Run and Stopping the Run is still the Truth

[ghz in pittsburgh]

For NE, all season their fancy passing records covered the one weak area of not being able to run the ball. That allowed the Giants to pin their ear back and went after Brady all day in the superbowl.

I mean the Giants D was able to dictate to the Pats' O. They were able using linebackers to create blitzing looks, allowing their DEs and Tuck to get one on one matchups most of the day. To Giant's DL credit, they were able to win those one-on-one battles and get into Brady's face - can anyone tell which time Brady was touched when he attempted a pass last night?

That would change big time if the Pats have a decent running game. All of a sudden, those rushing DLs have to worry about the running back running right by them.

I like the fact the Bills are on the track of a balanced offense. Jauron seems to intent on having his power running game. I just don't know about stopping the run part. I remember the Giants ran pretty much freely in Ralph when we played them.

[imbondz]

I agree. But the Patriots offense left the field winning with 2 minutes and some change. It was their defense that choked too.

[venis2k1]

If the highest scoring offense of all time to drop only 14 in the SB is a huge disapointment.

[MikeInRoch]

I actually think they COULD run the ball if they wanted to. It was their refusing to call run plays that did them in.

[mysticsoto]

I agree. But the Patriots offense left the field winning with 2 minutes and some change. It was their defense that choked too.

I don't think their defense choked. That pass that Eli completed after somehow getting out of a sack with like 3 Patriot hands on his jersey was nothing less than superb. So was the catch - with two Patriots surrounding him...there was alot of luck involved - make no mistake...I mean...if he falls straight down, the ball hits the ground and comes out. But instead he falls on the cornerbacks' knee/leg allowing him time to bring the ball back up and tuck it initially on his helmet as he falls to the ground and then back in. The Patriots couldn't have played better in trying to defend that. It was just a superb play that fell into place perfectly and allowed the Giants to advance 30 yds or so and giving them the opportunity they needed to score.

[Mahdi]

I actually think they COULD run the ball if they wanted to. It was their refusing to call run plays that did them in.
Completely agree.... they could have mixed in the run so much better than they did but their arrogance kept them passing every down because they thought they were unstoppable. Turned out their greatest asset was their greatest weakness.

[Ickybaluky]

The Pats held NY to 3.5 yards per rush, so they didn't win by running the ball, holding the Giants down other than 2 good runs by Bradshaw. The Pats barely attempted to run offensively, with only 16 rushes to 53 passes (including sacks).

Running and stopping the run aren't as important as QB play (protection is part of that) and pressuring the QB. The Pats defense actually did a good job, IMO. They did their job.

The Pats passing offense was their strength, and they only averaged 4.3 yards per pass play (including sacks). That is dreadful, and 2.5 yards less per pass than the Giants averaged.

The run game was not much of a factor for either team. The Passing game, offensively and defensively, decided the outcome.

[Ickybaluky]

Completely agree.... they could have mixed in the run so much better than they did but their arrogance kept them passing every down because they thought they were unstoppable. Turned out their greatest asset was their greatest weakness.

That isn't their game. They are a passing team. They actually had guys open down the field, but couldn't protect well enough to get the ball there.

The Giants won the game with their defensive front-7, who played real well. They were getting off the ball incredibly fast, almost making me think someone on the Pats offense had a tell.

[imbondz]

The Pats held NY to 3.5 yards per rush, so they didn't win by running the ball, holding the Giants down other than 2 good runs by Bradshaw. The Pats barely attempted to run offensively, with only 16 rushes to 53 passes (including sacks).

Running and stopping the run aren't as important as QB play (protection is part of that) and pressuring the QB. The Pats defense actually did a good job, IMO. They did their job.


their defense did their job the entire game, up until the last drive, when all was on the line, and they choked.

[mysticsoto]

That isn't their game. They are a passing team. They actually had guys open down the field, but couldn't protect well enough to get the ball there.

The Giants won the game with their defensive front-7, who played real well. They were getting off the ball incredibly fast, almost making me think someone on the Pats offense had a tell.

