YEAH BABY!!

Now only if we can field a mediocre defense we can bank 5 more rings.

Better yet, can the PATS be the team that gets hot in the playoffs, like the Ravens, Giants have lately?  Seems they don't, do they?

This post has been removed.

In response to RidingWithTheKing's comment:

Pretty sure he's just making fun of you for berating the top ranked offense while blaming it for not being able to stop the great Joe Flacco from putting up 28 points.

This post has been removed.

In response to RidingWithTheKing's comment:

You mean it's not becasue the 2001-2004 teams had a great D and the teams since have not? 

This post has been removed.

In response to RidingWithTheKing's comment:

according to some of these loons, the 2003 pats defense was great, even though it allowed 29 points in the super bowl to the freakin jake delhomme panthers....but yet the 2007, 2011, and 2012 pats defenses were terrible for allowing 14 and 21 to eli and 28 to flacco.

some people just dont get it....they expect tom to have the ball 15 possessions a game, and if he doesnt, the defense gets the blame. when you get the ball in the playoffs, you have to execute, regardless of how many possessions you get. Not scoring at all in the second half isnt good, no matter how you slice it.

In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

 

In response to RidingWithTheKing's comment:

 

In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

 

In response to RidingWithTheKing's comment:

 

I am pretty sure the reason why this team hasn't won a SB since 2005 with a meltdown in the second half in the 2006 AFC title game, a horrible game in the 2007 AFC title game at home, more horrible postseason games by Brady later on with his preference in the shotgun, is WHY we haven't won another. In fact, I am VERY sure. 

5 more playoff debacles at home in the postseason with a 90% pass shotgun choice means a lot of very disappointed Pats fans by 2017.

We're all going to see if he gets it. He's dicated this offense for a long, long time.

Any Pats fan rooting for this crappy postseason offense to continue are morons.  Brady has a chance to change it with this move to take less than what he could have made, which is a start.

 

 

 

 

You mean it's not becasue the 2001-2004 teams had a great D and the teams since have not? 

 

Actually, the 2001 D was good, but not great. The 2002 D sucked. The 2003 D was good, but collapsed in SB 38.

 

Hmm.

Seems like you're cherrypicking with where which D was good and which one wasn't.

For example, the 2007 D held the Giants to 10 points because our own offense only scored 7 before a very late TD. That means the Brady shotgun thing has been a major problem in trying to produce points.

Note how the points became a problem after the 2004 season when Weis left.

 

according to some of these loons, the 2003 pats defense was great, even though it allowed 29 points in the super bowl to the freakin jake delhomme panthers....but yet the 2007, 2011, and 2012 pats defenses were terrible for allowing 14 and 21 to eli and 28 to flacco.

 

some people just dont get it....they expect tom to have the ball 15 possessions a game, and if he doesnt, the defense gets the blame. when you get the ball in the playoffs, you have to execute, regardless of how many possessions you get. Not scoring at all in the second half isnt good, no matter how you slice it.

 

Actually that was a high possession game and yes we do expect high possessions, and yes it is the D's fault for never getting off the field.  Period!

 

Possessions are those things that allow teams to score, yes.  The more the better.

It's easier to score 4 Td's in 14 possessions than it is in 8 and the fact that you don't comprehend this is very telling, Rusty.

 I sure wouldn't be calling anybody a loon when you don't understand basic math.

In response to pezz4pats' comment:

the fact that you call me rusty is very telling, babe jr.

 

no matter how many times you have the ball in the second half on offense, not scoring a single point is just unacceptable.

i just cant believe that you still back the offense after they let the team down yet again.

In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

They had the ball exactly 4 times in both SB's in the second halves.   They scored in both of Those halfs.  Flacco had it 7 times and only scored 6 points.  That is not enough.  None-the-less they also had the lead in the low scoring games until the D pooped all over themselves only to lose again and again.  They also had the lead in many regular season games where they scored plenty of points and the D pooped, regardless.

I can't believe anyone would think it acceptable for the D to lose the lead and the game in the last seconds, in low and high scoring games,  time and time again.

  In fact you and the crusty one are the only ones that do.   Everyone else thinks the D has been a problem for years.

No wonder every one thinks you are the same person.

