Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.

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

    Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.

    In Response to Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.:
    [QUOTE]Well, we've gone over this 8 million times, but the reasons we lost were: 1. Giants executed well on both offense and defense (let's not forget there was another team involved!) 2. Our defense was unable to get the Giants off the field--the inability to consistently stop the drives of opposing offenses was a problem all year for the Pats; it continued to be a problem in the Super Bowl. 3. Our offense stalled on key drives; this is a sporadic problem for the Pats, which stems from the fact that we have too few top-quality offensive skills players around Brady and we rely too heavily on Welker and Gronk. With Gronk injured the problem was exacerbated in the Super Bowl.  There is a debate whether this problem stems from the talent on the team, the coaching and game planning, or Brady's judgment.  I lean toward talent being the problem, but if you want to blame the coaches (not calling enough runs or whatever) or Brady (choosing to throw when he could hand the ball off or making poor decisions when he does throw), that's fine.  Not going to argue because no one is ever going to be convinced--obviously.  I think we all agree that more diversity in the offense would help, however it's accomplished.
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Spot on from the first word to the last.

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

    Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.

    Going to quickly indulge in a selfish act. Just bumping this up so Rusty will have an opportunity to see this thread and reply. The main purpose of this thread was to dispel the notion that I don't contribute to the board, and to give my spin on an oft-argued topic. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.

    In Response to Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.:
    [QUOTE]Going to quickly indulge in a selfish act. Just bumping this up so Rusty will have an opportunity to see this thread and reply. The main purpose of this thread was to dispel the notion that I don't contribute to the board, and to give my spin on an oft-argued topic. 
    Posted by vertigho[/QUOTE]

    You need to learn it's not about you. Also, be consistent.  Just because you summarize a basic analysis on why we lost the SB, sounding like a diplomatic Mike Reiss, it doesn't really mean anything.   Most of your posts are chiming in as to why my opinon or me calling out the agenda-types is somehow "wrong".

    You also enable the agenda drivers and trolls by doing that. So, more of this, less with your usual stuff would be welcomed to help keep the board cleaner.

    It's a vanilla summary.  Wozzy's is the best.  If True Champ was here, his would cut to the root of the problem, too.  We lost the SBs to the Giants because simply didn't score enough points in an era that caters to offense. They don't even call holding on OLs and we can barely score 14 or 17 points.

    We'll never win a SB by scoring 14 points in this era.  No one wins a SB with 14 points, or 17 points.  Name a SB winner with a score so low. It doesn't exist.

    Keep in mind, you keep lecturing me, yet you said you started follwing this team in 2001.  And that's fine, but it looks awfully dumb to the average person here to read my well reasoned opinions as a diehard fan of 30 years, with season tickets in the family since the late 70s, been to many classic games, etc, and for you to sort of lecture me. 

    It doesn't make sense.

    You could actually learn some different perspectives from fans like me, but you choose to do something else with your time here.

    Anyway, more posts like this from you and we'll be fine.
     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from vertigho. Show vertigho's posts

    Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.

    In Response to Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We lost the SBs to the Giants because simply didn't score enough points in an era that caters to offense. They don't even call holding on OLs and we can barely score 14 or 17 points. We'll never win a SB by scoring 14 points in this era.  No one wins a SB with 14 points, or 17 points.  Name a SB winner with a score so low. It doesn't exist.
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    The Giants beat us in our previous two Super Bowls by scoring 17 points and 21 points, respectively. That right there is proof that you can win with low scores. Name a Super Bowl winner with 14 points or 17 points -- the 2007 New York Giants, and it was against (arguably) the best offense in the history of the NFL.

    There's more than one way to skin a cat. You can win in any game with either an exceptional offensive performance, an exceptional defensive performance, or a balance of the two -- this is pretty obvious. But the key to winning 'big' games is to make clutch plays at crucial situations. Most Super Bowls are going to be tight games that come down to the wire. The team that makes a phenomenal play or two is generally the team that wins. 

