I'm no NFL coach but....

[TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt]

I brought it up because it is the exact same circumstance as what occurred in the 3rd quarter of the Eagles game. The only difference was that we did what the Eagles managed in the 3rd quarter over the course of an entire game.

 

The Eagles offense played defense BY KEEPING OUR OFFENSE OFF OF THE FIELD. Our defense failed for precisely the same reason the Bills defense failed--they allowed the Eagles to keep the ball, rather than shutting them down earlier in the drive on one of the 3rd down situations they created.

 

Your comment about me pulling up a 20-year old game is a strawman argument--that is a classic example of the situation I'm talking about, and you are quite aware of it. You're trying to muddle things by claiming that the team and year has anything to do with the strategy. You may as well argue that Generals shouldn't study Cannae, because Carthage doesn't exist anymore.

 

If you can't see the difference in defensive goals between not allowing an extremely long drive that takes up most of a period when we have field conditions in our favor and we needed to score more than once; and a situation where we were tied and would not get the ball back with any time on the clock no matter how many points were scored--I don't know what to tell you.

 

I never said that the defense screwed up the whole game; just that they really screwed the pooch in that third quarter.

 

 

And if Carthage had won it all (Hannibal was a better version of McNabb...get you there but no idea how to deal with massive success) there would be more afro's worldwide and a serious shortage of ice blonds.

[Nesta]

All right, let's break it down into that first drive of the second half for both those games.

 

Opening drive of the second half:

 

Giants in Superbowl XXV, down by 2 points. Chewed up the clock for 9:29 before scoring a touchdown. Third down conversions on the drive was 3 for 3.

 

Eagles on 12/7, ahead by 3 points (this is important, because it shows that scoring would have been a plus, but not essential). Chewed clock to the tune of 7:03 with no score. Third down conversions were 3 for 4. They were 75% in 3rd down conversions in that drive, 66% over the whole game. Blocked field goal, special teams salvage something. But all the momentum from the Dockery TD in the first half is gone.

 

Almost half the quarter gone before the offense even touches the ball; a quarter where they needed to score as much as possible while the weather conditions were in their favor. In the flow of this particular game, our 4th quarter was in reality the third insofar as we needed to make our move then. That sets up a sense of urgency in the offense before they even play a down.

 

Don't all excited about the SB touchdown, Nesta. The Bills scored on the next posession and retook the lead. If you were to ask Marv Levy what was more costly about the drive, he would no doubt tell you that it was the amount of time taken off of the clock. If that drive had gone differently (and I mean nothing more than the Giants score a TD sooner), the Bills would have gotten a little more time at the end of the game, and Norwood would have probably had a much easier kick.

 

The Eagles never lost the lead, so it wasn't as critical to score on that possession. As it turned out, they scored on their next six minute drive, so no harm, no foul.

 

The goals of the two offenses were the same: keep the opponent's offense off of the field, although the Giants had the added burden of needing a score. Philly needed to make sure they controlled the clock in the 3rd quarter, since the 4th played to their advantage; while the Giants in SB XXV had to sustain it over most of the game because of the nature of their opponent. That is the only real difference in strategy between the two games.

 

But the fact remains that both offenses were successful in achieving their goals in those first drives, which means the defenses FAILED in achieving theirs: which at that point in both those games was to get the ball in their offense's hands quickly and often.

 

As far as plenty of time, over 21 minutes of possession in the second half by the Eagles says you're mistaken.

 

And the fact is we didn't win the game, the defense couldn't get off of the field for the entire second half, and that first drive set the tone of that half whether they scored or not. If we did manage to pull a win out of that fiasco, it would have meant the offense scored 2 out of the 3 possessions they had in the second half--all it would have meant was that the offense bailed-out the defense in this particular game.

 

I can't even begin to understand how you would consider that drive a defensive success. Certainly not at the point in the game it occurred.

 

lol you're still stuck on the superbowl? Psst it's an ENTIRE GAME fishy.

