Doc Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Play bottom of the barrel defense all season, say 27th or 31st......... then get hot in the playoffs. That's the blueprint. That's the lesson you've learned. I learned that lesson awhile ago. It's not necessarily the best team during the season that wins it all. And regular season offensive and defensive rankings mean bunk. The Giants' defense held their 4 post-season opponents to an average of 11 PPG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Play bottom of the barrel defense all season, say 27th or 31st......... then get hot in the playoffs. That's the blueprint. That's the lesson you've learned. Your case is hopeless. Mention that like ten of the last ten SB winners have featured elite QBs, and you'll get "Trent Dilfer! Brad Johnson! Earl Morrall! In your face!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 The points scored/allowed are the more important stats. In the three rounds of the playoffs that the Pats and Giants both participated in, the Pats gave up fewer points per game. Did I mention that the all the QB's that played in the last 5 Super Bowls will probably end up in the HOF? What a strange coincidence in a sport that is so dominated by defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I learned that lesson awhile ago. It's not necessarily the best team during the season that wins it all. And regular season offensive and defensive rankings mean bunk. The Giants' defense held their 4 post-season opponents to an average of 11 PPG. The best D (SF) was on the cusp but couldn't get to the big game because their QB played terribly against the Giants when the chips were down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 The best D (SF) was on the cusp but couldn't get to the big game because their QB played terribly against the Giants when the chips were down. Truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 In the three rounds of the playoffs that the Pats and Giants both participated in, the Pats gave up fewer points per game. Did I mention that the all the QB's that played in the last 5 Super Bowls will probably end up in the HOF? What a strange coincidence in a sport that is so dominated by defense. Might want to check your stats on the Pats defense. Yes, it is a strange coincidence. The best D (SF) was on the cusp but couldn't get to the big game because their QB played terribly against the Giants when the chips were down. SF, the defense that gave up 27 points to the Rams and 32 to the Saints? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Might want to check your stats on the Pats defense. Yes, it is a strange coincidence. SF, the defense that gave up 27 points to the Rams and 32 to the Saints? Are you suggesting that the Saints were actually stoppable? Or that the Niners defense wasn't one of the two or three best in the league? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 The bottom line is that they ranked 27th in total defense and last in rushing. I keep getting told how those things win championships. However, the constant in the past 5 SB's has been a franchise QB versus another franchise QB. Funny how people HERE gloss over the fact that Eli Manning had a season of 4th quarter dominance as has never been seen before, yet the same Giants defense that gave up 16 straight completions and a 14 play 96 yard TD drive was the dominant force in their mind. Eli competed 75% of his passes for near 300 yards. Obviously a qb is number 1 but the defense typically is the tiebreaker between those two elite qbs facing off. The defense that matches up in that game better typically wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Might want to check your stats on the Pats defense. Yes, it is a strange coincidence. The Pats gave up 10 points in the divisional round, 17 in the championship game and 21 in the SB. 48 points total. That's 16 points per game. The Giants gave up 20 in the divisional round, 17 in the championship and 17 in the SB. 54 points total. That's 18 points per game. What kind of doctor are you again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Are you suggesting that the Saints were actually stoppable? Or that the Niners defense wasn't one of the two or three best in the league? Well, the 49'ers' offense scored 34 points against the Saints. Yet they struggled against the Giants. The Pats gave up 10 points in the divisional round, 17 in the championship game and 21 in the SB. 48 points total. That's 16 points per game. The Giants gave up 20 in the divisional round, 17 in the championship and 17 in the SB. 54 points total. That's 18 points per game. What kind of doctor are you again? What kind of Dick are you again? I said "playoffs." That's your first hint. There will be no others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Well, the 49'ers' offense scored 34 points against the Saints. Yet they struggled against the Giants. What kind of Dick are you again? I said "playoffs." That's your first hint. There will be no others. I suspect this won't convince you, but Smith missed a ton of open receivers against NY. He killed his own team outside of a couple of good throws to Davis. That said, yes, the Giants had a better defense -- and a better DC, in my opinion -- than the Saints. I think the bottom line is that teams have to have an elite QB and a defensive unit that can get after the QB. The Steelers, for instance, have both, and they've been to the SB twice in the past five years. The Colts D could get after the QB as well. As can the Ravens, who in a world that wasn't upside down would have represented the AFC this year. They're an interesting case because they never make it, but Flacco has in fact become a very good QB. They should have gone this year, but thanks to Evans and Cundiff, they failed. The Pats gave up 10 points in the divisional round, 17 in the championship game and 21 in the SB. 48 points total. That's 16 points per game. The Giants gave up 20 in the divisional round, 17 in the championship and 17 in the SB. 54 points total. That's 18 points per game. What kind of doctor are you again? Badol, you're forgetting the Falcons game, when the Giants gave up precisely zero points on defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I suspect this won't convince you, but Smith missed a ton of open receivers against NY. He killed his own team outside of a couple of good throws to Davis. That said, yes, the Giants had a better defense -- and a better DC, in my opinion -- than the Saints. I think the bottom line is that teams have to have an elite QB and a defensive unit that can get after the QB. The Steelers, for instance, have both, and they've been to the SB twice in the past five years. The Colts D could get after the QB as well. As