OT: This was not the Patriots year. We knew that.

[SwingDog]

OT: This was not the Patriots year. We knew that.
The defense was just incapable all year long. Would have been worse if not for the offense.

We knew that? Okay, their defense was sub par in some games- including the Superbowl, BUT...they came within a play or two of winning it.

 

[temery]

The only people who believe this wasn’t the Patriots year are Patriots fans, and they didn’t come to that conclusion until they lost.

 

[Palatine]

The only people who believe this wasn’t the Patriots year are Patriots fans, and they didn’t come to that conclusion until they lost.

Surprise, that is exactly right.

 

[upstater]

The only people who believe this wasn’t the Patriots year are Patriots fans, and they didn’t come to that conclusion until they lost.

You mean except for the link where I showed I came to that conclusion before they lost?

I went in depth as to why they wouldn't win and were lucky to be in the SB long before the game.

The defense you saw last weekend wasn't an anomaly. That's how they played all year. The numbers show it. Many fans were saying the same thing. Bill Barnwell of Football Outsiders analyzed it and came to the conclusion. This was not a defense capable of winning the Super Bowl. Not their year. They lost 8 key players off that defense. Atlanta had a much tougher task than Philly did.

 

[Rocktheworld]

The defense you saw last weekend wasn't an anomaly. That's how they played all year. The numbers show it.

They gave up an average of 41 points per game? They gave up lots of yards sure (and have for a long time, not just this year) but were situationally good on third and in the red zone to limit scoring and keep Brady on the field. That didn’t happen this game.

Many fans were saying the same thing. Bill Barnwell of Football Outsiders analyzed it and came to the conclusion. This was not a defense capable of winning the Super Bowl. Not their year.

How many games were they not favored this year? Explain the spread if they were incapable of winning the SB

They lost 8 key players off that defense. Atlanta had a much tougher task than Philly did.

Yeah if only Atlanta had Nick Foles

The truth is Pats’s defense relied on other teams playing scared with Brady on the other sideline for years. That suddenly didn’t happen this game, they played a coach and offense who had some balls, and they folded like a cheap lawn chair in the biggest moment

 

[upstater]

They gave up an average of 41 points per game? They gave up lots of yards sure (and have for a long time, not just this year) but were situationally good on third and in the red zone to limit scoring and keep Brady on the field. That didn’t happen this game.

How many games were they not favored this year? Explain the spread if they were incapable of winning the SB

Yeah if only Atlanta had Nick Foles

The truth is Pats’s defense relied on other teams playing scared with Brady on the other sideline for years. That suddenly didn’t happen this game, they played a coach and offense who had some balls, and they folded like a cheap lawn chair in the biggest moment

Wrong on so many counts here.

1. Barnwell's study showed this defense (full of scrap heap players) benefited more than any other team from good field position, more than any other team from fewer opponent's possessions. When opposing teams get the balls less, when they have to travel more yards, what is the result? Fewer points. Jax's defense for instance, gave up fewer points, but faced 4 games worth more possessions. If the Patriot's defense had Jax's offense, they'd be bottom of the league, last place.

2. Not getting you about the yards given up but paying well in red zone. How does that keep Brady on the field? Giving up yards and TOP keeps Brady off the field.

3. Pederson coached a great game, and he was aggressive play. But you'll have to tell me how Seattle and Atlanta weren't aggressive. They both went for the jugular in those games. Neither played to waste time. Atlanta was throwing downfield to Julio Jones late in the game. They tried running too but were driven backward for loses 2 x on the final drive of the 4th. so they went aggressive. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I'm sure in retrospect they'd preferred to go conservative.

 

[Robertelamin]

If upstater believed the earth was flat he would defend his position to the death. It's quite remarkable!

 

[Rocktheworld]

1. Barnwell's study showed this defense (full of scrap heap players) benefited more than any other team from good field position, more than any other team from fewer opponent's possessions. When opposing teams get the balls less, when they have to travel more yards, what is the result? Fewer points

Lol why would field position matter if they gave up the yards on average that they did? Again, timely stops on third down and good red zone defense were causative to ending drives and keeping teams to scoring in limited fashion i.e. field goals. The field position was just a correlation.

2. Not getting you about the yards given up but paying well in red zone. How does that keep Brady on the field? Giving up yards and TOP keeps Brady off the field.

Brady doesn’t need time. As above, good RZ defense keeps scoring lower by forcing field goals, and keeps the game manageable for Brady.

They both went for the jugular in those games.

Wrong

 

[Rocktheworld]

If upstater believed the earth was flat he would defend his position to the death. It's quite remarkable!

Often strikes me as someone who has few other devotions besides to the Patriots and their reputation. Like dude spends countless hours reading people talking about the Patriots

Wonder if he has hobbies