    The Patriots didn't, neither offensively or defensively, and the Giants did. Again, you can blame the offense, and Brady's interception and Welker's drop, as well as the general lack of ability to sustain drives. But you can also blame the defense, who allowed an easy touchdown on the Giants's second drive of the game, and in the second half allowed the Giants to score a field goal after the offense had scored to make it a 9-point game. And then the obvious last drive, where they allowed the Giants to march down the field with ease to win the game. 

    Both sides can be faulted for the loss, which is the reason why you can't single our a particular unit. 

    I just don't agree with this premise that it's the offenses job to score 'x' number of points and if they don't, then it's their fault. The game was up for grabs in the final few minutes, and we (both offensively and defensively) failed to make crucial plays, while the Giants' made the one spectacular play that they needed to win the game.

    Again, this idea that your offense has to play particularly well to win a Super Bowl doesn't hold water in my opinion. The Giants proved that when they beat two great offenses by scoring 17 points and 21 points. You win when your team plays great football for 60 minutes and makes key plays when they have to.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from vtfanofcs. Show vtfanofcs's posts

    Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.

      Why the Patriots "lost" the Super Bowl.  9 free referee points handed to the Giants.  The Patriots clearly  won the game between the 2 teams.  The teams can't control what the referees do.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.

    Of course, but in SB 42 we lost with a legendary offense scoring only 14 points. You do realize that off this board, non Pats fans make fun of that, correct?  And the fact is, they're right. I've got nothing to say. My all world QB and offense laid an egg the size of Mt. Everest on that day.  Great job by the Giants front to sell out on a pass rush, bad job by McDaniels, Brady and BB for not adjusting far sooner, but still, the offense failed.

    Flash forward to SB 46:

    The 2011 Pats D was worse (statistically) than NE's D in 2007, but they played as well as the Pats D did in SB 42, holding down NY;s offense to a very low point total for almost the entire game. 

    Out of the lockout, the offenses we're ahead of all defenses, unless a D was around for a long time and had great continuity (Balt, Pitt, etc).

    Roger Goodell has intstructed officials to call no holding, be incredibly anal calling penalties on the defense, to PROMOTE OFFENSE.  He does this to easier sell the NFL in Europe.   Low scoring NFL games aren't going to get tootheless wonders in England drinking Bass Ale excited about our version of football. Do you agree with this?

    Answer this question, first, and then we'll continue.

    PS The Giants won these low scoring games, why? THEY RAN THE BALL. We didn't.  Also, it's not "singling out one unit" or player, it's going to the root cause of a problem. Always go to the source.  Always.

    Again, our D will be even better since it's trending up every year now with the rebuilding movement, so this means Brady and the offense need to score more than 14 or 17 points. If they don't want to score more than 17 points in a SB next year or the year after, we need a bulldozing all round RB in here to win a low scoring game.

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

    Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.

    In Response to Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.:
    [QUOTE]Of course, but in SB 42 we lost with a legendary offense scoring only 14 points. You do realize that off this board, non Pats fans make fun of that, correct?  And the fact is, they're right. I've got nothing to say. My all world QB and offense laid an egg the size of Mt. Everest on that day.  Great job by the Giants front to sell out on a pass rush, bad job by McDaniels, Brady and BB for not adjusting far sooner, but still, the offense failed. Flash forward to SB 46: The 2011 Pats D was worse (statistically) than NE's D in 2007, but they played as well as the Pats D did in SB 42, holding down NY;s offense to a very low point total for almost the entire game.  Out of the lockout, the offenses we're ahead of all defenses, unless a D was around for a long time and had great continuity (Balt, Pitt, etc). Roger Goodell has intstructed officials to call no holding, be incredibly anal calling penalties on the defense, to PROMOTE OFFENSE.  He does this to easier sell the NFL in Europe.   Low scoring NFL games aren't going to get tootheless wonders in England drinking Bass Ale excited about our version of football. Do you agree with this? Answer this question, first, and then we'll continue. PS The Giants won these low scoring games, why? THEY RAN THE BALL. We didn't.  Also, it's not "singling out one unit" or player, it's going to the root cause of a problem. Always go to the source.  Always. Again, our D will be even better since it's trending up every year now with the rebuilding movement, so this means Brady and the offense need to score more than 14 or 17 points. If they don't want to score more than 17 points in a SB next year or the year after, we need a bulldozing all round RB in here to win a low scoring game.
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    Going back to the 2007 Super Bowl, I can agree that a large part of the blame has to go on the offense in that game. The defense held the Giants at bay for the majority of the game while the offense stood around and scratched their butts. 

