The Offense

[Ring 6]

That contradicts your earlier statement:

"And it will get better by losing Stallworth, Gaffney, and Brady without replacement."

That wasnt my statement.

 

[JR4]

I guess this is just a disagreement on what wins Championship. My opinion has been, where the Pats are concerned since 2001, and where football is concerned, long before that, that you win Championships by playing your best when the game is on the line. You can eliminate 18 3/4 games from this discussion in my opinion because all those 18 3/4s games did was put the team into a position to win a Championship if they did what Champions do, and made plays when the game was on the line, played there best when it mattered most. The defense failed tremendously in that test.

AJ, 1/4 game does not make a game. 60 minutes does. How that offense
played in the first 3/4 of that game had a great deal to do with how the
D was able to play in the last 1/4. You know that but you are just being
stubborn. It is just too simplistic to look at just look at one play or one
drive and say see it was that play or that drive that lost the game.
Everything in interrelated especially things the contribute to a tired defense in the 4thQ.

You predicted a blow out because you felt the Offense was going to score
30 to 40 points. Did the defense meet your prediction? You know it did.
What made your prediction way off, and mine, was the way the Offense
played. You know this is true. The Offense needs to improve not just
the defense.

 

[Ring 6]

AJ, 1/4 game does not make a game. 60 minutes does. How that offense
played in the first 3/4 of that game had a great deal to do with how the
D was able to play in the last 1/4. You know that but you are just being
stubborn. It is just too simplistic to look at just look at one play or one
drive and say see it was that play or that drive that lost the game.
Everything in interrelated especially things the contribute to a tired defense in the 4thQ.

You predicted a blow out because you felt the Offense was going to score
30 to 40 points. Did the defense meet your prediction? You know it did.
What made your prediction way off, and mine, was the way the Offense
played. You know this is true. The Offense needs to improve not just
the defense.

Why am I stubborn, and you are not when I stick to my believe and you stick to yours?
Thats always puzzled me, how 2 people can disagree and one thinks the other is stubborn.

Anyway.
I will say it again. MY opinion is that you win Championships by making plays when the game is on the line. Simple as that. If we were down 35-31 with 14:52 left in the game, and failed to score again, I'd blame the offense.

I'm not interested in who played better for what part of the game. I believe that to win Championships you need to win close games, and to win close games you need to play your best in the 4th quarter. The 4th quarter of a close game means more than the other 3 combined.

Who gives a shlt what I predicted? My prediction doesn't play the game, hell its just for fun and bravado anyway.

THE OFFENSE PLAYED WELL ENOUGH TO WIN THE GAME, THE DEFENSE DID NOT.
Why do I say this?
The offense responded to a Giant FG with a TD. They stayed ahead until the Giants scored in the 4th quarter, and answered it and took the lead back. They really never got another chance.

The defense, no doubt was asked to play well. So, thats their job. There are games when the defense has to carry you. This happened to be the first one all year, by the way.
I can somewhat accept the first 80 yard drive, because they had played well all day. The offnese picked them up and took the lead.

You will never, ever, convince me that when a perfect season, and SB Championship is on the line and your defense takes the field with a 4 point lead, and 2+ minutes left that winning or losing is not up to them. And when they fail THAT is the reason we lose the game. I don't know how much more simple I can say it. It isnt a computer game, it isnt baseball. A Championship team either wins or loses because it can or cannot come through at the most clutch moment. In the 2008 seaosn that most clutch momment was the responsbility of the defense, and it failed.

 

[SoonerPatriot]

I am in complete agreement. I hope they load up on defense in the draft.

I'd like to see a breakdown of how you would use the cap space for free agent signings, possible trades and the draft on defense.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Is it possible that Stephen Spach is considered an adequate blocking tight end? He is the guy we had in the last couple games of the playoffs in the 3TE sets. Correct me if this is nuts.

Dollar-wise, the way I see it is this:

We are in rough terms between 17.9M and 22M under the cap. Miguel's numbers add up to 17.9, and Kraft said 22M, but Miguel does not know whether Kraft counted 4 ERFAs in that #, and there seem to be some other variables. Please just click his link, because I do not want to further mangle what he says. But I'm going to take those as the "poles" of our present cap number.