You're beyond hope. And do us both a favor and learn how to be concise. Thanks.

[fishgutmartyr]

lol you're still stuck on the superbowl? Psst it's an ENTIRE GAME fishy.

You're beyond hope. And do us both a favor and learn how to be concise. Thanks.

 

OK, I'll be concise. I'm completely wasting my time. I've pointed out several different ways in which your argument doesn't make sense on that drive. I've used logic, historical references involving specific drives, and you've ignored them.

 

As far as I can gather, you believe that if an offense somehow manages to hold the ball for 7+ minutes, and then doesn't score, the defense was successful. Time of possession is meaningless. Field conditions are irrelevant. Momentum doesn't exist. Hell, the SCORE doesn't matter, so long as there are no points scored, even if only due to a botched field goal attempt.

 

Gotcha.

 

You must have been thrilled in that 2006 playoff game because we kept them out of the end zone on that last drive. You know, because when we got the ball back we could get the field goal for the tie or TD for the win. Oh, wait...

[Nesta]

OK, I'll be concise. I'm completely wasting my time. I've pointed out several different ways in which your argument doesn't make sense on that drive. I've used logic, historical references involving specific drives, and you've ignored them.

 

As far as I can gather, you believe that if an offense somehow manages to hold the ball for 7+ minutes, and then doesn't score, the defense was successful. Time of possession is meaningless. Field conditions are irrelevant. Momentum doesn't exist. Hell, the SCORE doesn't matter, so long as there are no points scored, even if only due to a botched field goal attempt.

 

Gotcha.

 

You must have been thrilled in that 2006 playoff game because we kept them out of the end zone on that last drive. You know, because when we got the ball back we could get the field goal for the tie or TD for the win. Oh, wait...

 

And this is to you, concise?

 

When all else fails, put words in my mouth.

[fishgutmartyr]

And this is to you, concise?

 

When all else fails, put words in my mouth.

It's hard being concise, when your argument is so flawed.

 

 

As far as I can gather, you believe that if an offense somehow manages to hold the ball for 7+ minutes, and then doesn't score, the defense was successful. Time of possession is meaningless. Field conditions are irrelevant. Momentum doesn't exist. Hell, the SCORE doesn't matter, so long as there are no points scored, even if only due to a botched field goal attempt.

 

I've made every point in the above statement between this thread and the other thread we were debating on. You've dismissed each point. How is that putting words in your mouth?

[meetdamets]

There is NO POSSIBLE EXCUSE for not using Hixon on kick returns throughout the postseason. We face a 1 game elimination from here on out and this guy is a beast in the return game. Time to give him some double duty... Don't be a fool Tom!

IDK call me crazy but id like to see Danny Ware return some kicks the guy is QUick on his feet and finds the crease.....LETS GO BABY CANT WAIT FOR SUNDAY

[Nesta]

It's hard being concise, when your argument is so flawed.

 

No no no. Can't blame me. That's a habit you have that's not exclusive to this argument.

 

 

 

Time of possession is meaningless. Field conditions are irrelevant. Momentum doesn't exist. Hell, the SCORE doesn't matter

 

You know damn well I never said any of this BS. Never so much as implied it. Even said just the opposite in the other thread.

You're suggesting the issue is black and white. Either I agree with you, or I agree with these points. A very juvenile tactice that, I thought, was well beneath you.

[fishgutmartyr]

No no no. Can't blame me. That's a habit you have that's not exclusive to this argument.

 

...and after 6,500+ posts on hundreds of threads, you chose this one to remark about it.

 

I do tend to go on. I just figure that if I'm going to stick my POV up here, the least I can do is explain it.

You know damn well I never said any of this BS. Never so much as implied it. Even said just the opposite in the other thread.

 

You've denied every one of those points as far as this drive is concerned. If you show me otherwise, I'll apologize; but it simply doesn't compute for me that you could agree with any of those points and still think the defense did their job on that drive.

