rabidfireweasel
Practice Squad Player
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2011
- Messages
- 204
- Reaction score
- 130
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.
If, probably, might, maybe dont cut it, but you make my point beautifully about why the Pats can expect injuries and the need to have other legitimate options besides Gronk or the next Welker when they occur.
If youre going to live and die by offense then so be it.
2007
31-20 31 2
21-12 21 2
14-17 14 1
2009
14-33 14 2
2010
21-28 21 0
2011
45-10 45 1
23-20 20 1
17-21 17 0
2012
41-24 41 1
13-28 13 0
total 23.7 ppg despite the defense only averaging 1 TO per game. No specials teams scores and zero defensive scores
The offense isn't the only problem. It is actually better than in the pre-2007 era, although it has struggled at times. The problem is compounded by the fact that this D rarely forces turnovers and never scores. All of the pressure (and much of the payroll) is on the offensive side of the ball.
If Chad Jackson hadnt turned out to be a bust he probably would still be in NE and on your fantasy team.
If Larry Maroney didnt dance he would probably have a Super Bowl ring and the Pats wouldnt have had to spend more picks on RBs.
If Ocho Stinko spent less time at Starbucks and on Twitter learning his Pats playbook. He would have known where to line up and he probably would have a Super Bowl ring. He probably wouldnt be divorced too.
If, probably, might, maybe dont cut it, but you make my point beautifully about why the Pats can expect injuries and the need to have other legitimate options besides Gronk or the next Welker when they occur.
If youre going to live and die by offense then so be it.
You are not listing true offensive numbers, you are listing points scored.
According to my tracking (there could be errors, but none are intentional or meant to mislead)
Score Offensive Points Forced Turnovers
2001
16-13 16 0
24-17 17 (T.Brown return) 4
20-13 13 (Ty Law Return) 3
2003
17-14 17 1
24-14 22 (safety) 5
32-29 32 1
2004
20-3 20 3
41-27 34 (Harrison return) 4
24-21 21 4
2005
28-3 21 (Samuel Return) 2
13-27 13 1
2006
37-16 30 (Samuel return) 2
24-21 21 4
34-38 27 (Samuel return) 1
21.8 per game off offense despite the fact that the defense caused 2.5 turnovers per game. Did not win a game by more than 3 points when they failed to cause 2 turnovers.
No worries. As I said, there might me errors, as I was manually checking old box scores.Picking a nit, but in the 2001 AFCCG (technically played in 2002, of course), the Patriots scored *14* non-offensive points, not just 7. They had a punt return for a TD plus a blocked FG for a TD. So in 2001, the Patriots *offense* just scored 39 points in three games:
16 against Oakland (in OT)
10 against Pittsburgh
13 against St. Louis
Thank the good Lord that the defense and special teams played out of their minds during that run. They only allowed 47 points total, and managed to score 21 of their own. That's pretty amazing when you think about it.
Sorry, Ivan, but the fact that you dignify TonyTo3690's dumb thread with a dumb poll doesn't speak highly of you.
The fact is that the stats you posted aren't even close to all the data that is needed. You totally ignore the defenses that were faced. You ignore any injuries that the Pats might have had that would have reduced the effectiveness of the offense as a whole. You ignore the differences in the coaching staffs and the base formations that the Pats were running. All of that information has a huge bearing on how the offenses do.
Yes, the last 3 losses in the postseason were definitely affected by the lack of the defense being able to get even ONE turnover in 12 quarters of play, especially after excelling in the area during the regular season.
And as you said, absolutely zero contributions by ST and/or defensive scoring, although those are rare we see many teams take advantage of those kinds of things during that time of the year. It was probably the main reason why the 2001 team ended up winning the SB after all.
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. I think *THIS* is, when all is said and done, the single largest factor in the Patriots postseason "failures".
Let's compare, for example, the 2001 Super Bowl with the 2011 Super Bowl.
2001
- 3 turnovers caused; one defensive TD
- 11 offensive drives
- average starting field position: NE - own 27; StL - own 22
2011
- 0 turnovers caused
- 9 offensive drives
- average starting field position: NE - own 16; NYG - own 24
When your offense only has 9 offensive drives, and you start from your own 16, you are not expected to score many points. According to this (Advanced NFL Stats: Expected Points), a 1st and 10 situation from your own 16 has an expected point value of just over zero. Here are their approximate expected point totals from their 9 starting field position spots in SB 46:
NE 6 = -0.5
NE 29 = +1
NE 20 = +0.5
NE 2 = -0.5
NE 21 = +0.5
NE 17 = +0.3
NE 20 = +0.5
NE 8 = 0
NE 20 = +0.5
Total expected points: 2.3
In other words, given their starting field position, the Patriots should have scored about 3 points. Or, rather, it had an expected point value of +2.3. Obviously you can't score negative points, so those negative numbers imply that a turnover that deep in your own end should yield points for the other team, etc.
So the bottom line is that the Patriots offense, to score 17 points in that game, actually did pretty well, given the crappy field position their defense and special teams gave them. At no point did the D or ST units give the offense anything even remotely resembling a short field. It was a long field, and they only had 9 cracks at it. And, obviously, the D or ST units didn't contribute any actual points of their own, unlike what happened in the 2001 Super Bowl.
For comparison's sake, here is the 2001 Super Bowl based on the expected points values:
NE 3 = -0.5
NE 19 = +0.5
NE 42 = +1.5
NE 15 = +0.3
NE 40 = +1.5
NE 32 = +1.0
NE 19 = +0.5
StL 33 = +3.3
NE 25 = +0.6
NE 20 = +0.5
NE 17 = +0.3
Total expected points: +9.5
The Pats also got 7 points from the defense. Thus, the Patriots' defense and special teams in 2001 "gave" the Patriots about 14.2 points more than they did in 2011 (7 points plus the difference between 9.5 and 2.3).
So yeah, we can say that the lack of turnovers and quick stops REALLY hurt the Patriots in 2011 compared with 2001, where their D and ST units did a phenomenal job setting the Patriots up.
I think it's a combination of two of the choices. Bad luck (Gronk and other injuries), and some minor tweaks needing to be made (improvements at WR3, less dependence on two TE sets, upgrades at interior OL). Still, without the injury to Gronk, this team is hoisting the Lombardi after the 2011 season as Eli mopes off the field. So that I would put at número uno. Tweaks would come in at a very close second.
Why do people keep saying that? Did the giants not beat the Pats earlier that season in Foxboro, with a healthy Gronkowski?
ABANDON SHIP! Trade, Welker, Gronk, Hern, Brady, Lloyd, Ridley, fire BB and start over!
Nah, I think we only need a few tweaks and we'll be fine.
Nobody is saying anything about blowing it up. Just tweaking it.
Thanks for your incredibly insightful post.
And by insightful I of course mean completely worthless.