Amazing Stat about the playoff run

[brdmaverick]

This truly is an amazing stat, but this one sticks out to me….

In four playoff games (against playoff-worthy opponents), the Patriots defense gave up a grand total of 3 offensive touchdowns and scored one of their own (Marcus Jones) but should have been two if the ref didn’t blow the whistle in Denver.

We know our defense was good but that is like ‘next level good’

I suppose this is our counter to the 2001 season in which (in 3 playoff games) we won the Super Bowl by scoring only 3 offensive touchdowns (we had three non-offensive tds in that playoff run)

 

[Kargetina]

This truly is an amazing stat, but this one sticks out to me….

In four playoff games (against playoff-worthy opponents), the Patriots defense gave up a grand total of 3 offensive touchdowns and scored one of their own (Marcus Jones) but should have been two of their ref didn’t blow the whistle in Denver.

We know our defense was good but that is like ‘next level good’

I suppose this our counter to the 2001 season in which (in 3 playoff games) we won the Super Bowl by scoring only 3 offensive touchdowns (we had three non-offensive tds in that playoff run)

Two of the three TD's allowed were a fumble by Drake that had the Texans starting at our own 27-yard, and a fumble by Drake that had Seattle starting at our own 37-yard. The defense allowed one TD in four games where the opposite offense had to drive the entire field.

It is what it is, a historic play by the defense, and unfortunately they will not get the credit Seattle's defense gets, even though they got smoked by the Rams a game prior, because they didn't win it all, and a historically bad offense that averaged 29 ppg, yet suddenly couldn't gain a first down to save their lives, let alone win games.

It's such a pity wasting this defense, a mediocre offense would have been enough to win it all.

 

[BTTA]

Two of the three TD's allowed were a fumble by Drake that had the Texans starting at our own 27-yard, and a fumble by Drake that had Seattle starting at our own 37-yard. The defense allowed one TD in four games where the opposite offense had to drive the entire field.

It is what it is, a historic play by the defense, and unfortunately they will not get the credit Seattle's defense gets, even though they got smoked by the Rams a game prior, because they didn't win it all, and a historically bad offense that averaged 29 ppg, yet suddenly couldn't gain a first down to save their lives, let alone win games.

It's such a pity wasting this defense, a mediocre offense would have been enough to win it all.

I was with you until the word "wasting." It was a marvelous season, it brought a lot of joy, and they deserve that attitude from us fans. And it lit a torch for the coming years which we haven't had in a long time.

 

[aluminum seats]

The defense played really well. Unfortunately in the Super Bowl they had to stop the run and they didn’t.

The only path to victory was truly great defense in that game and they played well but it wasn’t that.

 

[NFL Mystique]

I keep wondering what would have happened if the Patriots offense was simply "good". Does Seattle's offense stay stagnant and they are screwed. Or do they change things up and it's a shootout? My opinion is the Patriots come out of that game with a win.

That is where the "missed opportunity" comes in. The defense played so great and 9/10 times, that leads to a SB win. It felt like the reverse of SB 52.

 

[Kargetina]

The defense played really well. Unfortunately in the Super Bowl they had to stop the run and they didn’t.

The only path to victory was truly great defense in that game and they played well but it wasn’t that.

The defense allowed 12 points in 47 minutes until Drake fumbled at our own 37. The Seahawks averaged 36 points in their two previous playoff games and 28.5ppg in the regular season. Did you expect the defense to keep them to 3 points? If so, it just underlines how bad the offense was. In 9 possessions prior to the fumble the offense had 4 first downs! 4 first downs and only two continuous in a single drive, for 47 minutes.

Even the 85 Bears allowed 10 points in the SB but do you know what else they did? They had 23 first downs, and scored 35 points on offense, including a 96-yard drive. No defense can endure getting on the field 3-and-out after 3-and-out for 50 minutes, it exhausts you both physically and mentally.

No defense in history wins that game with that performance on offense.

 

[ahmed]

The defense played really well. Unfortunately in the Super Bowl they had to stop the run and they didn’t.

The only path to victory was truly great defense in that game and they played well but it wasn’t that.

What are you talking about? The defense held the Seahawks to 12 points while offense had 30 snaps (+ 8 punts) by the end of the 3rd quarter.

It was only once Maye committed 3 turnovers, one a pick 6, did Seahawks pull away.

The defense was great!

 

[Nikolai]

I keep wondering what would have happened if the Patriots offense was simply "good". Does Seattle's offense stay stagnant and they are screwed. Or do they change things up and it's a shootout? My opinion is the Patriots come out of that game with a win.

