Why, oh why, did they print this book? The cover says that it's for information only, but both Target and Walmart have been carrying it for 2 weeks, now.
Why, oh why, did he wear this sweatshirt, when all we know him in is this one?
Why didn't we execute the quick passes, short passes that elevated us over the Chargers and makes people think that Peyton is a QB phenom?
Why didn't we attempt the 47 yard field goal?
There were many missed opportunities. The Patriots had three chances to put the game away if their defensive backs could have hung onto the ball. It seems to me that Brady's ankle must have been bothering him. His inability to be accurate down the field was glaringly obvious and completely removed the deep threat. The injury to Kevin Faulk was also a huge detriment to the Patriots. It's hard to win when someone that many picked to be MVP is no longer in the game.
And we can't ignore the amazing play of the Giant's Defensive line. The Patriots are nutorious for not only being able to stop the front four, but picking off blitzers as well. They did neither in this game.
That all being said, how can I comment on a football game without mentioning the men in black & white? I'm going to offer a critique of three questionable calls; all of which had an affect on the outcome of the game. I'll list them from most obvious to least.
2nd Quarter: 3-7, Patriots. Giants driving. Toomer runs down the left sideline. The ball is somewhat under-thrown. Toomer puts his hand on the face mask of the cornerback, extends his arm, pushing the defensive back out of the way. He cut to the sideline and made the catch. Call on the field: reception. Correct call: Offensive pass interference. Result of the play: 1st down on NE 19, rather than 3rd and 20 on NY's 28.
2nd Quarter: 3-7, Patriots. Giants have the ball. Eli muffs a hand-off to Bradshaw on NY 33 yard line! The ball falls and the Patriots fall on it. The Patriot who fell on the ball is the only man within 3 feet of it. He lays on it for a few seconds and then Bradshaw rolls him over and takes the ball from him while he is on the ground. Call on the field: Giants recovered the fumble. Correct call: Down by contact, Patriot's ball, short field. This would have been a fantastic opportunity for the Patriots to go up by two scores. It was denied because, for some reason, referees like to see who comes away with the ball. Rather than call the person with the ball down by contact. (Of course, if every play were refereed the way a fumble is, then you could strip the ball from a running back while he's on the bottom of the pile and, as long as you come away with it, it's your ball.) This is not a reviewable play.
4th Quarter: 14-10 Patriots. Giants driving. 3rd and 5 from the NYG 44 yrd line. Well out of Field Goal range. Manning scrambles. Grabbed by several Patriot defensive lineman. He escapes and throws the ball 32 yards to Tyree keeping the drive alive. Call on the field: Completion. 1st down. Correct call: Sack, forward progress ended. 4th down. The Rules clearly state "Officials are to blow the play dead as soon as the quarterback is clearly in the grasp and control of any tackler, and his safety is in jeopardy." They never should have allowed him to continue the play. This is the single biggest blown call of the game.
That being said, I will not go as far as some who claim that the NFL did not want the Patriots to go 19-0. Had that been the case, the last team they would have orchestrated them playing would have been the New York Giants.
It is unfortunate that the better team did not win this game. Man for man, position for position, the Patriots are, without a doubt, the better team. How can anyone claim that a team that is 10-6 is the best team in the NFL, when there were three teams that went 13-3, two that went 11-5, and one that managed 16-0? And let's also consider the strength of their schedules. The Giants were 1-5 against teams with a winning record. All of their opponents had a combined winning percentage of .515. Their 10 wins came against teams that had a winning percentage of .375! The Giants played 6 games against teams that went to the playoffs. They lost 5 of them and were out-scored 137-188 through the course of all six. The Patriots also played 6 playoff bound teams (avg winning percentage: .688) and defeated them by a margain of 234-116.
I have a solution that would make it more likely the team that emerges triumphant from the NFL playoffs would be the best team of the season. Here's my idea (Hear me out before you start hating it.): When teams face off in the playoffs, the team with the better record starts the game with points. The points they get at the beginning of the game would be equal to the number of games they are over their opponent. A match-up of a 13-3 team vs a 10-6 team would provide the 13-3 team 3 points at kickoff. Not insurmountable, but recognizes that one team played better all year, compared to another team that might have struggled, snuck into the playoffs and finally started clicking. With this scoring system, the 2000-2001 Patriots would not have won the Super Bowl.