can the Ravens, who in a world that wasn't upside down would have represented the AFC this year. They're an interesting case because they never make it, but Flacco has in fact become a very good QB. They should have gone this year, but thanks to Evans and Cundiff, they failed. I'm not saying ALL you need is a great defense. You need a good offense as well. Ideally the better of both, the better you'll be. Badol, you're forgetting the Falcons game, when the Giants gave up precisely zero points on defense. Obviously based on his absence, he realized his error, tucked tail and ran. And that's badolbilz? WTF happened to him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) Obviously a qb is number 1 but the defense typically is the tiebreaker between those two elite qbs facing off. The defense that matches up in that game better typically wins. All other things being equal the team with the better defense has the advantage........but was that the case in this SB? I think the Pats and Giants defenses played about equally well......in the end, the Giants completed an incredible long pass play when backed up at their 12 yard line, which literally tipped the scales in their favor. But I will buy the idea of matching up to win. The Giants are a bad match-up for the Patriots. The Pats offense relies very little on running the ball and their QB is very sensitive to pass rush. The strength of the Giants defense is pass rush. Not pass defense necessarily, but pass rush. I mean, the truth is that the Giants didn't have a historically significant SB defense. Not even close. They were starting a LB that was teaching school in November. Their LB's are nobodies. Secondary is just OK considering the assets applied to the unit......should be better. Their DL is very deep. Edited February 8, 2012 by Dick Drawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I'm not saying ALL you need is a great defense. You need a good offense as well. Ideally the better of both, the better you'll be. Obviously based on his absence, he realized his error, tucked tail and ran. And that's badolbilz? WTF happened to him? Even looking at those elite offenses like the greatest show on turf - they had good defenses. Superbowl winners tend not to have weaknesses just about anywhere but especially qb. Good qb, good pass rush and suddenly even average players around thme look good. Get some good players mixed in and you look great. Very few superbowl winners have any guys that are just horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) I'm not saying ALL you need is a great defense. You need a good offense as well. Ideally the better of both, the better you'll be. Obviously based on his absence, he realized his error, tucked tail and ran. And that's badolbilz? WTF happened to him? Error? I said the 3 rounds that the Pats and Giants both played in. You can't read OR add. Doctor of doucheology? Edited February 8, 2012 by Dick Drawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 All things being equal the team with the better defense has the advantage........but was that the case in this SB? I think the Pats and Giants defenses played about equally well......in the end, the Giants completed an incredible long pass play when backed up at their 12 yard line, which literally tipped the scales in their favor. But I will buy the idea of matching up to win. The Giants are a bad match-up for the Patriots. The Pats offense relies very little on running the ball and their QB is very sensitive to pass rush. The strength of the Giants defense is pass rush. Not pass defense necessarily, but pass rush. I mean, the truth is that the Giants didn't have a historically significant SB defense. Not even close. They were starting a LB that was teaching school in November. Their LB's are nobodies. Secondary is just OK considering the assets applied to the unit......should be better. Their DL is very deep. Matchups are huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I suspect this won't convince you, but Smith missed a ton of open receivers against NY. He killed his own team outside of a couple of good throws to Davis. That said, yes, the Giants had a better defense -- and a better DC, in my opinion -- than the Saints. I think the bottom line is that teams have to have an elite QB and a defensive unit that can get after the QB. The Steelers, for instance, have both, and they've been to the SB twice in the past five years. The Colts D could get after the QB as well. As can the Ravens, who in a world that wasn't upside down would have represented the AFC this year. They're an interesting case because they never make it, but Flacco has in fact become a very good QB. They should have gone this year, but thanks to Evans and Cundiff, they failed. Badol, you're forgetting the Falcons game, when the Giants gave up precisely zero points on defense. I forgot to figure in the points that the Pats allowed in the wildcard. So.....48...plus......zero...... Seriously guys, READ the post. What's next? A link request? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) Error? I said the 3 rounds that the Pats and Giants both played in. You can't read OR add. Doctor of doucheology? I said PLAYOFFS, moron. Because you see, the first playoff game the Giants played matters. And it wasn't against some joke like the Broncos. And you could say I'm a doctor of doucheology. I can prescribe some meds to help you with your affliction, if you'd like. The first step is admitting you have a problem. Edited February 8, 2012 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 On a parallel train of thought, I was blown away by the factoid that during this past regular season, the Pats did not beat a single team with a record greater than .500. - (cited by SportsCenter) I found this to be remarkable..... While this does sound remarkable, there were only 2 teams they played in the regular season that had winning records and there were 6 teams that would have had winning records if they had not lost to the Patriots*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I said PLAYOFFS, moron. Because you see, the first playoff game the Giants played matters. And it wasn't against some joke like the Broncos. And you could say I'm a doctor of doucheology. I can prescribe some meds to help you with your affliction, if you'd like. The first step is admitting you have a problem. The Giants first playoff game mattered just like the regular season mattered for the Pats. Those two thing got those teams to the divisional round. From there, they each played 3 games. Were they against equal opponents? No, but who is to say that the Pats wouldn't have put a 48-0 whipping on the Falcons? That's why it's irrelevant to the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts