We lose because of turnovers-case closed

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2012. Show Evil2012's posts

    Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed

    In Response to Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed : You're also denying that the D had a chance to close it out and failed.  That's like charging the starting pitcher with a loss when the closer blows it.
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]

    Nobody is denying that. The point is it would have been a moot point had the offense not stunk the place up for 3 quarters. The offense surrendered a minimum of 9 points through those quarters. If we had those 9 it wouldn't have mattered would it?
     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2012. Show Evil2012's posts

    Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed

    In Response to Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed : I bet you weren't saying that last year.
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]

    Waht was his INT to TD ratio last year? What is it this year?
     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed

    In Response to Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed : Pathetic excuse for multible turnovers and 3 points in 3 quarters. Or do you also think that there is no advantage to having a lead earlier in a game.
    Posted by Evil2012[/QUOTE]

    The 2 aren't mutally exclusive.  I can think that an offense should score more than 3 points in 3 quarters but I can at the same time think when a defense is given a lead with 1:36 left, at home, the opposition shouldn't be in safe FG range with :35 seconds left. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2012. Show Evil2012's posts

    Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed

    In Response to Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed : What nine points?  A TD is worth nine points now?
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]

    Remedial math

    Brady INT at Giants 29 -3 points if a FG -7 if a TD
    Fumble on the Pats 8 at least -3 points turned out to be -7
    Botched chip shot FG -3 ( yes I consider the FG game to be offense )

    Do the math
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2012. Show Evil2012's posts

    Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed

    In Response to Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed : The 2 aren't mutally exclusive.  I can think that an offense should score more than 3 points in 3 quarters but I can at the same time think when a defense is given a lead with 1:36 left, at home, the opposition shouldn't be in safe FG range with :35 seconds left. 
    Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]

    How come when we do it it's because Brady is God. Other teams have good QBs that can run a two minute drill too.
     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2012. Show Evil2012's posts

    Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed

     Why is it that the most basic rule of a winning team, don't turn the ball over, doesn't apply to Brady? Is he special in that way?
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2012. Show Evil2012's posts

    Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed

    In Response to Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed : You CANNOT assume you score from the 29.
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]

    Why? Because we couldn't do it?

    But you can assume that no other team and QB in the NFL can run a 2 minute drill?
     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2012. Show Evil2012's posts

    Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed

    In Response to Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed : Did the Chargers tie the score against Green Bay?  The were at the GB 40 with about 40 seconds yesterday down by 7. Oh the Packers stopped them?  Well, it would have been Rodgers fault if they hadn't.
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]

    I see the Chargers are exactly the same as the Giants and Manning is exactly the same as Rivers. Not only that but the teams' entire offenses are exacly the same as well.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed

    The point that seems to be lost in this ongoing exchange is that by having the D on the field more than it has to be simply wears them down by the waning minutes of the 4th qtr.  Yes they gave up the points.  Why?  Because they were worn out. 

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beat-Boston. Show Beat-Boston's posts

    Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed

    In Response to Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed : Well, wasn't the Gints O worn out too? Put another way for the dumb, if the Pats D was out for 35 minutes wasn't the Giants O out there for 35 minutes as well?
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]

    No disrespect intended but this post indicates a basic lack of understanding of game dynamics.  The O knows where the play is going every time and once an offensive player's task is done he's done for the play.  Every member of the D must chase until the whistle.  Truly, that is basic.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed

    In Response to We lose because of turnovers-case closed:
    [QUOTE] Remember a time when the Patriots offense turning the ball over was a rare thing? No more it seems. Once again the offense gave up points by turning the ball over in the other team's red zone and gave the opponent points by turning the ball over in our red zone. It's getting old.
    Posted by Evil2012[/QUOTE]

    Two of the turnovers were INTs.  What was the cause? tipped pass, QB pressure or hit, poor QB decision to force a pass...?
     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed

    In Response to Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We lose because of turnovers-case closed : Oh so a WR that runs 40 yards can just duck off the field onto the Pats sideline?  He doesn't have to worry about sprinting back to the huddle? By saying "no disrespect intended" you are being disrespectful. It would be like David Duke saying he wasn't racist.
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]

    I'm not going to explain something further that really is basic to the game.  When I said no disrespect intended that is exactly what I meant.  You clearly do not know me because anyone who does will tell you that I never engage in personal attacks or demean other posters.  I try to speak to the topics and the issues only.  And I will say this again yet another way:  it is a basic tenet of the game that typically on a per minute played basis defensive players as a group expend more energy than do offensive players. 
     

Share