    So if we're going back to '07, yes, I can understand the greater blame on the offense in that game. 

    I would also agree with the notion that it appeared as if offenses were ahead of defenses coming out of the lockout. 

    However, I haven't read anywhere that Goodell was instructing officials to influence games to favor the offense in an attempt to appeal to Euroean viewers. I've never heard of such a thing before, so I can't say that I agree with that.

    But the fact of the matter is that the Giants threw the ball just as much as we did in the 2012 Super Bowl (40 times compared to our 41). With that said, they ran it 7 more times. That's definitely a notable number, but how were they able to do that while still throwing just as much as we did? Because of time of possession -- they held the ball for longer. 

    But the question is why did this happen? Well, I think there are two sides to this story. One side is that the defense, in certain situations, wasn't able to get off the field on 3rd-down. The other side of this story is that the offense wasn't able to convert on 3rd down either, and this lead to the stalling of drives, and the Giants holding the ball for longer.

    So I don't think it's fair to say that running the ball was why we lost and why the Giants won. New York held the ball for 37 minutes, while we held it for 22 minutes. Had those numbers been reversed, we likely would have run the ball at least as much as New York, if not more. 

    Basically what I'm saying is that we ran it less because we had the ball less. We had the ball less because the defense couldn't get off the field on 3rd down, and because the offense couldn't execute on 3rd down. 

    The Giants threw it plenty of times, and to say that they came into the game with the intent to run the ball often is dispelled when you look at the stats. The disparity is because of the time of possession stat, which is largely irrelevant in my opinion.

    The game was close late -- the Giants made crucial plays and we didn't.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.

    In Response to Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.:
    [QUOTE]We can all sit here and debate the  game plan or run/pass philosophy all off season but they lost the Super Bowl because of lack of execution. 1. safety 2. 12 men on the field 3. Inopportune Int 4. Offsides 5. Drop/Poor throw Execution of one or any combination of the 5 most likely would have resulted in a win.
    Posted by jri37[/QUOTE]

    That's sorta what I'm getting at. I think that we agree here. I don't like the idea of blaming the offense or defense because of some deep-rooted, systematic problem.

    If your team is good enough to go 13-3 and make it to the Super Bowl, you schemes and philosophy (on both sides of the ball) are perfectly fine.

    The issue is (as you alluded to) that we didn't make key plays. We made mental mistakes, and when the game was on the line the Giants executed and came through, while we didn't.
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.

    In Response to Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl. : Going back to the 2007 Super Bowl, I can agree that a large part of the blame has to go on the offense in that game. The defense held the Giants at bay for the majority of the game while the offense stood around and scratched their butts.  So if we're going back to '07, yes, I can understand the greater blame on the offense in that game.  I would also agree with the notion that it appeared as if offenses were ahead of defenses coming out of the lockout.  However, I haven't read anywhere that Goodell was instructing officials to influence games to favor the offense in an attempt to appeal to Euroean viewers. I've never heard of such a thing before, so I can't say that I agree with that. But the fact of the matter is that the Giants threw the ball just as much as we did in the 2012 Super Bowl (40 times compared to our 41). With that said, they ran it 7 more times. That's definitely a notable number, but how were they able to do that while still throwing just as much as we did? Because of time of possession -- they held the ball for longer.  But the question is why did this happen? Well, I think there are two sides to this story. One side is that the defense, in certain situations, wasn't able to get off the field on 3rd-down. The other side of this story is that the offense wasn't able to convert on 3rd down either, and this lead to the stalling of drives, and the Giants holding the ball for longer. So I don't think it's fair to say that running the ball was why we lost and why the Giants won. New York held the ball for 37 minutes, while we held it for 22 minutes. Had those numbers been reversed, we likely would have run the ball at least as much as New York, if not more.  Basically what I'm saying is that we ran it less because we had the ball less. We had the ball less because the defense couldn't get off the field on 3rd down, and because the offense couldn't execute on 3rd down.  The Giants threw it plenty of times, and to say that they came into the game with the intent to run the ball often is dispelled when you look at the stats. The disparity is because of the time of possession stat, which is largely irrelevant in my opinion. The game was close late -- the Giants made crucial plays and we didn't.
    Posted by vertigho[/QUOTE]

