This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Why all the turnovers; a ball control offense would prevent most of these. I honestly think that GNB and NOR will rethink balancing their teams and strengthening their defenses.
Green Bay turned the ball over running the ball and trying to be more balanced.
Obviously teams will look to improve their weaknesses. Part of why their defensive numbers were ranked so low is that they were ahead so much teams had no choice but to pass most of the game. NE, GB, and NO were the Top 3 in terms of passing attempts allowed.So I am not really sure what you suggest these teams do. Not score so much so opponents don't get behind and therefore they could run more?
Not what I saw; GNB couldn't pass and went to the run, something that they haven't leaned on all year. Maybe if GNB put some time into the run game, this year, they would of been able to control the ball better.
Kuhn turned it over early while the game was tied.They controlled the ball in the 3rd quarter and were in the game and Rodgers fumbled while moving the ball well to start that drive in the 3rd.Then back down 10, Grant fumbles after fighting for a first down.They were passing fine (when guys could hold the ball).They were controlling the ball fine in the 3rd quarter and earlier when Kuhn fumbled.
David, when I started this thread I was hoping specifically that you would weigh in. Do you think Bill Parcells (Coughlin's mentor) would ever of built a team as lopsided as GNB or NOR? Parcells theory was about ball-control and defense. Obviously you can try to outscore your opponents, without any thoughts in stopping their offenses, but you pigeonhole your team if something goes wrong.
I don't think GB was built to be this one dimensional.They played much better defense last year.Run game gets tweaked as well...they are somewhat effective when they stick to it. But lack of running was not really an issue in tonight's game. They were running ok on the night (of course aided overall in Rodgers' rushing numbers....but Starks and Grant had some very good runs.
Exactly how I saw it. Terrible performance by Rodgers today. Thought I was watching Matt Cassel back there today (skiddish, dink/dunk passer)Excellent game plan by the Giants.
Our offense is actually designed to help the defense, not hurt it. The two have nothing to do with each other. See Saints 2009.
Rodgers fumbled on a pass play, was sacked four times and rushed for about the same amount of yards as all the backs put together, which of course were not designed plays; are you trying to state their handling of their pathetic running game cost them, because that is what I'm saying too.
Clarify; the two being GNB and NOR, or NOR's offense or defense?
Im stating many things cost them today...and yes, Rodgers fumbled on a pass play.And much of the game the Oline protected him well though.They played a bad game...to call this an end to things...when I don't think the Saints or Packers were designed how they ended up for much of this year (more talking about how bad their defenses were this year).
Parcells was an old school coach. "Back in the day," a balanced offense and good defense was part of the formula to win. These days, there are high octane offenses that win a lot of games. Recent SB winners have included the Packers, Saints, and Colts.I'm not saying old school teams can't win, but it's clear that offensive minded teams CAN win.Look at it this way. The Saints were one play away from winning in spite of committing 5 turnovers. What would the score have been if the 49ers had 5 turnovers?I also think it's funny that no one puts the Giants in the lopsided category, as they ranked last in rushing and Top 5 in passing. They also were Top 10 in scoring and Bottom 5 on defense this year.
Yes but you act like a turnover is one of those things that just happens; the reason that SFO didn't have five turnovers is because of the type of offense that they are running and their commitment to defense. As for the Giants, Bradshaw was injured for a good portion of the year and NYG became unbalanced, which their record reflected.
Too simplistic, GNB is better than an average team. The fact is parity is going to allow a one-faceted dominate team to do well against most but struggle against a good balanced one.
Can only balanced teams with good defenses cause turnovers? The Patriots have won 9 games in a row and turned the ball over 5 times. But they forced 21 turnovers in that time. Yet NE is hardly a balanced offense, nor do they have a good defense.Just because a team is balanced doesn't mean they won't turn the ball over, nor does it mean they will score a lot of points. Similarly, just because a team has a top defense doesn't mean they will force turnovers (see the Steelers for example).
Since my abilities to clip quotes is sorely lacking let me try it like this:
I think that the stats are masking the truths here:
How does that relate to the rest of the league?
SF 5BAL 11NYG 23NE 26
Well I guess in 4+ games that Bradshaw might of added 105 yards to their totals and I do think they win the SFO game if the Giants had him healthy.
Thank you. Not quite the dominating stat that I thought. It would be interesting to see where the Giants numbers have been from the NYJ game on (really the only time they have been playing as a healthy unit).
You keep mentioning the Giants health as if no other team in the league had injuries. For example, the Patriots finally had everyone on their active roster available and practicing (which had not happened even once in the preseason or regular season).They had many of their starters on defense and on their OL out (including several that went on IR). Should we ignore what they did so far because they were hurt?The bottom line is A LOT of teams have guys that were hurt. HOU and PIT were two others that jump out. If we start guessng what might have happened trhoughout the season, we can invent whatever we want for analytical purposes.As for the topic at hand, the other issue not brought up yet is that the Giants win today was the only game so far this post season where the visiting team won. That should probably be a bigger common denomenator than how the teams played (balanced vs unbalanced, pass vs run, etc.).
I think you have to give me that if a team like HOU losses Schaub, to not think they'll lean on Foster and skew their balance, would be silly; how many teams played HOU to run and let Yates throw the ball? No, you can't ignore their whole season but as certain players return I think they will utilize them at the expense of others, or other facets. Yes, injuries happen quite a bit in the NFL but there are injuries and then there are injuries; the amount of starters that went down was quite a bit than the norm.
What's interesting is the Giants, for whatever reason, have a knack for executing long drives for TDs. Maybe that's why they play the Patriots so well.
Fixed.
The Broncos have a terrible defense.
Right.
The topic was phrased as a question.
They can be, but some teams are better at forcing them than others.And it looked like the Giants were going for strips a lot last night.But Kuhn's came when he ran into his own guy fighting for yards.Grant was stripped fighting for more yards.Osi just made a great play on Rodgers as he was about to throw a TD (if the pass was on the mark to a wide open Jennings).Yesterday was one of the more balanced games McCarthy had been calling. He was mixing in a lot of runs (that were pretty effective) with the passing.
How many "ball control" offenses have won a super bowl this century?
All the Giants Superbowl teams were based on Parcell's ball control theory, I would say Green Bay's first two were ball control, as was the Jets; I could go on but I would have to do some research to give accurate examples. I would say all the Bills teams were ball control, even though they lost, and all of the SFO championships and the WCO, which is predicated on short crossing patterns, fall into this categories. It might be easier to list the ones that weren't ball control, Like the Rams, the Colts, and the Pats more recent ones. I know that you typed this century but I don't have a lot of time to look all this up, right now.'Sam Quentin said:
Balanced offense? The Saints rank 6th in the NFL in the running game this year! Also to clarify The Saints had one of the leagues top defenses in 2009. Like I said earlier the 2 have nothing to do with each other. The Saints just need to hire a defensive coordinator that doesn't blitz six guys and leave Vernon Davis one on one with a saftey when they are trying to protect a lead with a minute and 37 ticks left. that is all that will get redone in New Orleans. Although I wouldn't mind a lot of free agent moves on the defensive side of the ball.'pittstownkiller said:
