For the 2016 Pats to be in/win SB 51 the D has to improve ALOT

[Ring 6]

No one's whining. I'm replying to the original poster that said that he doesn't want the offense to have to bail out the defense again. I'm pointing out that the offense hasn't exactly lit it up in the postseason other than 2014.

I'm well aware that they've lapped the entire NFL in the past 16 years.

Didn't mean you. Others are whining.

 

[Ring 6]

Exactly. They are 22-9 in the playoffs with 6 SB appearances. The Playoffs are only the best teams with winning records in the league. That is a pretty impressive record.

But we are doomed because we lost once and it was because of 3rd down conversions.

 

[fightingirish595]

But we are doomed because we lost once and it was because of 3rd down conversions.

Not whining, never said we were doomed. We can win the superbowl no doubt. I think myself and others that are concerned and have every right to be. If the eye test tells you we have a great defense you are entitled to that opinion

 

[Bruins29]

I dont buy any of this "eye test" crap. Its worrying about something that isnt really there and cherry picking something to try to justify the worrying. The team's strategy is their strategy. Can any stat be improved? Sure, but the question is why worry about it and even better what recommendations to you have to fix it?

If we were bottom 5 in points allowed and top 5 in 3rd down conversions would anyone say "its ok we give up a lot of points but we stop other teams from converting 3rd downs?"

Nothing but ****ing whiners on this forum. People are actually whining about Rotherisberger not playing.

 

[PF_SU]

And we lost laregly in part because even though we gave up only 21 points, We couldnt get a stop when it mattered. We dont know yet whether this defense can. Its far too early to tell

Largely in part? What is that even supposed to mean? The 2011 team lost mainly because the offense failed to perform up to standard (with a hobbled Gronk). After the opening drive TD of the second half the offense went three-and-out, interception, punt (after the Welker drop), never progressing further than Giants 44 (not to mention that the offense spotted the Giants two points plus the ball with the intentional grounding on Brady in the first quarter). Considering the player material the defense as a whole did well in the playoffs.

 

[fightingirish595]

Largely in part? What is that even supposed to mean? The 2011 team lost mainly because the offense failed to perform up to standard (with a hobbled Gronk). After the opening drive TD of the second half the offense went three-and-out, interception, punt (after the Welker drop), never progressing further than Giants 44 (not to mention that the offense spotted the Giants two points plus the ball with the intentional grounding on Brady in the first quarter). Considering the player material the defense as a whole did well in the playoffs.

The probelms with the defense were exposed in the 4th quarter. No getting around that.
Ive already said both sides of the ball havent gotten the job done in most of the playoff losses. But that credit must be given to the opposition as well

 

[SEA_Pat]

In my opinion we ****ed up number 5 with the stupid Miami game last year. (not to mention Eagles game.)

I agree, but was that on the defense or was that the entire team taking a public dump on the field? A quick look at the score (I have deliberately wiped that Miami game from my memory) says we lost 20-10. Don't think that was entirely on the D.

 

[SEA_Pat]

The probelms with the defense were exposed in the 4th quarter. No getting around that.
Ive already said both sides of the ball havent gotten the job done in most of the playoff losses. But that credit must be given to the opposition as well

And you don't think that this might have been a product of the Offense getting off the field quickly and us losing the time of possession battle so badly that the Defense became exhausted?

 

[fightingirish595]

And you don't think that this might have been a product of the Offense getting off the field quickly and us losing the time of possession battle so badly that the Defense became exhausted?

Of course I do. I have a post from a little bit further back That says its a recipe for disaster when you cant get off the field and the other team can. We lost time of posession in almost every playoff loss in that 22-9 span

But I think the talent was equally as much the problem

 

[mosslost]

I agree, but was that on the defense or was that the entire team taking a public dump on the field? A quick look at the score (I have deliberately wiped that Miami game from my memory) says we lost 20-10. Don't think that was entirely on the D.

Last year slam dunk Lombardi 5.. if they just won one of those 2 games. (not to mention we should run away with the regular season game in Denver until it fell apart)

 

[Ring 6]

Not whining, never said we were doomed. We can win the superbowl no doubt. I think myself and others that are concerned and have every right to be. If the eye test tells you we have a great defense you are entitled to that opinion

What I don't understand is the 60+ plays happen in a football game on either side of the ball.
All of them take place under different plays, down and distance, score, field position, and momentum.
All of those add up to a defenses job being to not allow points, in whatever scheme and all the variables above they are using and dealing with.
Your argument is that allowing a GREAT 15 points per game is not good defense because you think they sucked on one 3rd down play each game, meaning their conversion percentage is too high for you.
That makes absolutely no sense to me.