    Do you really and seriously need to "read" a statement from Roger Goodell that says:

    "We are telling our refs to help the offense to score more points so I can sell the NFL to Europeans."..?

    Are you a teenager? I am not trying to be mean here, but you sound very naive.

    Put it together. The Chuck Rule has been overly enforced, no holding is called, you graze a QB and it's a 15 yard penalty, phantom PIs, etc.  Tagliabue all old and burned out resigns and here comes the lawyer from NY to sell the NFL in a differrent way.

    Are you for real here?  Roger Goodell was brought in to sell the NFL brand. Grow it.   Promote its strengths, clean up its weaknesses.  Did you just see him throttle the Saints? Did you see him overreact with Spygate on the heels of dealing with Pacman Jones and Vick?

    You'd have to be blind to see the differences in the NFL in the last few years in terms of how games are called in comparison, to say, 2005.

    As to your "the Giants made a crucial play and we didn't" comment:  You don't see any parallel with their balanced offense, TOP, and making those crucial plays eerily similar to HOW OUR PATS TEAM WOULD WIN GAMES from 2001-2004? Our offense was like a chameleon playing differen ways, with diversity both in style and in personnel.

    Not making mistakes, ball control, fundamental, clock management, etc, are all vital aspects of winning teams. We had this mastered from 2001-2004.  A lot of the reason why, was because our offense was balanced and it in turn, HELPED our defense.  They weren't on the field as much, were better rested, and therefore could make that stop or sack when we needed it.

    Again, we've become the Colts, a team we exposed as flawed last decade. Why, I don't know.  WHy would we become something we exposed? And why do Pats fans want flawed approaches?

    The only reason NY held the ball for longer was these 3 plays by our offense:

    1. Safety
    2. INT
    3. Welker drop

    This would have swung the TOP at the VERY LEAST 5 minutes for us, and -5 minutes for the Giants.

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

    Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.

    The beginning of the game put them in a hole
    they got out
    but if they didn't have to to do come from behind
    they would have won

    At th end
    If The Offense stays on the fireld the game is over
    If the Defense stoppd the Manngham play ( which
      may have been casue we were out of positon at the snap)
    we win
    If Gronk had been himself - it owuld ahve been different
    a healthy Gronk on that throw and it is not an INT

    So its a team loss

    The Giants get the good bounces- someday they won't
    and we will

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.

    In Response to Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.:
    [QUOTE]We can all sit here and debate the  game plan or run/pass philosophy all off season but they lost the Super Bowl because of lack of execution. 1. safety 2. 12 men on the field 3. Inopportune Int 4. Offsides 5. Drop/Poor throw Execution of one or any combination of the 5 most likely would have resulted in a win.
    Posted by jri37[/QUOTE]

    Think so too, it was a number of reasons and came down to execution. The Giants were better and should have won that game. Brady made a few costly mistakes while Manning didn't. The Giants punter was able to pin the Patriots deep in their territory throughout much of the game while Mesko punted into the end zone. The Giants just played better. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from FenwayChuck. Show FenwayChuck's posts

    Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.

    WOW.... I wasn't aware that so many of you were at the game....  I AM SORRY THAT WE MISSED MEETING YOU ALL....

