unmentioned element of run game

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Who cares if they went three and out or five and out, the Pat's D made them punt more often than the Giants D made us punt.  Moreover the D erased the mistakes and inefficiency of the offense turning it over and leaving us on our side of the field the entire game by holding the Giant's to two field goals.  

    Our D wasn't great, they were simply average all year, but they played better than our offense did on the biggest stage.  That's why you see big changes on offense this year while the defensive philosophy stays the same.

    [/QUOTE]

    ummm the idea is that 3 & outs prevent scoring and gives the ball back to the O, they didn't even get a 6 & out.  Case closed!

    [/QUOTE]

    They don't give points for 3 & outs.  

    The Giant's punted 4 times which means the defense held them 4 times not including the times our offense left us stranded on our side of the field and our D held them to field goals... you don't really understand how this scoring thing works do you?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Umm, three and outs PREVENT scoring and yes, you do get points for that figuratively.(statistically)  ex:  if the D had gotten a 3 & out on either of the scoring drives, the Pats would have won.   For each failed three and out, you are keeping the ball away from your own O.  Instead they got ZERO.   Please check your own knowledge before you call any one else for being dumb.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    The Giants scored on half their drives (not counting the kneel down as a drive).  Who cares if they punted on the other half.  It's the scoring on half that matters. 

    The punts, by the way, came on drives of 6:00 (10 plays), 3:48 (8 plays), 4:21 (7 plays), and 4:53 (10 plays).  They may not have resulted in scores, but they sure helped the Giants control TOP. 

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to jri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Giants scored on half their drives (not counting the kneel down as a drive).  Who cares if they punted on the other half.  It's the scoring on half that matters. 

    The punts, by the way, came on drives of 6:00 (10 plays), 3:48 (8 plays), 4:21 (7 plays), and 4:53 (10 plays).  They may not have resulted in scores, but they sure helped the Giants control TOP. 

    [/QUOTE]

    And field position.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes.  That too.  Especially that. 

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to jri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Giants scored on half their drives (not counting the kneel down as a drive).  Who cares if they punted on the other half.  It's the scoring on half that matters. 

    The punts, by the way, came on drives of 6:00 (10 plays), 3:48 (8 plays), 4:21 (7 plays), and 4:53 (10 plays).  They may not have resulted in scores, but they sure helped the Giants control TOP. 

    [/QUOTE]

    And field position.

    [/prolate0spheroid] "The Giants scored on half their drives (not counting the kneel down as a drive).  Who cares if they punted on the other half.  It's the scoring on half that matters."

    I wish you held last year's Patriot offense to the same rigid, results based expectations you had for the Giant's and then we could agree.  17 points in todays NFL won't cut it.  We knew that leading up to the game, our offense had to score big to win; they didn't.

     

     

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Giants scored on half their drives (not counting the kneel down as a drive).  Who cares if they punted on the other half.  It's the scoring on half that matters. 

    The punts, by the way, came on drives of 6:00 (10 plays), 3:48 (8 plays), 4:21 (7 plays), and 4:53 (10 plays).  They may not have resulted in scores, but they sure helped the Giants control TOP. 

    [/QUOTE]

    And field position.

    [/prolate0spheroid] "The Giants scored on half their drives (not counting the kneel down as a drive).  Who cares if they punted on the other half.  It's the scoring on half that matters."

    I wish you held last year's Patriot offense to the same rigid, results based expectations you had for the Giant's and then we could agree.  17 points in todays NFL won't cut it.  We knew that leading up to the game, our offense had to score big to win; they didn't.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I've said all along that I never really believed the Pats were a championship team last year.  Defense wasn't good enough and the offense was too one dimensional.  I've maintained all along that I think the coaches (including the offensive coordinator who you call a "clown") did a fabulous job to just get them to the Super Bowl. I wish they would have won, but I'm not criticizing the coaches for winning an AFC championship with a team that most coaches would have been lucky to get to 9-7. 

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Giants scored on half their drives (not counting the kneel down as a drive).  Who cares if they punted on the other half.  It's the scoring on half that matters. 

    The punts, by the way, came on drives of 6:00 (10 plays), 3:48 (8 plays), 4:21 (7 plays), and 4:53 (10 plays).  They may not have resulted in scores, but they sure helped the Giants control TOP. 

    [/QUOTE]

    And field position.

    [/prolate0spheroid] "The Giants scored on half their drives (not counting the kneel down as a drive).  Who cares if they punted on the other half.  It's the scoring on half that matters."

    I wish you held last year's Patriot offense to the same rigid, results based expectations you had for the Giant's and then we could agree.  17 points in todays NFL won't cut it.  We knew that leading up to the game, our offense had to score big to win; they didn't.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh my God, are you for real?  The fans DID hold the Pats O to beyond average expectations as in scoring on 50%  or more of their drives.  That IS NOT NORMAL!  Nonetheless, the Pats did manage to do it often enough but some crazies expected it (always) and give the totally ineffecient D a pass  because they were supposed to suck. You can't give one side a pass for underachieving and diss an O for not overachieving.  Ridiculous

     

Share