SB Thoughts

[makewayhomer]

Whether or not you would normally make that play is irelevant.

thank god you dont run our team

 

[Ring 6]

thank god you dont run our team

Right, we should be running our team based on luck.

I just don't understand your point.
Perhaps you can help me understand.

Are you saying we played well enough to win, but just didn't because we had no control over it?
Are you saying the defense played well in the 4th quarter?
Do you think that there is such a thing as the ability to make a play in the clutch? Do you think we showed that ability?

Do you disagree that the most important factor in winning Championships is making plays in the clutch?

Your comment about running the team is curious. I don't understand its relevance to this discussion. How does me saying all a game comes down to making plays or not and you inferring (and correct me if I am wrong) that its OK to not make the play if you were in position where you would usually make it have anything to do with running the team? How does discussing whether the defense failed to execute or whether its OK that they didn't because of what they would normally do affect running the team?

What point are you trying to make?

 

[BPF]

Who determines what % he can make the play?

You get one opportunity in a competitve sport, you either do it or you fail.
Most NFL games swing on 3-5 plays. You dont win by making the plays that are easy, you win by making the plays that are difficult.

As important as this SB was you can't get carried away by placing your entire evaluation of a player on 1 game. The player's overall history of making plays must be taken into account. That's why when you scout college players you don't only look at bowl games, you look at their entire body of work.

 

[makewayhomer]

What point are you trying to make?

Luck exists. some people are incapable of rationally analyzing an event and determining how important luck was. you are one of these people.

 

[makewayhomer]

Right, we should be running our team based on luck.

actually, thats what you're arguing. take an event, disregard the role chance played in it, and make decisions based solely on the result. THAT is letting luck run your team.

 

[Ring 6]

Luck exists. some people are incapable of rationally analyzing an event and determining how important luck was. you are one of these people.

Why do you right every response in an insulting way?
"Some people are incapable of rationally analyzing" is a ridiculously insulting way of saying that you chalk up the game to luck, and I believe you win or lose by making plays and to quote a trite phrase 'you make your own luck'.
Luck only happens when you allow someone the opportunity to get it. Manning never throws the pass if the rushers corrall him, and Tyree never catches it if he is covered well. They made good plays, but they only made them because we did not, and allowed them to.

 

[Ring 6]

actually, thats what you're arguing. take an event, disregard the role chance played in it, and make decisions based solely on the result. THAT is letting luck run your team.

That makes absolutely no sense. You are saying make decisions based on calling failure bad luck. I am saying the players job is to make plays, they either make them or they dont.
How can my method have luck run the team, when my method says players have to make plays. You want to make excuses for them.

Do you honestly think that highly successful people look at things that go wrong, blame it on bad luck, and keep doing the same thing? Thats a bizarre approach. Highly successful people look only at what they CONTROL. If we had a safety on the field who could cover better than Harrison, that play is never completed. If we had a nickel back who covered better than Gay, the Giants would have been much less successful on offense.
The answer isn't to hide behind your flaws and chalk it up to bad luck, the answer is to correct your flaws. When you lose, you have flaws.

 

[GoWhalers]

I agree that the Giants were definately targetting Gay exclusively -- but I think it was because he was so obviously playing hurt after the first several series. Give credit to the guy for staying out there, because he would come up writhing after each tackle.

My only question is -- where/who is the backup for Gay, and how come Belichick didn't put him in after the Giants were gunning for him?

The safeties were some rotation of Harrison, Sanders, and Merriweather.

So who does that leave as a CB option? Willie Andrews? Eugene Wilson? Troy Brown (inactive)? Doesn't sound very good...

 

[mgteich]

Now, you understand. We had our three safeties out there in the dime package: Harrison, Sanders and Meriweather. We had our three corner out there: Samuel, Hobbs and Gay. Gay was hurt and could only operate at 50%. Harrison was having trouble in coverage.

Spann was the #4 corner and obviously not even as good as Gay at 50%. It would seem that Wilson should have been able to come in ar safety, with Sanders moving to nickel as he did for some of last year.

To effectively play a dime defense, a team needs at least seven defensive backs who can cover, to be able to absorb one injury. Obviously, the ideal for any unit is to be able to absorb two injuries (as is the case on the OL or DL).

I agree that the Giants were definately targetting Gay exclusively -- but I think it was because he was so obviously playing hurt after the first several series. Give credit to the guy for staying out there, because he would come up writhing after each tackle.