That is where the "missed opportunity" comes in. The defense played so great and 9/10 times, that leads to a SB win. It felt like the reverse of SB 52.

Yeah, a league-average offense (through the first three quarters) likely gets us the win.

The glass-is-half-full way of looking at it is that we found out exactly where the leaky spots are in a championship run during year one of the rebuild. There's never a guarantee we get back, but if we do, it'll be because we were shown our weaknesses in dramatic and irrefutable fashion and corrected them.

 

[jmt57]

I think we are overstating how 'bad' the Patriots offense was, by ignoring how very good the Seattle defense is / was on this day.

Of course we want to see improvements from the offense, and that will surely be the focus this offseason.

But if the best offense in the league in 2025 (Rams) couldn't beat Seattle, then how is an 'average' offense going to do so? Down the stretch an above average (10th in points, 7th in yards) offense (SF) scored zero TDs and three field goals in 120 minutes of play against the Seahawks.

I put the outcome of this game more on the Seattle defense than the Patriot offense.

 

[Kargetina]

I think we are overstating how 'bad' the Patriots offense was, by ignoring how very good the Seattle defense is / was on this day.

Of course we want to see improvements from the offense, and that will surely be the focus this offseason.

But if the best offense in the league in 2025 (Rams) couldn't beat Seattle, then how is an 'average' offense going to do so? Down the stretch an above average (10th in points, 7th in yards) offense (SF) scored zero TDs and three field goals in 120 minutes of play against the Seahawks.

I put the outcome of this game more on the Seattle defense than the Patriot offense.

The Rams scored 64 points in the last two games against Seattle, including 831 yards passing, 6 passing TD's and 238 yards of rushing. They had 1069 yards of offense in two games. They lost because their defense allowed 69 points in those two games not because their offense couldn't beat Seattle.

The Pats had 60 yards of passing, and 0 points through 3 quarters.

The offense was that bad, there's nothing overstating about it.

 

[Triumph]

To hold the Seahawks to all those FGs.

They did their job.

Gonzo shut down JSN too.

 

[Hugepatsfan]

Defense played well of course but next level good seems a little aggressive considering who we played IMO.

LAC was an absolute puddle to end the year.

Stroud hasn't been very good for a while (was bad in their wildcard game against PIT too) and then was without his #1 WR to start the game and their starting TE who is the #2 option got hurt midway and it was a bad weather game.

Denver had to play a backup QB in a blizzard.

They played really well vs. SEA but you have to acknowledge the ultra conservatism SEA played after it was apparent we couldn't score. Yeh, we held them to field goals but it definitely looked like they were playing for FGs instead of TDs themselves because they knew the only way they would lose is with reckless plays so they didn't give themselves the chance for it.

It's a good defense and looking forward to it progressing next year, but I wouldn't trust these stats painting this as some DOMINANT unit. I think stats like this are, TO SOME DEGREE, a product of the good fortunate they had with matchups.

 

[Hyped]

I think we are overstating how 'bad' the Patriots offense was, by ignoring how very good the Seattle defense is / was on this day.

Of course we want to see improvements from the offense, and that will surely be the focus this offseason.

But if the best offense in the league in 2025 (Rams) couldn't beat Seattle, then how is an 'average' offense going to do so? Down the stretch an above average (10th in points, 7th in yards) offense (SF) scored zero TDs and three field goals in 120 minutes of play against the Seahawks.

I put the outcome of this game more on the Seattle defense than the Patriot offense.

I have to disagree. Give me 2 field goal drives in the first half and that is a COMPLETELY different game, IMO.

Just an average offense would have put more offensive pressure on Darnold’s shoulders and flipped the game script, IMO.

 

[ahmed]

I think we are overstating how 'bad' the Patriots offense was, by ignoring how very good the Seattle defense is / was on this day.

Of course we want to see improvements from the offense, and that will surely be the focus this offseason.

But if the best offense in the league in 2025 (Rams) couldn't beat Seattle, then how is an 'average' offense going to do so? Down the stretch an above average (10th in points, 7th in yards) offense (SF) scored zero TDs and three field goals in 120 minutes of play against the Seahawks.

I put the outcome of this game more on the Seattle defense than the Patriot offense.

How do you overstate an offense that scored zero points through 3 quarters with a total of 30 snaps?

 

[BadMoFo]

Of all the Super Bowls, this was statistically (points-wise), the best performance by a Patriots defense, holding opponents to 13.75 points in 4 games. The next best teams were in 1996 (14.67 ppg) and 2001 (15.67 ppg).

