Re: 138 pass att's to 55 rushing attempts in 3 losses in a row to the Giants?!?!?!
posted at 2/8/2012 2:41 AM EST
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.