It's amazing that people were asking "Is this the greatest football team ever?" Comparing them to the Cowboys of the 90s, 49ers of the 80s, Steelers of the 70s, and Packers of the 60's. Yet, as soon as the Patriots fell to the Giants, this discussion ended. Why? The '72 Dolphins are not on this list. No team listed above ever went 16-0 (or 14-0 for that matter, or 12-0 in the strike shortened season). No team has ever defeated 8 of the 11 other playoff teams in one season! No team has score more points, recorded more touchdowns, spread the touchdowns among as many players, had more net points, or won as many games in the regular season (to name a few attributes of the 2007 Patriots.) I'm not declaring this team the greatest ever. But the discussion should still be open.
I'm still recovering from the only loss the Patriots experienced this season. I've been tossing around the conundrum of would I rather they went 15-1 and won it all? Or is it better that they've gone 16-0, but lost in the Big Game? As crushing as the defeat in the Super Bowl was, and as notorious as it will become, the 2007 Patriots are the only team to win 16 consecutive regular season games, the only team to win 18 consecutive games in the same season, and the only team to win 19 consecutive regular season games over the course of two seasons (and counting. They won the last 3 of 2006, all 16 of 2008, and can keep their streak alive in the beginning of 2008.) I was asked if Brady got hurt while trying to beat the Giants the first time if it would have been worth it. My answer: Yes. An unbeaten season is an amazing feat. The Super Bowl is a tournament, and as any NCAA 8th seed will tell you: upsets happen in tournaments. Upsets happen on the football field. And I think it will be a long long time before we see another team hit 16-0!
Go Patriots!
2 comments:
And now the circle is complete...now I know what the Rams felt like in 2001.
My thoughts during the game as I watched Brady take the beating of his life was: "where was the no-huddle?" We have faced fierce speed pass rushers before (Freeney, Merriman, Schobel, Jason Taylor, just to name a few) Granted the combination of Strahan and Umeniyora are probably better than those guys...but still where was the no-huddle? It seemed to me in the last 5 years, whenever Brady was flustered, we would go to the no-huddle and wear the defense out. The Colts did this to us in their dome in our playoff game last year.
Possible answers: 1)Brady was not able to run the no-huddle because of his ankle. 2) Belichick got outcoached. 3) Faulk is the heart and soul of the no-huddle offense.
I think #3, which makes Faulk's injury seem all the worse. Everytime we go no-huddle, there are short passes to Faulk, screens to Faulk, Faulk on the HB draws, and so on. You might say, just stick Maroney in, but I'm not sure it's that easy. In any case, Faulk's injury was as serious as when Rodney Harrison went down and we put Dom Davis and Eric Alexander on Dallas Clark last year.
On the officiating: your first point is absolutely correct- even Aikman said it was offensive pass interference on the broadcast.
The fumble play was ridiculous. Again Aikman said he couldn't believe the Giants recovered. If I understand rightly, this IS a reviewable play. Belichick has explained his rationale for using his challenges on WEEI and true to form, he stuck with it and did not challenge so early in the game. This is easy to second guess, we could have had a short field if they got it and lost a 1st half timeout and a 1 challenge if we lost it.
I'm not so sure about the last point, but it illustrates what I have found to be a troubling trend of referees allowing the plays to go on and on - and then relying (or forcing) coaches to challenge obviously bogus plays (like the fumble recovery). Sooner or later, someone is going to be seriously hurt because the whistle did not blow, even though a given play might actually be over. The NFL needs to address this and empower referees with the authority to decisively blow a play dead. They worry too much about quick whistles. When was the last time you saw a play blown dead before it was really over?
That being said, your post was as well worded and sane an eulogy for the Pats season as any. This one is going to hurt for a long time...only 6 more months until training camp. sigh...
Congrats to New York City. Welcome to this decade in sports. You've been missed. But Boston still owns it....unless maybe Isaiah and your Knicks....I'm sorry...that's just not nice.
Marc...nice post. Hope you're well. Talk to you soon.
Post a Comment