My only question is -- where/who is the backup for Gay, and how come Belichick didn't put him in after the Giants were gunning for him?

The safeties were some rotation of Harrison, Sanders, and Merriweather.

So who does that leave as a CB option? Willie Andrews? Eugene Wilson? Troy Brown (inactive)? Doesn't sound very good...

 

[makewayhomer]

That makes absolutely no sense. You are saying make decisions based on calling failure bad luck

no, you don't understand.

an intelligent person should be able to separate where 'lack of skill' was the reason for the failure from where 'bad luck' was the reason for failure.

casinos don't throw away perfectly good slot machines when people win. they realize that even when the odds are in your favor, sometimes you lose. but in the long run, putting yourself in a position where the odds are in your favor is all you can do.

 

[captain stone]

We lost because the greatest offense in NFL history was ***** slapped in the trenches for two and a half quarters by a DL you didn't think could hold their collective jocks. The worst players on the field in the SB were the NE Patriots Oline and their incompetent assistants, the NE TE's. 5 sacks, 8 knockdowns, untold hits in 21 pressures. That's 50% of NE's total offensive snaps dominated by 4 and occasionally 5 guys you assessed as posing no serious threat to impact a juggernaut passing offense indoors under climate controlled optimum passing conditions. We managed just two scoring drives seperated by two and a half quarters in which we couldn't even sniff the red zone. One of those came before the Giants DL got dialed in, the other came when they were finally, mercifully gassed.

Our defense gave up half as many points on Sunday as they did in the regular season matchup when we only beat them by 3. The problem was the Offense produced considerably less than half as many points.

This particular matchup, in a nutshell, is the primary reason why the NEP are not the SB Champs. Because the jints only needed to rush 4 or 5 defenders to be effective, they could therefore keep 7 or 6 in coverage to provide less room, and demand greater time, for our receivers to become open. And time was something, amoung others, that our OL did not give our QB vey often.

This unprecedented , tackle-to-tackle breakdown has left us (at least me) in a state of shock, bewilderment and self-doubt. And has left a question which needs an answer. Does this OL require either one more year together to perfect the zone-blocking system, or one or more replacements to patch its hole(s)?

My answer: the FO must determine whether the future at OT is presently on the roster, or awaits it in the draft. LG and C are the only 2 positions with which I feel comfortable going forward, though neither Mankins nor Koppen played well at all Sunday. RG will depend on Steven Neal's health. Matt Light is a good (not great) LT, but would be a better RT. Too bad that the FO didn't acquire Jason Peters, a UDFA, during the '04 draft.

Now, as for the defense: I smell what both AJ and MWH are cooking. If they would only combine their dishes, a satisfying conclusion could be made.

The first visible sign of the bad tidings to come was the opening drive, and the 4 straight(!) 3rd-down conversions. That drive told the jints, right then, that they could win the SB. It was extremely frustrating to watch. In hindsight, applying normal pressue but tighter, and more physical, coverage from the very first snap might have sent a louder message to Ellie: You'll have to earn every yard, because we're not giving any of them away.

On 2 of the jints' 3 other 1st-half possessions, partly because of the excellent field position provided by our PK (jints 40) and P (jints 43), they faced 3rd-and-makeable from inside our 30 and came away empty-handed both times. The other possession resulted in one of only two 3-and-outs our defense produced, although it should have really resulted in a fumble recovery at the jints' 30.

BTW, could we please, for once aquire a young, strong punter who knows where the coffin corner is, and what playing correct situational football means? Chris Hanson pissed me off all night long. Instead of pinning the jints inside their 10-yard line to start the 4th quarter, the idiot booms one into the EZ for a TB. Very next play: 45 yard catch-and-run to Kevin Effin Boss. If Hanson is our punter next season, I'll be surprised and very, very upset.

My point, to make a long story longer, is that the defense, by sitting in soft coverages with minimal pressure, played with fire all night long and got us all burned at the end. Even on the first play of the jints' winning drive, Ellie completed an 11-yard pass. WTF was that about? People rightly complain about our offense's inability to counter the jints' pressure; but where were the adjustments in coverage by our defense?

In the end, Luck = Preparation + Opportunity. I don't know about the jints' preparation, but the Patriots - players and coaches, offense, defense and STs - certainly provided them the opportunity. And that's something they never should have allowed to happen.

 

[Ring 6]

no, you don't understand.

an intelligent person should be able to separate where 'lack of skill' was the reason for the failure from where 'bad luck' was the reason for failure.

casinos don't throw away perfectly good slot machines when people win. they realize that even when the odds are in your favor, sometimes you lose. but in the long run, putting yourself in a position where the odds are in your favor is all you can do.