This I don't understand, however. Maroney is a good RB - why don't they use him more? If anything, it would have taken pressure off Brady. It was most unusual that the Pats didn't adapt as the game went. I expected changes in the 2nd half including more running and more protection for Brady by keeping TEs in, etc and instead, Belichek seemed to stubbornly refuse to change anything - forcing everything on Brady's shoulders and the passing game. The Pats are anything but one-dimensional, and yet, that's exactly how they played yesterday...

[Ickybaluky]

their defense did their job the entire game, up until the last drive, when all was on the line, and they choked.

The Pats scored more points than any team in NFL History this year. If you told me before the game the Pats would hold the Giants to less than 100 yards rushing (3.5 yards/rush) and 17 points, I would have been quite happy.

Their defense wasn't why they lost. In fact, their defense kept them in the game in the first half when the Giants held the ball for 9 minutes more than the Pats.

The bottom line is the Giants held the most statistically proficient passing game in NFL history to 14 points and 4.3 net yards per pass. That is why they won.

[Ickybaluky]

This I don't understand, however. Maroney is a good RB - why don't they use him more? If anything, it would have taken pressure off Brady. It was most unusual that the Pats didn't adapt as the game went. I expected changes in the 2nd half including more running and more protection for Brady by keeping TEs in, etc and instead, Belichek seemed to stubbornly refuse to change anything - forcing everything on Brady's shoulders and the passing game. The Pats are anything but one-dimensional, and yet, that's exactly how they played yesterday...

The Pats all year have thrown to get a lead and then run to burn the clock. In this game, they were never able to get ahead by enough. It was 7-3 after 3 quarters, so they were still trying to put the game away.

I think that is why Belichick didn't take the FG. Perhaps is an indictment of the confidence he had in his defense if they were forced to play close, but he wanted 7's not 3's. If the Pats could have got a double-digit lead, I think they would have done some things differently. (It is kind of ironic how the Pats morphed into the Colts teams they used to beat, as they also were a team that played well from ahead by were in trouble when they fell behind).

The negative plays really killed the Pats, which was something that hadn't really been a problem all season. They had the 5 sacks, but also a couple runs that were for negative yards. Those are drive killers. Even the reverse they tried to run on the first play was blown up because of pressure. They had too many of those plays, and you credit the Giants for those.

Considering it was how they played, and won, all season, it is hard for me to question him. Ultimately, there were a number of plays that could have changed the course of the game. The fumble that Pierre Woods allowed Ahmad Bradshaw to take away. The Interception opportunity that went of Randal Gays hands. In the end, the Giants made more of those plays than the Pats, which is why they won.

You can talk about running or stopping the run, but the overriding factor in this game was the Giants front and the pressure they were able to bring all game long. That was the story of the game.

[Discotrish]

I think that is why Belichick didn't take the FG. Perhaps is an indictment of the confidence he had in his defense if they were forced to play close, but he wanted 7's not 3's. If the Pats could have got a double-digit lead, I think they would have done some things differently. (It is kind of ironic how the Pats morphed into the Colts teams they used to beat, as they also were a team that played well from ahead by were in trouble when they fell behind).


I could've understood going for it on 4th and 5. But 4th and 13? Maybe they had it too easy. They had been making those all season. In this game, though, it seemed like an odd call.

Patti

[imbondz]

The Pats scored more points than any team in NFL History this year. If you told me before the game the Pats would hold the Giants to less than 100 yards rushing (3.5 yards/rush) and 17 points, I would have been quite happy.

Their defense wasn't why they lost. In fact, their defense kept them in the game in the first half when the Giants held the ball for 9 minutes more than the Pats.

The bottom line is the Giants held the most statistically proficient passing game in NFL history to 14 points and 4.3 net yards per pass. That is why they won.

sorry, anytime a defense keeps a team from scoring a touchdown the entire game, then allows two in the 4th quarter, one with 35 seconds left, chokes in my book.

[HHURRICANE]

The bottom line is the Giants held the most statistically proficient passing game in NFL history to 14 points and 4.3 net yards per pass. That is why they won.

Amen brother. I told my NE office that the only chance the Giants had was if they got to Brady.

Bellichek coached one of his worst games ever.