Moss will cost us $4M in prorated signing bonus (12/3) in 2008. Let's say that the other $3M guaranteed money is his 2008 salary, for a total of a $7M cap hit.

That puts us at 10.9M - 15M under.

K-Wash's deal, if we'd picked up the bonus, would have been 4M over 5 years prorated (800K) + proration on the 300K signing bonus = 50K, plus 900K salary, for a total of 1.75M. I guess we are restructuring or cutting him, but I have not read anything definitive about him testing the waters elsewhere, so I am assuming a deal which trims some fat from this year or limits the length of that 5 year commitment... I think he comes back, costing about the same as expected (1.75) or less in 08.

1.75 would put us at 9.15 - 13.25 under.

We don't know what Sam Aiken is going to cost for 08. My guess is it will be decimal dust, more or less.

I don't think Gaffney walks. I think they work out his deal as insurance at the #3 receiver. This is obviously the make or break season for CJack. Another million, perhaps, but certainly nobody's counting on his signing.

We're also aware we have holes in the secondary, and a desire/need to get younger at LB.

Now I know we can restructure guys and free up more cap space. But it seems to me that we are not badly hurting on the offense, I mean if we can judge from something as flimsy as THE BEST OFFENSIVE PRODUCTION OF ALL TIME being the benchmark this team hit last year. Take away the difference between Stallworth and whoever is in the 3rd receiver role ("2nd" receiver, except everyone knows our slot guy is the 2.) That's all we're losing on O. I think it's great Stallworth is leaving, so he can have a legit shot to not be in Moss' shadow. We got him thinking he would be the 1, and after Moss fell into our lap, it became a bad fit. Good luck in Cleveland, buddy!

So we're looking to get our picks signed, have a reserve for in-season pickups, and address the departures of Gay and Samuel, plus the lb corps, with somewhere in the neighborhood of 9-13M (prior to restructuriing etc.?) Yeah I would say it is time to think about the defense.

But that's just me

PFnV

 

[ATippett56]

That wasnt my statement.

Oops sorry! My mistake.

 

[Deus Irae]

THE OFFENSE PLAYED WELL ENOUGH TO WIN THE GAME, THE DEFENSE DID NOT.
Why do I say this?

The Patriots surrendered 17 points during the Super Bowl, which was 0.1 points fewer than it allowed per game during the regular season. That 17 ppg number was the 4th best scoring defense in the league. The Giants season offensive scoring average was 23.3 ppg. In other words, the Patriots held the Giants scoring offense to 6.3 points fewer than its season average.

The Patriots offense scored only 14 points in the Super Bowl. The offense averaged 36.8 ppg during the regular season. New England had not scored fewer than 20 points in a game all season long. The Giants allowed an average of 21.9 ppg during the season. In other words, the Patriots offense was held to 22.8 points fewer than its season average and 7.9 points fewer than the Giants season defensive scoring average. As I pointed out before, prior to this season, no team had lost the Super Bowl while allowing fewer than 20 points since 1975. Had the Patriots offense simply matched its season low for points scored in a game, that streak would have continued.

Now, let's take a look at the scores of the losing teams in the Super Bowl, from this season back to 1975:

14,17,10,21,29,21,17,7,16,19,24,21,17,26,13,17,24,19,10,10,16,10,20,10,16,9,17,21,10,19,31,10,14,17,6

What do those numbers show? They show that, even in losing efforts, teams scored 17 points or more in 19 of the 33 Super Bowls since 1975 (just as an FYI, If you drop the number to 16, it makes it 22 of 33 Super Bowls in that span, or 2/3 of the games). Or, to put it another way, 52 out of the 66 teams to play in the Super Bowl since 1975 have scored 17 points or more during the game.

Your argument simply does not stand under scrutiny. The loss falls squarely on the offense, and particularly on the offensive line.

 

[SavioKid]

SB argument still?! Take that sh*t outside!!

...2008 season can't start fast enuf around here..