 

From my end, I was frustrated when I wrote that, and I do apologize for the exaggeration.

You're suggesting the issue is black and white. Either I agree with you, or I agree with these points. A very juvenile tactice that, I thought, was well beneath you.

 

 

I'm pretty sure you know I made a valid point and you're just being stubborn about the whole damn thing.

Tell me honestly once and for all, if we had won the damn game, would you say the defense 'did their job' on that drive?

Ofcourse you would, and I don't need you to tell me that.

 

Gee, I didn't even get to respond one way or the other here, Mr. Grey. I'm simply in denial.

 

We're both getting a little out of hand here, Nesta, and I'd really prefer to avoid that. Pax?

[Nesta]

...and after 6,500+ posts on hundreds of threads, you chose this one to remark about it.

 

I do tend to go on. I just figure that if I'm going to stick my POV up here, the least I can do is explain it.

 

I wasn't required to read all the other posts fish. If we're going to debate this, then it requires me to read your posts.

If I can get your gist in the first sentence or two, it's tiresome to have to read another 3 or four paragraphs. Like I've already said, it's not that I don't understand your point, it's that I disagree. So lengthy explanations are not necessary.

 

Having said that, I apologize for the following 3 or 4 paragraphs.

 

 

You've denied every one of those points as far as this drive is concerned. If you show me otherwise, I'll apologize; but it simply doesn't compute for me that you could agree with any of those points and still think the defense did their job on that drive.

 

From my end, I was frustrated when I wrote that, and I do apologize for the exaggeration.

 

If you reread the other post, you'll see I haven't denied those points at all, but I'll summarize for you.

 

Time of possesion is important, but not the be-all-end-all decider of games. Lots of teams do not get the majority of time and still manage to win the game. Especially in a close game, as it was at that point of the game. If you recall, we did have the majority of time in the first half and did nothing. Zilch. So I highly doubt an extra seven minutes was going to change the games outcome.

 

 

Field conditions can play a part in a game's outcome no doubt. But having the 'wind at your back' in the meadowlands doesn't hold the same weight as it does in other stadiums. The winds were SWIRLING. They weren't blowing in one consistent direction. 4 out of our nine possesions in the game were 'with the wind' netting ZERO pts. Am I supposed to believe one more would've made all the difference?

 

Momentum indeed exists, but I'm inclined to think, if we had it in the first place, it was killed by halftime as is the case for many teams in many games. It's hard to believe that one blocked fg, leaving us trailing at the half gave us the momentum in the first place considering we were struggling to even get first downs.

 

SCORE? I can't believe you even brought this up considering that's my point and not yours. Yeah we lost 7 minutes in a 10-7 game. Even a fg wouldn't have been that bad at that point, but they didn't even get that. So I really don't see where you're going with this considering it was our own inept offense that couldn't score. Yeah scoring matters. It's the only thing that matters in the end right? If we gave up the LAST 7 minutes, I would be obliged to agree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gee, I didn't even get to respond one way or the other here, Mr. Grey. I'm simply in denial.

Actually I was still waiting for a response, I was just saying I already knew the answer.

 

 

We're both getting a little out of hand here, Nesta, and I'd really prefer to avoid that. Pax?

Agreed

[fishgutmartyr]

Nesta, posted this on the game thread, but just in case you don't catch it:

 

I thought he did a good job for most of the regular season--but he totally fucked this game, and it's very apparent that the guy does NOT know how to call a game in windy conditions. And I can't believe Coughlin didn't take the wind in the 4th quarter. Again. It's like they learned NOTHING from that last game.

 

Nesta, if you're reading this, Gilbride proved me wrong. The defense did MORE this game than what I hoped they would do in the first drive of the second half of that other game, and Gilbride STILL couldn't take advantage of it.

 

You were right, I was wrong.

[Nesta]

Nesta, posted this on the game thread, but just in case you don't catch it:

 

 

 

You were right, I was wrong.

 

I would much rather have won the game.