Good article from Bedard: Defense Wasn't the problem

[sieglo]

the defense was absolutely a problem allowing 9+ play drives all game long. They kept Brady off the field. Not one 3 and out. I realize they only allowed 19 points, but they did not give this team's strength, their offense enough drives. Time of possession was a key factor in this game...and that is on the defense.

Don't forget field position as well.

 

[JackBauer]

While I agree that the defense did it's job, our offense is just not suited for long sideline breaks in-between drives. Our offense seems to gets out of rhythm easily when they have to sit for a long time. These slug-it-out games are better suited for the type of offense used to run when we were winning SBs: run the ball, be physical, play-action, maximum protection.

I agree with your point, which makes it all the more baffling why they chose the gameplan they did. I was sure they were going to commit to pounding down the Giant's front seven into a fine dust (or, simply, that they would run to set up the passing game).

I'm not sure if the safety simply threw a monkey wrench into the whole scheme, or what. Disappointed we didn't see any Ridley.

 

[celticboy04]

the defense was absolutely a problem allowing 9+ play drives all game long. They kept Brady off the field. Not one 3 and out. I realize they only allowed 19 points, but they did not give this team's strength, their offense enough drives. Time of possession was a key factor in this game...and that is on the defense.

Greetings,
The way I see it the defense had no choice to play the way they did. They had to make sure they did not give up too many killer plays by not overplaying the whole game. This game could have been a lot worse than it already was, especially if Victor Cruz caught a few in stride for multiple touchdowns. This is just how you have to play when you lack talent on defense. With the group the Patriots had, they played extremely well.
Celticboy04