In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

u gotta be rusty...babe is right

In response to pezz4pats's comment:

 

In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

 

In response to pezz4pats' comment:

 

In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

 

In response to RidingWithTheKing's comment:

 

In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

 

In response to RidingWithTheKing's comment:

 

I am pretty sure the reason why this team hasn't won a SB since 2005 with a meltdown in the second half in the 2006 AFC title game, a horrible game in the 2007 AFC title game at home, more horrible postseason games by Brady later on with his preference in the shotgun, is WHY we haven't won another. In fact, I am VERY sure. 

5 more playoff debacles at home in the postseason with a 90% pass shotgun choice means a lot of very disappointed Pats fans by 2017.

We're all going to see if he gets it. He's dicated this offense for a long, long time.

Any Pats fan rooting for this crappy postseason offense to continue are morons.  Brady has a chance to change it with this move to take less than what he could have made, which is a start.

 

 

 

 

You mean it's not becasue the 2001-2004 teams had a great D and the teams since have not? 

 

Actually, the 2001 D was good, but not great. The 2002 D sucked. The 2003 D was good, but collapsed in SB 38.

 

Hmm.

Seems like you're cherrypicking with where which D was good and which one wasn't.

For example, the 2007 D held the Giants to 10 points because our own offense only scored 7 before a very late TD. That means the Brady shotgun thing has been a major problem in trying to produce points.

Note how the points became a problem after the 2004 season when Weis left.

 

according to some of these loons, the 2003 pats defense was great, even though it allowed 29 points in the super bowl to the freakin jake delhomme panthers....but yet the 2007, 2011, and 2012 pats defenses were terrible for allowing 14 and 21 to eli and 28 to flacco.

 

some people just dont get it....they expect tom to have the ball 15 possessions a game, and if he doesnt, the defense gets the blame. when you get the ball in the playoffs, you have to execute, regardless of how many possessions you get. Not scoring at all in the second half isnt good, no matter how you slice it.

 

Actually that was a high possession game and yes we do expect high possessions, and yes it is the D's fault for never getting off the field.  Period!

 

Possessions are those things that allow teams to score, yes.  The more the better.

It's easier to score 4 Td's in 14 possessions than it is in 8 and the fact that you don't comprehend this is very telling, Rusty.

 

 

the fact that you call me rusty is very telling, babe jr.

 

 

no matter how many times you have the ball in the second half on offense, not scoring a single point is just unacceptable.

i just cant believe that you still back the offense after they let the team down yet again.

 

They had the ball exactly 4 times in both SB's in the second halves.   They scored in both of Those halfs.  Flacco had it 7 times and only scored 6 points.  That is not enough.  None-the-less they also had the lead in the low scoring games until the D pooped all over themselves only to lose again and again.  They also had the lead in many regular season games where they scored plenty of points and the D pooped, regardless.

 

I can't believe anyone would think it acceptable for the D to lose the lead and the game in the last seconds, in low and high scoring games,  time and time again.

  In fact you and the crusty one are the only ones that do.   Everyone else thinks the D has been a problem for years.

No wonder every one thinks you are the same person.

 

no doubt...

 

rusty: the moon is made of green cheese

(couple of posts pointing out how silly that is)

rsf94: the moon is obviously made of green cheese...anybody who doesn't see that is a troll

 

it's painfully obvious now

This post has been removed.

In response to ipotnyc's comment:

Cant assume we will have a healthy gronk and hern going into the post season. Just hasnt happened deep in the playoffs yet

In response to tcal2-'s comment:

Brady showed again that he thinks of the team first. As far as shotgun spread I wouldn't count on it because the Patriots have changed their offensive scheme a few times over the years and Belichick is going to go with what gives them the best chance to win. Last year we saw them get away from the spread somewhat, especially compared to tthe last few seasons. Whatever works best is what they will do. The defense should continue to improve, they were much better last year, especially when they had Talib and Dennard at corner. They had their first shutout in a few years to end the season. With Brady taking one for the team again they are well set up for free agency. Between that and the draft they should be able to fill their needs and the defense could be very good.

so far this has been a good offseason , look forward to see what Armstead can do.

Bottom line on the O:  pretty solid group.  Now if the D can solidify, shotgun spread or under center, it won't matter. 

Flacco and the Ravens scored 38 (35 in regulation) vs Denver, 28 vs NE and 34 vs. SF, ipso facto, the Patriots have a better defense than either of those teams.

