If the Defense had forced a few more three and outs...

[Teavo]

Yes it is, assuming one has realistic expectations.

I do. For one thing I expected our pass rush to get to Brady more than they did, and for the DL to slow the (weak) Patriots running game more than they did. Or were you satisfied with the performance of the defensive line? If so, why?

As a whole unit the defense played well. But that doesn't mean it was uniformly successful.

[Haloti92]

I do. For one thing I expected our pass rush to get to Brady more than they did. Or were you satisfied with the performance of the defensive line? If so, why?

As a whole unit the defense played well. But that doesn't mean it was uniformly successful.

You said the defense (as a whole) could 'reasonably' be accused of falling 'a little short of expectations.' I am not sure how that can be the case when you admit they played well. They held the Pats to 9 points (28%) less than their scoring average. They were given relatively short fields for the first 3 drives of the game (and after the pick). They forced 2 turnovers. Could they have played better? Of course. They could have shut them out, but the issue is whether it is 'reasonable' to 'expect' them to perform better than 'well.'

The offense, on the other hand, was facing a defense that allowed 21.4 pts per game, and finished with 20 pts, and was 'given' 3 pts from a special teams turnover inside FG range. Obviously our special teams cost the offense 3 points as well.

Every player, unit and coach could have performed better. But some played up to or better than can be reasonably expected. Like Flacco, and like the defense as a whole.

In my opinion.

As for the pass rush, Brady was getting rid of it pretty quickly, plus they were running it a lot (due to us being geared to stop the pass). But yes it could have performed better, but Brady was held in check regardless of the pass rush.