I think the defense that allowed 17 points to Cincinnati yesterday, even though they allowed a whopping 5 3rd down conversions all day in 12 chances was very good. Further I think that with Tom Brady at QB if they played 100 times against Cincy and played that exact same defense, they win 100 times.
I'm not sure how any one finds fault in that.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

13, 34, 14, 14, 21, 17, 13, 16, 18

Those are the offensive scores in their nine playoff losses since 2001. Seven times they scored in the teens. The Jets loss was the softest 21 you can imagine. Same with the 2013 Denver loss where the Patriots were losing 23-3 before garbage time. The offense has routinely faltered since they became a high flying passing attack. But they did bail out the defense in 2014 with a ridiculous 36 PPG and FIFTEEN offensive touchdowns.

However, the defense played very poorly in those losses as well. The only games I give them a pass for are Denver in 2005 and 2015. It's especially bad when you look at the opposing QB in most of those games. Mark Sanchez, Joe Flacco, Eli Manning?

Basically, for the most part, there is plenty of blame to go around for the offense AND defense in these losses.

I think you're right...when it comes down to it, football is a team sport, and lost games reflect mistakes and failures on both sides of the ball, or in all 3 phases.

However, I feel you should be able to win NFL games if you only let up points in the teens. Those are very winnable games IMO. And for several of those seasons, the Patriots were ranked as a Top 10 offense. By those standards, our offense was under-performing (2007 stands out especially).

 

[fightingirish595]

What I don't understand is the 60+ plays happen in a football game on either side of the ball.
All of them take place under different plays, down and distance, score, field position, and momentum.
All of those add up to a defenses job being to not allow points, in whatever scheme and all the variables above they are using and dealing with.
Your argument is that allowing a GREAT 15 points per game is not good defense because you think they sucked on one 3rd down play each game, meaning their conversion percentage is too high for you.
That makes absolutely no sense to me.

I think the defense that allowed 17 points to Cincinnati yesterday, even though they allowed a whopping 5 3rd down conversions all day in 12 chances was very good. Further I think that with Tom Brady at QB if they played 100 times against Cincy and played that exact same defense, they win 100 times.
I'm not sure how any one finds fault in that.

Because I think our offense wont be scoring over 30 in every playoff game. But maybe im wrong. I think better teams will be able to control the clock more. People were complaining about the defense after week 2 and 3 and I thought it was absurd. Ive since changed my mind. We will see how we do against better competition soon enough

 

[PF_SU]

The probelms with the defense were exposed in the 4th quarter. No getting around that.

How was the defense getting exposed? Everybody knew what that defense was. They did what was and could be expected of it. The offense meanwhile was held to 15 points under its regular season average.

 

[mgteich]

I think you're right...when it comes down to it, football is a team sport, and lost games reflect mistakes and failures on both sides of the ball, or in all 3 phases.

However, I feel you should be able to win NFL games if you only let up points in the teens. Those are very winnable games IMO. And for several of those seasons, the Patriots were ranked as a Top 10 offense. By those standard, our offense was under-performing (2007 stands out especially).

Arguably, an analysis of our post games losses shows an underperformance by the offense. Of course, this was often because key players on offense were playing injured or not playing at all.

 

[mgteich]

How was the defense getting exposed? Everybody knew what that defense was. They did what was and could be expected of it. The offense meanwhile was held to 15 points under its regular season average.

A team should not be expected to meet regular season averages in the post-season.

 

[fightingirish595]

How was the defense getting exposed? Everybody knew what that defense was. They did what was and could be expected of it. The offense meanwhile was held to 15 points under its regular season average.

Because it the defense was not very good. The other team had the ball for 37 minutes which can partially be blamed on the offense. The offense wasnt the same after the sack when brady fell on his shoulder

 

[fightingirish595]

Arguably, an analysis of our post games losses shows an underperformance by the offense. Of course, this was often because key players on offense were playing injured or not playing at all.

and because defenses and coaching in the playoffs is better. Cant expect to score over 30 in every playoff game

 

[PF_SU]

A team should not be expected to meet regular season averages in the post-season.

I never said the offense should be expected to score 32 a game in the playoffs. The point was, the offense absolutely underperformed in SB XLVI scoring only 17 points while turning the ball over twice (plus spotting the Giants two points). They came into the game flat and ended the game flat.

Because it the defense was not very good. The other team had the ball for 37 minutes which can partially be blamed on the offense. The offense wasnt the same after the sack when brady fell on his shoulder

Nobody claimed the 2011 defense was very good or even good.

 

[fightingirish595]

I never said the offense should be expected to score 32 a game in the playoffs. The point was, the offense absolutely underperformed in SB XLVI scoring only 17 points while turning the ball over twice (plus spotting the Giants two points). They came into the game flat and ended the game flat.


Nobody claimed the 2011 defense was very good or even good.

i know i was just stating a fact