Super Bowl Confirms What I Have Been Saying

The Giant-Patriot Super Bowl confirmed what I have been saying and debating with readers of this blog. Let’s review point by point.

I said all along that I would love to see how Tom Brady performs if a team put pressure on him. I’ve stated that people think he’s better than Favre because of his statistics, but he has 6 seconds to throw on most plays. Rex Grossman would look great in those circumstances. I told people the Giants had a chance if they pressured Brady, which they were capable of, and double-teamed Moss, and this is what they did. My reasoning was that Brady would look much worse than he had been all season if he had to play under pressure. The results were obvious. With 2:30 to go in the third quarter, 20 of the Patriots’ 42 plays were for zero or negative yards. The Patriots had 7 points, and these were largely due to a pass interference call. The Patriots had 81 yards total offense in the first half. The Patriots offense and Brady struggled all game, with the exception of one drive which I will discuss below.
I said after the Packer-Giant game that had the Packer corners played 3 yards off the receivers, instead of 1, that they would have shut the Giants down. I also said this was especially true in Burress’ case, as he had a bad ankle. The Packers played press coverage all game and got burned. The Patriots did play their corners back a little, and shut down Burress as I predicted. He had 2 catches for 27 yards, and the Patriots’ corners are not as good as the Packer corners. I said the Giant offense wasn’t very good, and the Packers could have shut them down by not playing press coverage. The Giants had 3 points against the Patriots until midway through the 4th quarter.
I said after the Packer-Giant game that the way to attack the Giants is to throw slants and 7- to 10-yard high-percentage passes. Not only is this what made the Packers so successful all year, but the Giants are good at stopping the run and putting pressure on the quarterback. These passes are perfect to counteract that, and are basically unstoppable anyway. The Packers did this successfully on the first two plays of the game, and then stopped doing it. The Patriots did not figure this out until around midway through the 4th quarter, just after the Giants scored to take a 10-7 lead. At that point, the Patriots had to score as they were behind, it was the 4th quarter, and they hadn’t scored since their opening drive. So, what did they do? They went on a 12-play drive, 11 of which were passes, and all of which were 7- to 10-yard passes. Brady was 8 for 11 for 71 yards and the TD. Why the Patriots (and Packers) did not do this all game amazes me. Moss and Welker were open short most of the day.
I also said how effective the slant-and-go is, especially with a pump, when a receiver is single covered. This is how the Giants scored the winning TD.
I’ve debated with a number of you regarding Favre being considered a gunslinger, as there are times he forces plays to try to make something happen. I’ve clearly stated that this occurs when the Packers have a bad gameplan, which frustrates him, or when they are losing (most times due to a bad gameplan) and he tries to do whatever it takes to win. I’ve pointed out his pass interception percentage is 3.3, which is slightly above Montana’s 2.6, but better than Staubach’s 3.7. Favre has less than one more interception per hundred passes than Montana, but he’s constantly accused of making bad plays. Let’s look at some of the plays in the Super Bowl:

With 1:47 left in the half, Brady, from his own 11, was under a lot of pressure, and just before he was tackled on a safety blitz, he threw a long pass up for grabs toward Moss. The pass landed well short of Moss and incomplete at the Patriot 41, but had one of the two defensive backs covering Moss turned around, they would have easily intercepted the pass and had a long return, setting up a TD or field goal. The Patriots led 7-3 at the time, so this could have been a big momentum-changer. This was definitely gunslinging.
Manning’s pass to David Tyree after escaping the sack was a gunslinging pass. He was desperate and threw the ball to Tyree when there were 4 defensive backs in the area. The play worked thanks to a great catch, as many gunslinging plays do work, but where is the gunslinger label being put on Manning?
Manning threw a long pass on the winning-TD drive that was nearly intercepted by Samuel with 1:20 left, which would have ended the game. There was no receiver anywhere near the ball. It’s possible the receiver ran the wrong route, but that happens to Favre, too. Where are the gunslinging labels?
Brady also threw 3 interceptions in the Charger game, 2 of which were his fault, but no one criticizes him for these. An interception is an interception, and you could say the QB used bad judgment whether or not he was gunslinging.

Now, a question on coaching strategy for both coaches.

The Giants, leading 10-7 with 3:00 left, blitzed on second-and-goal from the 6, causing Brady to throw an incompletion and bringing up 3rd and 6. If they stop them on third down, the Patriots have to go for a tying field goal, giving almost 3:00 to the Giants to get in winning-FG range. The Giants elect not to blitz on third down, giving Brady time, and single cover Moss, allowing him to be wide open. I will never understand this.
Leading 14-10, with a little over 30 seconds to play, the Patriots single cover Burress from the 13-yardline, resulting in an easy touchdown. Again, I will never understand this.

