138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]Anyone for Arian Foster for our pick #31?  ..
    Posted by Faucetman[/QUOTE]

    that's a tough question.
    will mcdaniels make the run a real part of their game or is it going to be just for token display - as it's been since 2007? has the o philisophy really changed since he left?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Faucetman. Show Faucetman's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?! : that's a tough question. will mcdaniels make the run a real part of their game or is it going to be just for token display - as it's been since 2007? has the o philisophy really changed since he left?
    Posted by seattlepat70[/QUOTE]
    Maybe not but he didn't have Arian Foster either.  Let's assume we don't get BJGE and his 3.7 ypc back and instead we get Foster and his 4.7 career ypc.  Do you think our run game might be a little more explosive and our play-action a little more believable?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?! : Maybe not but he didn't have Arian Foster either.  Let's assume we don't get BJGE and his 3.7 ypc back and instead we get Foster and his 4.7 career ypc.  Do you think our run game might be a little more explosive and our play-action a little more believable?
    Posted by Faucetman[/QUOTE]

    i'll take whatever will make the pats integrate the run into their o.
    let me remind you though that the pats won two SBs despite a smith's ypc of no more than 4.0
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Faucetman. Show Faucetman's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?! : i'll take whatever will make the pats integrate the run into their o. let me remind you though that the pats won two SBs despite a smith's ypc of no more than 4.0
    Posted by seattlepat70[/QUOTE]
    that was in '01 but in '04 we rode Corey Dillion's 1800 yards or whatever it was.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    rb crew in 03 was faulk, cloud, smith

    as i said, whatever will make the pats integrate the run game. i think it's going to take a lot to convince the rest of the league that the pats will be willing to mix it up on key situations and not rely too much on tb's arm to convert first dwns. the pats will have to prove that the pats will be willing to earn the win against a good run d with their ground game... sometimes lose to a good run d with their ground game. if they can do that, i think it will be good for tb's passing game in the playoffs.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from FrnkBnhm. Show FrnkBnhm's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?! : all season we talked about pts being more important than any other metric -- i.e., yards, top, etc. d allowed less pts than nyg's norm o scored 17 pts below their norm if you credit the 17 pt drop in o production to nyg d, then you have to credit pats d for keeping their offense from achieving their normal production the alternative conclusion would be to say that both offenses sucked, the pats o just sucked much more in other words if you use consistent logic, the conlusion would either be that the o sucked or the d did well. otherwise you are just using a double standard to suit the conclusion you want.
    Posted by seattlepat70[/QUOTE]

    It is not a double standard. The Patriots are more effected by the slower style of play because of the offense they run. Look at their record in low scoring games. They were 2-3 including the Super Bowl (wins versus the Cowboys and the Ravens and two losses to the Giants and one to the Steelers). In the higher scoring games they were 13-1 (with the only coming in Buffalo).

    I am not saying the Giant were not trying to score, but they were certainly trying to keep the game low scoring. During the regular season the average around 12 possessions a game the same as everyone else. The could have played at a faster pace and kept this game at 12 possessions (in which case they probably would have scored another TD and an FG the way the game went), but the did not think they could be the Patriots in a game where both teams were in the 30s.

    The Patriots winning is predicated on scoring fast and repeated. This defense was at it's best playing with big leads in high scoring games where the other team feels the pressure to keep up with them. All they need is a turnover or a couple of three and outs so the Patriots can score a few quick TDs in a row and you are playing catchup to them.

    The Giants (even after giving up 17 straight point in the game) never wavered from their game plan. They played conservative (the ran the ball even when trailing in the second half), they never turned the ball over (don't talk about lucky bounces less than half of all fumbles in the NFL are recovered by the defense), the never had a 3-and-out, even when the did not score they moved the ball they got at least two first downs every possession and crossed the 50 every possession. 

    Yards are not a meaningless metric of how good a defense is. The yards allowed by the Patriots defense in the Super Bowl left them on with a long field everytime the got the ball. The Patriots average starting field position was their OWN 16! Their best starting field position was their OWN 29! That is a long field on every single possession. Those yards matter. When a team has a drive of 10 plays for 50 yards and you get the ball on your own 8 yard-line instead of the 50 yard-line, those 50 yards matter because you offense needs to get them back.

    Coughlin wanted a low scoring game. Belichick wanted a high-scoring game. The Giants won that battle and it left them in position to win the game. It is the third time the Giants have tried to do the same thing to Patriots and been successful.

    In the case of this game, points are a meaningless metric of how well the Patriots defense played. Not getting any 3-and-outs. Allowing a team to run time off the clock everytime the touch the ball. Allowing the team to score on 50% of it's possessions. Allowing the team to cross the 50-yard on every possession. Not forcing a turnover when you averaged 2 per game coming in. That is not a good defensive game regardless of the final score.
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    I can't believe that a rational person who has watched the Pats play over the past decade can't see how the Giants beat us and not compare their game plan to the 2001, 2003, 2004 Patriots...

    How about this; the Patriot teams that ran to set up the pass (2001, 2003, 2004) are 3-0 in the Super Bowl.  The Patriots teams that pass to set up the run are 0-2 along with a handful of embarrassing playoff exits where they didn't even sniff the Super Bowl.

    We've become the Colts. Teams like the Giants and 49ers play like the Patriots of old...

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!



    The Patriots of 2001, 2003, and 2004 were different teams. The game plans that worked then won't work now. Our defense is much worse this year, our running backs are worse, and we have less diversity in our receivers.  Sorry, but just because something worked in the past isn't proof that it will work today with a different team! 