OK separate lack of skill form bad luck.
The defense did not have the skill to stop the Giants when they went to '2 minute' offense on those 2 drives. They converted everything.
Lets say Tyree drops that pass and its 4th and 5. Are you telling me you saw anything else on those drives that says we would have stopped them?
Was the 45 yard pass to a slow rookie TE luck? Did we not cover or tackle because of luck? The Giants ran something like 25 plays on those 2 drives. Its insane to say we lost because of luck on a single 3rd and 5 play that may or may not have made the difference.
Watch the game again. Tell me how its luck that we couldnt stop a 4th and 1, or that Smith was wide open on the last 3rd down. Or that we couldnt cover Burress in the end zone. Of that Toomer caught that pass right at the sticks and no one was within 4 yards of him on a 3rd and 10, or............................................................................................................................
There were numerous plays that we allowed.
We gave up 152 passing yards IN THE 4TH QUARTER. What part of that is luck?

You could argue that the Hobbs Int off a deflected ball was luck. Would that have cost a TD?
There are simply too many plays that are made or not made in a football game to judge the outcome as luck.
When the game comes down to a final drive and you dont get it done, you can place the blame on luck. You did not play well enough to win.

When assessing why, and looking at the big picture you see that 2 minute defense has been an issue all year and last year as well. You see that there were 2 defensive players who the opponent QB absolutely picked on all day long. Its irrefuatable that many, many times, Manning dropped back and look nowhere else but at the receiver Gay or Harrison was covering. If that was their game plan and it led to them winning, wouldn't we want to address that? In every close game this year 2 minute defense was a problem. we overcame it with red zone stops, or an Int, or the offense pulling it out, but never because we defended well in the 2 minute D.
To say that we don't need to address 2 minute D because we find one play that seems unlikely and we can chalk it up to luck and keep doing the same thing is to ignore every other play all season long. To add to that the fact that even outside of that play we were poor in 2 minute D in that game, because we wish we would have won if that play didn't occur is also hiding from the truth.

Are you saying we have good 2 minute defense? Are you saying with good 2 minute defense we would have still lost? That is the issue at hand, not whether we consider that play lucky. Even without that play, we may still be sitting in the same predicament, because I saw nothing in the 2 minute D that says we certainly would have stopped them if that play ended up incomplete.

 

[Horace's Ivories]

I agree with the premise that the D lost the game because that is what transpired. The O-line struggled because that was a Champ quality Giant DL. In spite of that the Pat's offense made it work and scored when it had to and should have counted the most. The D gave up two TDs in the 4th QTR! The weakness in the middle routes with Rodney, Bru and Seau had been exploited since the Eagles game. I think the fact the D, as a whole, hadnt lost a game to this point is a tribute the O and the DL to some extent.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree with the premise that the D lost the game because that is what transpired. The O-line struggled because that was a Champ quality Giant DL. In spite of that the Pat's offense made it work and scored when it had to and should have counted the most. The D gave up two TDs in the 4th QTR! The weakness in the middle routes with Rodney, Bru and Seau had been exploited since the Eagles game. I think the fact the D, as a whole, hadnt lost a game to this point is a tribute the O and the DL to some extent.

Ive never bought into assessing a game based on what if. You cant blame the D in a low scoring game or the O in a high scoring game because they played well enough to win if............................. does nothing for me.
The IF doesnt exist. Winning isnt about playing well enough to win if everyone else does their job, its about playing well enough to win despite what everyone else does. And that comes down to winning the OPPORTUNITY to end the game.
If its 58-57 and the game ends with your offense throwing an Int in the end zone, your offense played better throughout the game than your defense, but TO WIN YOUR OFFENSE NEEDED TO END IT. Same thing in a low scoring game. No matter what your defense did all day long, when they are on the field and the game will be decided on that drive, they will be judged solely by that drive. Why? Because they had the opportunity to win the game.

There are 2 ways to win:
1) Play so well that there is never a critical late play
2) Make the critical late play

No matter how much you contribute other than that, you didnt do the job of winning unless you accomplished one of the other.

Perhaps another way to put it is the defense didnt lose the game but it didnt win it, and it had the opportunity to. If you are a mediocre team, it is what it is, but if you are trying to be a Champion you aren't getting there often if you cannot win the game, and the fact that you played well enough to win if.................... means nothing.