 

[DocE]

The Patriots surrendered 17 points during the Super Bowl, which was 0.1 points fewer than it allowed per game during the regular season. That 17 ppg number was the 4th best scoring defense in the league. The Giants season offensive scoring average was 23.3 ppg. In other words, the Patriots held the Giants scoring offense to 6.3 points fewer than its season average.

The Patriots offense scored only 14 points in the Super Bowl. The offense averaged 36.8 ppg during the regular season. New England had not scored fewer than 20 points in a game all season long. The Giants allowed an average of 21.9 ppg during the season. In other words, the Patriots offense was held to 22.8 points fewer than its season average and 7.9 points fewer than the Giants season defensive scoring average. As I pointed out before, prior to this season, no team had lost the Super Bowl while allowing fewer than 20 points since 1975. Had the Patriots offense simply matched its season low for points scored in a game, that streak would have continued.

Now, let's take a look at the scores of the losing teams in the Super Bowl, from this season back to 1975:

14,17,10,21,29,21,17,7,16,19,24,21,17,26,13,17,24,19,10,10,16,10,20,10,16,9,17,21,10,19,31,10,14,17,6

What do those numbers show? They show that, even in losing efforts, teams scored 17 points or more in 19 of the 33 Super Bowls since 1975 (just as an FYI, If you drop the number to 16, it makes it 22 of 33 Super Bowls in that span, or 2/3 of the games). Or, to put it another way, 52 out of the 66 teams to play in the Super Bowl since 1975 have scored 17 points or more during the game.

Your argument simply does not stand under scrutiny. The loss falls squarely on the offense, and particularly on the offensive line.

Although, I am REALLY trying to forget this game and would rather talk about next season, I wanted to respond to this.

I have gone back and forth in my mind on how much blame the defense deserves for this game. While it is absolutely true that the offense should have scored much more than 14 points, I do feel like the defense shares some blame for the loss.

Part of the reason the Patriots offense failed to score more than 14 points was that the Giants were able to shorten the game. To start the game, the Patriots defense allowed the longest drive in Super Bowl history. They forced many 3rd downs on this drive, but never made a play to get off the field. This drive set the tone for the game in my mind...it let the Giants know that they were in it. I have a feeling that the game would have turned out totally different if the Patriots would have forced a punt on that drive. The Patriots offense scored on their first drive...which didn't end until the the 2nd quarter.

I also feel like defense should have been able to stop a mediocre Giants offense from driving 83 yards for a TD with just 2 minutes and 40 seconds on the clock. The Pats talked about playing 60 minutes all year, and they certainly came up short of doing that in the last game of the season.

All that said, when the Patriots were up 7-3, they had 5 possessions with which to extend their lead and got nothing. The defense gave them 5 chances, and the offense didn't take advantage. If that game ever got to 14-3 (which it absolutely should have), I think it's a near certainty we'd be celebrating the greatest season in NFL history.

If I had to blame the loss on one side of the ball it would be the offense (with a vast majority of the blame going to the Oline), but an upset like that doesn't happen because one side of the ball didn't do their job.

 

[RayClay]

No, the pass happy offense didn't play well enough to win against a team whose pass rush was their best weapon and who decided they would get the QB or die trying.

They should have run the ball and stomped the almost exhausted Giants D.

Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread, but I just had to respond to that.

----

Original thought Eckel? We hardly use one fullback.

Why not pick up some undersized back and see if he can be groomed for the Faulk role? Lots of little scatbacks have trouble carving their niche. I see absolutely no reason to use up a spot on Eckel.

Otherwise, agree on the offense. Add a blocking TE and the WR situation will be fine no matter what with Randy and Wes.

This 5 pro bowl receiver stuff every year is ridiculous, your lucky if 3 are fully utilized.

 

[Deus Irae]

New England had drives of 56, 7, -14, 38, 48, 45, 20, 80, and -10 yards, but only got 14 points out of that.