    I do not care what the press or the team wants you to hear GRONK was not Gronk.... I satt close enough to the field to watch his every move.... and well I watched his actions for a large part of the game.  He was definitely favoring the ankle.  At one point he was actually kicking his toe ( on the injured foot) into the turf for an entire TV time out....  From someone who has had an ankle injury( and taped it tight)... I "used to find" that this would somehow eliminate the pain in the ankle area.... NOT sure why or how... but it does.  A couple of times he would get up from a pile, and try to walk away and you could see from where we were that he stepped lightly with that foot.....  When he went out for that pass.... even my wife knew ( and said) as the pass went downfield.... HE won't be able to go up to get it.   WELL as we know... HE DIDNT!
    I think it is IGNORANT to think one thing..... any one thing can be blamed for the failure....  However, that was a big problem all game long.  I do believe TUCK was quoted after the game as saying "We figured he was a decoy early in the game- and no longer double covered him".  WELL....  it was a part of the problem.

    The Def.... didn't break like so many want to believe... 21 pts?  They made mistakes at CRUCIAL times... that is a lack of discipline.... not a lack of talent.  DUMB mistakes have high costs.... and this game had several of them...

    Brady's Safety early ended up being huge late in the game.....  2 less points mean that the Pats only need a FG to win at the end.....  HUGE- entire last few minutes play out differently.

    There were quite a few discipline problems in the game, and they added up to a loss.... 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Benkarkis. Show Benkarkis's posts

    Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.

    can we move on, it's too painful.


    Gronk and Mankins being injured were killers.   not having a TRUE wide receiver was a killer, not having a better pass rush is a killer.

    oh, the pain the pain the pain, can't watch highlights of 2008 and 2012 SBs, the pain the pain.......................................................
     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from mlgvt48. Show mlgvt48's posts

    Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.

    I think you should say TEAM a few more times.....
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from vertigho. Show vertigho's posts

    Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.

    In Response to Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.:
    [QUOTE]I think you should say TEAM a few more times.....
    Posted by mlgvt48[/QUOTE]

    Just trying to prove a point to those who blame a sole unit (offense or defense), or even a single player (Brady, Welker) for our loss.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.

    And here I was thinking we lost the Super Bowl because the Giants scored more points than the Pats.

    I did a quick statistical analysis of the history of the NFL and found that the team that scored more points won 98% of their games! (margin of error +/- 2%)
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.

    In Response to Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl. : ^ This. That's about as good of an objective summary as could be hoped for in a post not rivaling War and Peace. The good news is they already have established better depth at the offensive skill positions and this sets up as an exciting draft for the Pats. Off topic are you optimistic for the Double Blue this year? Nice pick-up getting Ricky Ray.
    Posted by stegall85[/QUOTE]

    Thanks stegall . . . I am optimistic about the Argos.  Not sure I'd go so far as to say they're favourites for the Grey Cup, but I think Ray should improve the passing game making the offense (which already has a nice running game with Boyd) a lot more explosive.  And I think the defense is okay. Plus, with the Grey Cup in Toronto this year, there's extra motivation.  I think we've got a chance . .  but then again, I liked the Leafs early season too . . . 

      
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from tjwoods. Show tjwoods's posts

    Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.

    Pats have already improved their team with FA's. They'll be better next season. But their schedule will be harder.

    They had a softball late season schedule in late '11. 

    Still, and I've read everything above, Brady makes that throw to Welker so he doesn't have to turn around at full speed, Pats win.

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

    Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.

    In Response to Re: Why We Lost in the Super Bowl.:
    [QUOTE]We can all sit here and debate the  game plan or run/pass philosophy all off season but they lost the Super Bowl because of lack of execution. 1. safety 2. 12 men on the field 3. Inopportune Int 4. Offsides 5. Drop/Poor throw Execution of one or any combination of the 5 most likely would have resulted in a win.
    Posted by jri37[/QUOTE]
    I would call the combination of the above as to NON-COMPLIMENTARY football.  The championship teams didn't play that way.  They played the opposite of that.  It was always the other team throwing up on their shoes in the critical spots of every game. 

    Vert...good posts and very well relayed here to the board.  I don't disagree with anyone that says the offense was terrible, the coaching was retahded, or the defense was garbage.  It was a little bit of all three with some bad bounces thrown in.  Championship teams make those plays, the losing team does not.

    The Giants earned those rings and until BB decides to attack a team like that in a different way, we can't expect the outcome to be any different.  Brady throwing 40+ times isn't going to do it.
     

Share