Points are all that matters, this possession stuff is just grasping at straws looking for some stat that supports the theory that the defense isn't as good as it used to be. Fine, so what? The NFL isn't what it used to be either. Just look at the way the game is played now.  The defense is apparently good enough in this NFL to win lots of games year after year.  And it hasn't played worse, and it could be argued that it has played much better, in the playoffs.

None of this possession talk or anything else that any of the offense apologists has brought explains away the fact that the offense didn't do its part in the last five playoff losses, going back to 2007.  I like Brady as much as the next guy, not saying he's even the problem, but clearly there's a problem.  He was outplayed by his counterpart in all five of those games. It's undeniable, but some people will deny it. How many possessions did he have? Who cares, it's football, do something with it when it's your turn instead of punting or turning it over. 

On the other hand, they lost two Super Bowls because of a fluke play and a dropped pass. If they win those games, this discussion is moot.

In response to tcal2-'s comment:

the shotgun spread, in combination with an up-tempo game, and an opposing d that is average or worse - will win a lot of regular season games.

However, the shotgun spread, even with an up-temp game, our lousy D - and against an opposing D that can cover AND get to Brady - is NOT what I'd want heading into a playoff game.

 

 

Points are all that count, but judging the performance of the defense or the offense simply by points given up or points scored in the Super Bowl is superficial. If you're trying to improve the team, improving the QB is not where you put your effort because-newsflash-despite the loons who complain incessantly about Brady, Brady is one of the best QBs ever and his playoff performance is on the whole good.  Where you need to put effort is (1) improving pass defense (coverage and pass rush), (2) getting more quality and diversity in your offensive weapons, and (3) getting the o-line to be healthy and consistent come playoff time.

 

 

Great, luv it Brady signed. Now if a consistent run game can be had, have recievers that make key grabs at key situations, and an average defense can be built, the Pats may actually do something great in the playoffs.  

If only Belichick were as smart as the posters on this board. We would have traded Brady and run every play with Mallet firmly planted under center.  

The only two ways to defend Brady and the offense: with stats, which are for losers, or by blaming the defense for not what, giving the ball to an offense that can't score in the playoffs? We don't have more rings because Brady sucked (his words), the O-line has been manhandled, and passes were dropped.

I can't see how Brady's spread offense gets off the hook. How could you not cringe with the terribly perdictable bubble screens and back shoulder throws to Lloyd? It's clear the offense, like the defense, is too vanilla.

How about keeping it away from the other team? First downs, maybe? We can control our offense, not their defense. Safety's in the Super Bowl...really? D-backs crippling our backs and receivers with no retaliation from our O-line or defense?

Yeah, I want the '85 Bears D, too, but be realistic: our D would be heroes but for 2 of the best passes and catches ever. The Gints receivers were well-covered. Call it luck...or execution and desire. We made some miraculous plays on D to win our SB's, too, but it took Brady and Vinatieri to win the games. Tom is THE leader and when it has come down to it lately, he has obviously had a tough time of it. 

Yeah, the Pats can't get pressure, but we just as easily cave to pressure on O. Tom the Turtle lately.

Those pinpoint passes are few and far between in the playoffs for Brady. No defense can stop execution, and the Pats have not come through on O. If it were reversed, do you think San Fran fans would have absolved Montana if he performed like Brady in the playoffs? If you choke, you choke no matter who you are, and that's what's been happening when it counts most.

Brady defenders, along with the rest of us, better hope he plays up-to-par with a better cast (see Gronkowsky) around him. As consistently good as the Pats have been, and I'm grateful for that, Brady and the team are close to marking the so-called asterisk in ink. 

Brady's in the HOF, maybe better than Montana, but IF you had your choice of all the QB's in the league, seeing Brady's latest performances (fearful vs. Baltimore), wouldn't you think long and hard about playing a more versatile QB in the later rounds? There are 3 or 4 guys I'd consider.

Hanging your hat on the saying "defense wins championships," is like saying the glass is half empty: it takes both sides to win.

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

Not saying brady sucks. He is the best ever and would not want anyone else as the QB. But for all the credit he gets when patriots win he should get some blame too when we lose instead of pointing out deficiencies on our roster. I also agree there things pats need to improve upon. 

5 more years of being in the hunt for the SB!

5 more years of the hurry up / no huddle offense!

5 more years guranteed of loving watching football!

5 more years of a lot of wonderful Patriots things, folks!!