The Patriots defense even created a turnover early in the second quarter, but the offense followed that turnover up with a 3-and-out. On the other hand, New England had a first and 10 on the Giants 44 at the end of the second quarter and fumbled the ball away. In fact, if you look at the second quarter of the game, you can see where New England's offense went a long way towards blowing the game by allowing the Giants to remain confident. Two 3-and-out possessions (one following a Giants' interception) which only took a total of 3:52, followed by a possession ending in a fumble on a 1st and 10 from the Giants 44 on a drive which only took 1:37.

Toss in the turnover on downs at the Giants 31 in the third quarter, and I just don't see how people can point to the defense as the problem in this game.

 

[neuronet]

Part of the reason the Patriots offense failed to score more than 14 points was that the Giants were able to shorten the game. To start the game, the Patriots defense allowed the longest drive in Super Bowl history.
[...]
If I had to blame the loss on one side of the ball it would be the offense (with a vast majority of the blame going to the Oline), but an upset like that doesn't happen because one side of the ball didn't do their job.

Just great points there. I had almost forgotten about that initial crazy long drive by the Giants. That really gave me a very very bad feeling. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[neuronet]

New England had drives of 56, 7, -14, 38, 48, 45, 20, 80, and -10 yards, but only got 14 points out of that.

The Patriots defense even created a turnover early in the second quarter, but the offense followed that turnover up with a 3-and-out. On the other hand, New England had a first and 10 on the Giants 44 at the end of the second quarter and fumbled the ball away. In fact, if you look at the second quarter of the game, you can see where New England's offense went a long way towards blowing the game by allowing the Giants to remain confident. Two 3-and-out possessions (one following a Giants' interception) which only took a total of 3:52, followed by a possession ending in a fumble on a 1st and 10 from the Giants 44 on a drive which only took 1:37.

Toss in the turnover on downs at the Giants 31 in the third quarter, and I just don't see how people can point to the defense as the problem in this game.

Crap I thought I was over the game, but this is really depressing me remembering all those lost opportunities the offense had. I was so bloody pissed off.

Obviously the loss is due to both sides of the ball, but I'd weight the blame 70% offense, 30% defense (the latter because of the initial quarter-long drive of the Giants, and their play in the last two minutes).

 

[JR4]

Crap I thought I was over the game, but this is really depressing me remembering all those lost opportunities the offense had. I was so bloody pissed off.
......................

I know thinking about that game hurts but like BB you must do it to
evaluate where the improvements must be for next year. You know other
teams will be looking at that game very carefully to see how Giants shut down
the best offense ever. if there are weaknesses .... Giants exposed them.

I do not believe it was because Giants Dline was so much better than PATs
players or Giants Dline is so much better than all other Dlines.
If you listen to Brady it took them until late in the game to figure out what they were doing.
It seems like a scheme picked the lock to PATs protection schemes.
If so then there is something other teams can do to emulate what the Giants did.
PATs must determine what that is and if personel changes are
needed then they need to address that this off season.
Many say it was the OLine and just had an off day. I can't believe the
Oline had an "OFF" day the whole game. Giants found away to disrupt
PATs protection schemes and got many Oline guys literally off balance.

I am not sure what they need to do on offense but I would look at the
running game very closely. When you can only average 2.8yds/carry in the
biggest game of the year .... something is wrong.
Coaching?, designed plays?, Fullback? TE? Tackel? Guard? RB?
or some combination ... to improve the run game.
If PATs could have run effectively in the SB, the offense wouldn't have
the problems it had. IMO

 

[Ring 6]

The Patriots surrendered 17 points during the Super Bowl, which was 0.1 points fewer than it allowed per game during the regular season. That 17 ppg number was the 4th best scoring defense in the league. The Giants season offensive scoring average was 23.3 ppg. In other words, the Patriots held the Giants scoring offense to 6.3 points fewer than its season average.

The Patriots offense scored only 14 points in the Super Bowl. The offense averaged 36.8 ppg during the regular season. New England had not scored fewer than 20 points in a game all season long. The Giants allowed an average of 21.9 ppg during the season. In other words, the Patriots offense was held to 22.8 points fewer than its season average and 7.9 points fewer than the Giants season defensive scoring average. As I pointed out before, prior to this season, no team had lost the Super Bowl while allowing fewer than 20 points since 1975. Had the Patriots offense simply matched its season low for points scored in a game, that streak would have continued.