Larry says

February 6, 2008 at 1:48 pm

1. Jeffrey Wilson on February 6th, 2008 12:31 pm

Larry,

While some of your analysis is true, much of it seems to be an indictment of the Giants, and a redemption of how & why the packers lost the NFC Championship game. The way Manning and Brady played was completely different than the way Favre plays. Favre takes unnecessary chances with the ball, while Manning was playing for the championship. On a play like him and Tyree made at the end of the game, neither had a choice in the matter. They gambled and won, and great effort was put out by both. That’s not gunsliging.

2. Larry on February 6th, 2008 1:48 pm

You are correct that much of my analysis was designed to show that had the Packers had a smart and obvious gameplan, they would have easily beaten the Giants. This is not hindsight, as I said it early in the game. The Super Bowl proved a lot of what I said. You say Favre takes unnecessary chances with the ball. Wasn’t Brady’s up-for-grabs-before-I-get-tackled throw from his 11 that could have resulted in a Giant TD just before halftime an unnecessary chance? That could have been a big momentum changer. And, wasn’t Manning’s throw to Tyree that would have cost his team the game had it been intercepted an unnecessary chance? There were 4 DBs in the area. He could have made a much safer throw. Wasn’t Manning’s throw that Samuel said he should have intercepted and that would have cost his team the game an unnecessary chance? A receiver might have run the wrong route on the Samuel play, which also happens to Favre, but Manning still threw the ball right to the defensive back. You said Manning was playing for the championship. Wasn’t that what Favre was playing for (to get to the Super Bowl) in the Giant game when he made the throw to McQuarters? Perhaps Favre does take chances, but since his interception percentage is similar to that of other great QBs, this might mean he throws fewer “regular” interceptions. And, many of Favre’s “chances” result in great plays that many people say no other QB could make. Therefore, you get the same number of interceptions, but some great plays in addition. Remember, an interception is an interception. Brady’s three interceptions (2 of which were his fault) against the Chargers might not have looked like “unnecessary chances,” but he still threw the ball to the other team. The Brady and two Manning passes in the Super Bowl were no different than Favre’s pass to McQuarters. You say Manning gambled and won with the Tyree play, which is true, but Favre wins many of these gambles, too. However, had he lost the gamble, or had Samuel intercepted earlier, he’s the goat. It’s not gunslinging when the gamble works? I completely disagree. Everyone knows that many of Favre’s gunslinging plays were dramatic successes. And great effort was put out by Favre on all his gunslinging plays as that’s why he does it–he wants to do everything he can to win.

Comments

Larry says

February 6, 2008 at 1:48 pm

1. Jeffrey Wilson on February 6th, 2008 12:31 pm

Larry,

While some of your analysis is true, much of it seems to be an indictment of the Giants, and a redemption of how & why the packers lost the NFC Championship game. The way Manning and Brady played was completely different than the way Favre plays. Favre takes unnecessary chances with the ball, while Manning was playing for the championship. On a play like him and Tyree made at the end of the game, neither had a choice in the matter. They gambled and won, and great effort was put out by both. That’s not gunsliging.

2. Larry on February 6th, 2008 1:48 pm

You are correct that much of my analysis was designed to show that had the Packers had a smart and obvious gameplan, they would have easily beaten the Giants. This is not hindsight, as I said it early in the game. The Super Bowl proved a lot of what I said. You say Favre takes unnecessary chances with the ball. Wasn’t Brady’s up-for-grabs-before-I-get-tackled throw from his 11 that could have resulted in a Giant TD just before halftime an unnecessary chance? That could have been a big momentum changer. And, wasn’t Manning’s throw to Tyree that would have cost his team the game had it been intercepted an unnecessary chance? There were 4 DBs in the area. He could have made a much safer throw. Wasn’t Manning’s throw that Samuel said he should have intercepted and that would have cost his team the game an unnecessary chance? A receiver might have run the wrong route on the Samuel play, which also happens to Favre, but Manning still threw the ball right to the defensive back. You said Manning was playing for the championship. Wasn’t that what Favre was playing for (to get to the Super Bowl) in the Giant game when he made the throw to McQuarters? Perhaps Favre does take chances, but since his interception percentage is similar to that of other great QBs, this might mean he throws fewer “regular” interceptions. And, many of Favre’s “chances” result in great plays that many people say no other QB could make. Therefore, you get the same number of interceptions, but some great plays in addition. Remember, an interception is an interception. Brady’s three interceptions (2 of which were his fault) against the Chargers might not have looked like “unnecessary chances,” but he still threw the ball to the other team. The Brady and two Manning passes in the Super Bowl were no different than Favre’s pass to McQuarters. You say Manning gambled and won with the Tyree play, which is true, but Favre wins many of these gambles, too. However, had he lost the gamble, or had Samuel intercepted earlier, he’s the goat. It’s not gunslinging when the gamble works? I completely disagree. Everyone knows that many of Favre’s gunslinging plays were dramatic successes. And great effort was put out by Favre on all his gunslinging plays as that’s why he does it–he wants to do everything he can to win.