    Now, if you want to reconstruct the team to look more like the 2003 or 2004 team, that's fine.  But until that reconstruction happens calling for the Pats to run the game plans from 2003 and 2004 makes no sense.  We don't have the same players. We're a very different team. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?! : the weird thing is that nyg did 4.1 ypc on the ground while the pats did 4.4.
    Posted by seattlepat70[/QUOTE]


    Thanks in large part to the reverses run by Welker, which netted 21 yards on two plays, and the one run to the edge for 17 yards by BJGE.  Nearly half our yardage total was from just those three plays.  As usual, when we ran more typical running plays, we tended to get very short yardage.  We also had three runs for negative yardage (compared with just one for negative yardage for the Giants). Credit the coaches for using trickery to get more out of the running game than can be expected given its poor quality.  But sorry guys, if you line BJGE up and run him in normal running formations, he's terrible.  He gets his gains when defenses are caught off guard.  Good running teams can get yards even when they show run.  You can't disguise your plays and use tricks all the time.  To be good at something you have to be able to beat teams with it when they're expecting it.  


      


     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxbo. Show soxbo's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    if Welker holds on to that ball .  . this discussion is turned on it's head.

    "Pats beat Giants at their own game".


     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ytsejamer1. Show Ytsejamer1's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    I'd rather run for a couple yards, taking some time off the clock, give the defense something other than a quick pass to defend, rather than throwing passes into the defensive line, incomplete, stopping the clock, etc.  Based on the success they were having running to the outside (Giants safeties and LB were in the middle of the field), they should have done that to open up the middle.

    It really is a bad way to play big games, against good teams.  How many bad games do we have to see from Brady before people think maybe it's a good idea to change things up?  I love Brady...he's a great QB...but he's not immune to brain farts and poor throws.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxbo. Show soxbo's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    another thing.  Chung wiffed on the Manningham play.  He missed him!  he could have knocked the ball out . .  or hit him directly.  he would not have held it if he got a direct it.  He hit Moore harder than he hit
    Manningham!  -  if he makes that play . .  then we are calling this the best Pat team ever

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxbo. Show soxbo's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    another thing.  Chung wiffed on the Manningham play.  He missed him!  he could have knocked the ball out . .  or hit him directly.  he would not have held it if he got a direct it.  He hit Moore harder than he hit
    Manningham!  -  if he makes that play . .  then we are calling this the best Pat team ever
     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!



    Actually, Brady throwing so much is why we went 15-3 and got to the Super Bowl.  If Belichick was reading Rusty's posts and handing off to BJGE 20 times a game and "reining Brady in,"  the team would have been 8 and 8 at best. 

    That's the real truth. 
     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]Umm, no it's not. Check 2010's box scores for proof. NE went 14-2. Thanks for playing today, Prolate.
    Posted by RustyGriswold[/QUOTE]

    Oh yeah.  I guess Bill Belichick forgot to read last year's box scores before he made his game plans.  Damn . . . you better get on the phone right now and remind him . . .

    Maybe you should look harder at Benny's 10 carries for 19 yards (1.9 avg) against the Jets in week two or his 10 carries for 20 yards (2.0 avg) against the Ravens in week 6 or the 11 carries for 24 yards (2.2 avg) in week seven against the chargers, or his 9 carries for 14 yards (1.6 avg) in week 9 against the Browns or even his 4.0 average over 18 attempts against the Jets in week 13 or his 4.1 average in 21 carries against Chicago in week 14 or his 4.0 average in week 16 against the Dolphins.  Sure he had a few big games against teams like the Bills, the Vikings, Green Bay, and even Pittsburgh (which was his most impressive game last year statswise), but for the most part he was a pretty pedestrian running back. This year his only really decent games were against Oakland in week four and the Jets in week five. 

    He's just not that good.  



     
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxbo. Show soxbo's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

     We lost in Buffalo in Week 3 for the same reason why just we lost in the SB. Truth hurts. Truth hurts.


    yes.  i guess it does.  
    i know it does.

    the truth.

    hurts.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE] We lost in Buffalo in Week 3 for the same reason why just we lost in the SB. Truth hurts. Truth hurts. yes.  i guess it does.   i know it does. the truth. hurts.
    Posted by soxbo[/QUOTE]

    Yeah. Most every loss we have is due to the lack of a D stop in the endgame.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?! : Yeah. Most every loss we have is due to the lack of a D stop in the endgame.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    Can you create one post without your constant whining about the defense as an excuse for Brady's mistakes. Do you know how stupid you sound? Ever hear of the little known method of the offense running the clock down?
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?! : Can you create one post without your constant whining about the defense as an excuse for Brady's mistakes. Do you know how stupid you sound? Ever hear of the little known method of the offense running the clock down?
    Posted by glenr[/QUOTE]

    Actually, Babe's one of the smart ones on the board who realizes that the D was as big a problem as the offense. 

    And running the clock down wouldn't have helped much.  In fact, what we needed was a bit more clock, not less.  Having to score on a 57 second ninth possession wasn't good.  We were already short about three possessions because of the Giants' ability to mount long drives and eat clock themselves.  Reducing possessions further wasn't likely to help us, unless we could prevent the Giants from staying on the field as long as they were staying on it.  We needed to give our offense at least one more chance to mount a good drive, not one less. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MichFan. Show MichFan's posts

    Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!

    Stats are nothing...The Giants had a very good team and regardless of the stats they had an excellent defense.   The defense may have accumulated some crapy stats early in the year but the last half of the year they played D better than any of them, along with the Ravens.
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share