 

[dliverey44]

I was hoping the Pats would win and predicted a 6 point win, but honestly if I put money on it it would have been Seatle because the Pats offense was showing us who they were in the playoffs.

It was the first year of a rebuild with a new HC and new OC. Last FA class they put a ton of effort into improving the defense and became a top 5, this offseason I think they put a lot resources into the offense and hopefully it bears fruit.

They brought in stop gaps on the OL and it made improvements but there needs to be another concerted effort this offseason to improve it like what was done on the DL. Of course we do not have the same kind of money available, but there are moves to be made.

 

[Nikolai]

I think we are overstating how 'bad' the Patriots offense was, by ignoring how very good the Seattle defense is / was on this day.

Of course we want to see improvements from the offense, and that will surely be the focus this offseason.

But if the best offense in the league in 2025 (Rams) couldn't beat Seattle, then how is an 'average' offense going to do so? Down the stretch an above average (10th in points, 7th in yards) offense (SF) scored zero TDs and three field goals in 120 minutes of play against the Seahawks.

I put the outcome of this game more on the Seattle defense than the Patriot offense.

I appreciate what you're saying here, but league average offenses (again, we're excluding the fourth by which the game was well out of hand) were having higher rates of success against Seattle than the Pats did on Sunday.

The closest comparable to our performance against Seattle through three quarters is the Minnesota Vikings, who turned it over twice and were held scoreless with less than 100 yards passing. In aggregate (including the fourth quarter), the closest "league-average" comparison to them is Pittsburgh, who managed to score 17 points despite fewer yards (and admittedly one less turnover).

This isn't to say that the offense is completely broken, but that performance on Sunday was horrendous. It did indeed expose critical weaknesses on the team both on the OL and in the coaching staff. Maye? He's young and hopefully he will learn the right lessons from this.

Our defense was lights out to the point that if the offense could have managed first downs at the league-average rate against Seattle, they're likely not gassed and don't give up 22 points, and likely far less, making this game very winnable.

 

[aluminum seats]

The defense allowed 12 points in 47 minutes until Drake fumbled at our own 37. The Seahawks averaged 36 points in their two previous playoff games and 28.5ppg in the regular season. Did you expect the defense to keep them to 3 points? If so, it just underlines how bad the offense was. In 9 possessions prior to the fumble the offense had 4 first downs! 4 first downs and only two continuous in a single drive, for 47 minutes.

Even the 85 Bears allowed 10 points in the SB but do you know what else they did? They had 23 first downs, and scored 35 points on offense, including a 96-yard drive. No defense can endure getting on the field 3-and-out after 3-and-out for 50 minutes, it exhausts you both physically and mentally.

No defense in history wins that game with that performance on offense.

What are you talking about? The defense held the Seahawks to 12 points while offense had 30 snaps (+ 8 punts) by the end of the 3rd quarter.

It was only once Maye committed 3 turnovers, one a pick 6, did Seahawks pull away.

The defense was great!

No reason to get defensive here, the defense hung in there really tough and played well. But "no defense in history wins that game" just isn't true. They allowed 141 rushing yards, 4.4 a carry.

The offense was awful, massive ask of the defense to hold on. No shame that they couldn't get it done, but they needed to be truly epic to pull it off, and they weren't.

 

[LightSkinSmurf]

No reason to get defensive here, the defense hung in there really tough and played well. But "no defense in history wins that game" just isn't true. They allowed 141 rushing yards, 4.4 a carry.

The offense was awful, massive ask of the defense to hold on. No shame that they couldn't get it done, but they needed to be truly epic to pull it off, and they weren't.

Yeah, the defense played really well and obviously not even on the list of reasons of why we lost but what you are saying is true. They are being overrated somehow even though they played very well and kept us in it. They would have had to play epic/legendary like you said in order to win that game because the offense was that bad.

 

[ahmed]

No reason to get defensive here, the defense hung in there really tough and played well. But "no defense in history wins that game" just isn't true. They allowed 141 rushing yards, 4.4 a carry.

The offense was awful, massive ask of the defense to hold on. No shame that they couldn't get it done, but they needed to be truly epic to pull it off, and they weren't.

Defensive? LOL. Does not matter if it was 300 rushing yards. Holding the offense to 12 points when they were on the field for so long because our offense had 8 straight punts was the definition of a great defense.

95 of those yards were in the first half where they only gave up 9 points. Your definition of great defense seems to be holding the other team to 0 points which is absurd.

If our offense scored some points and created pressure on Seattle's offense to take some risk would have created turnover opportunities. Seattle never had to do anything but be conservative.