Giants made the clutch plays and the Patriots didn't. Game over.

Completely agree. If Welker simply makes his catch, for example, there's obviously a huge chance that New England wins. Just that one play alone makes a HUGE difference (and no, I'm not trying to pin the blame on him or any single player). And just as the offense wasn't as productive as we all would have hoped, it's hard to win when your defense allows 75 percent completion and forces zero turnovers. When you have two pretty equal teams, it often comes down to a play or two, and obviously there has to be a winner and a loser. Discussions about needs for wholesale changes or one play at the beginning of the game automatically determining the entire outcome are off base, in my opinion.