Now, let's take a look at the scores of the losing teams in the Super Bowl, from this season back to 1975:

14,17,10,21,29,21,17,7,16,19,24,21,17,26,13,17,24,19,10,10,16,10,20,10,16,9,17,21,10,19,31,10,14,17,6

What do those numbers show? They show that, even in losing efforts, teams scored 17 points or more in 19 of the 33 Super Bowls since 1975 (just as an FYI, If you drop the number to 16, it makes it 22 of 33 Super Bowls in that span, or 2/3 of the games). Or, to put it another way, 52 out of the 66 teams to play in the Super Bowl since 1975 have scored 17 points or more during the game.

Your argument simply does not stand under scrutiny. The loss falls squarely on the offense, and particularly on the offensive line.

My argument completely passes scrutiny, you are just arguing against a different argument than the one I am making.

My entire argument is that winning or losing that game came down to making plays when the game was on the line. I could care less about averages, point totals, or anything that ever happended in the past.
The way this gaem developed it was in the hands of the defense to win, and they failed.

 

[JR4]

My argument completely passes scrutiny, you are just arguing against a different argument than the one I am making.

My entire argument is that winning or losing that game came down to making plays when the game was on the line. I could care less about averages, point totals, or anything that ever happended in the past.
The way this gaem developed it was in the hands of the defense to win, and they failed.

The probelm I have with your simplistic reason why the PATs lost,
is you isolate the last 2 minutes as if that was all there was to the game.
Sure it came down to the last two minutes. All games do. But the condition
and state of the game at that point has been determined by the first 58
minutes of the game

According to your argument, If Seymour, Wilfork and Warren all got hurt
and were not able to play it would still be the defense that lost the
game. Well .... you would be right ... but anyone in their right mind would
agree what happened to those three guys prior to the last two minutes
is the real reason why the Defense couldn't win it in the last two minutes.

The problem I have with your argument is it fails to acknowledge it takes 60
minutes to win the game and everything that happens in that time
frame contributes to a win or a loss not just 2 minutes. IMO.

If you listen to BB he Never says it was the last two minutes he talks about
the plays made and usually ends up saying they or we made a few
more plays to win it.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

...

No matter what else happens in a football game, if in the last 14:52 your D allows an 80 yard TD drive, gets the lead back and allows an 83 yard TD drive, and allows 150 passing yards in 14:52, your D lost you the game.

This is one we could argue til the cows come home.

1) If we look at the 41 prior SB's, wherein the average and median winning scores were 30.5 and 30.0 respectively, you can make the argument that our D allowed few enough points to win all but four of those previous games(SB's: III, V, VII and IX) and that seven of those points came with less than one minute to play. IMO, from that perspective, the burden is clearly on the offense and the defense more than did its job. if you're trying to make the argument that this just shows that the D is old and couldn't play four quarters after a draining season and post season, that's a tough argument to make since Time of Possession was practically equal and the Pats actually ran more plays than the Giants.

2) All night, our offense failed to pick up the rush and our coaches failed to adapt to what was happening on the field. that's been rehashed enough out here, but I put the primary blame on the offensive line play and the offensive coaching, all the way from not letting Gostkowski try a 4 & 13 kick that he'd been making in practice, through not spreading the field, going no-huddle and letting TB try to pick the defense apart, through the 20 times TB was hit or sacked right up to third and destiny when Tommy got planted for the final time, leaving only a Fourth Down Hail Mary for the game.

 

[chrisfx811]

Ask yourself which you would take your chances with before the game:
The defense only gives up 17 points?
or
The offense scores with 2:30 left on the clock to take the lead, but the Giants have 3 timeouts?

I would have taken #1 7 days a week, and a million times on Sunday.

 

[goz421]

Don't we get Thomas and Morris back from injury? Who else do we get back from injury?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Ask yourself which you would take your chances with before the game:
The defense only gives up 17 points?
or
The offense scores with 2:30 left on the clock to take the lead, but the Giants have 3 timeouts?

I would have taken #1 7 days a week, and a million times on Sunday.

well said!