Quote:
Originally Posted by packs
Sorry but I could not disagree more. The defense forcing that fumble was a big play and it occurred at a crucial moment. Nothing mattered unless they forced the turnover and you're looking at things after the fact in a way that suggests this was a pre-determined outcome or something. In the moment they had to deliver and they did. They didn't force the turnover by virtue of prior events, like it was some foregone conclusion.
|
with your logic, the last stop of the game was due to the eagles defense , not because the patriots only have 40 seconds or whatever to go the length of the field and complete a hail mary.
yeah its a stop, just like the sack fumble, but they were because of the eagles offense and its related... put nick foles on the field with 1:40 left in the game to go the length of the field and most defenses have an increased chance to stop him.
Any replacement defense could cause 0 punts and get only a one sack with a fumble with under 2 minutes left in obvious pass situation. The patriots did force a turnover in a harder situation (clock not an ally for them etc)
eagles defense did as close to nothing as they could to win this game is all i am saying. Giving up 500 yards passing etc. My whole argument is the Patriots and Eagles defense get the same grade for the game... FAIL
not sure why you keep defending them..