Anatomy of a Choke.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from SilverSun. Show SilverSun's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    RR, this one's for you, Bud!!!


     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    Let's simplify things a little bit.

    Who would you take: Pats O vs Jets O?
    Who would you take: Pats D vs Jets D?

    The pats offense scored the most points in football (and many more than the jets), while they only gave up 5 more points all year against a tougher schedule. What does that body of work indicate? 

    It makes me sick that a real fan like you feels the need to crap on the pats now because they don't have a star culture. In the end, the pats even had more probowlers so your argument isn't even close to relevant.  




    In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke. : Let's see how this looks on paper...talent wise: Holmes and Braylon Edwards - both first round picks vs.   Welker (was he even drafted?) and Branch (was he even considered an NFL player before the trade?) LT vs. Green Ellis - Ahh, do I really need to go there? Harris and Scott vs. Guyton and Mayo- as good as Mayo is, when you add the both of them....nope. Pace and Thomas vs. Banta Cain and Nincovich- Really? Their Secondary vs. Ours-  Come on, you can't be serious? We are much better at QB and tight end!! Other than that it's not like they had chopped liver. As far as Pro Bowl players go...it's a cyclical popularity contest, nothing more. For god's sake Merriweather made it!
    Posted by mthurl[/QUOTE]
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    And please go there with LT vs BJGE. I'd like to hear your reasoning. It's not like BJGE had over 1000 yards or led the league in TDs or anything.

    In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke. : Let's see how this looks on paper...talent wise: Holmes and Braylon Edwards - both first round picks vs.   Welker (was he even drafted?) and Branch (was he even considered an NFL player before the trade?) LT vs. Green Ellis - Ahh, do I really need to go there? Harris and Scott vs. Guyton and Mayo- as good as Mayo is, when you add the both of them....nope. Pace and Thomas vs. Banta Cain and Nincovich- Really? Their Secondary vs. Ours-  Come on, you can't be serious? We are much better at QB and tight end!! Other than that it's not like they had chopped liver. As far as Pro Bowl players go...it's a cyclical popularity contest, nothing more. For god's sake Merriweather made it!
    Posted by mthurl[/QUOTE]
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davedsone. Show Davedsone's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke. : - Now you speaking for everyone?  The hubris of a Belichick combined with the IQ of a horse.  I can't help it if you have the attention span of a flea.  Keep scratching.  LOL
    Posted by RajonRondowski[/QUOTE]

    Oh, look people are here.  Note they aren't responding you to.  Just the guy with the picture did that.  
    Also, your comments have no connection to each other, or anything I have said.  You are not making sense..  wait, that isn't it, you have never made sense.  You are rambling disjointedly more than usual.  

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    You guys should just end the feud and have a beer. It's not worth having a p1ssing content on a chat board. I'll see if Obama is available to help smooth the time over a bud light. 

    In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke. : Oh, look people are here.  Note they aren't responding you to.  Just the guy with the picture did that.   Also, your comments have no connection to each other, or anything I have said.  You are not making sense..  wait, that isn't it, you have never made sense.  You are rambling disjointedly more than usual.  
    Posted by Davedsone[/QUOTE]
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davedsone. Show Davedsone's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    Oh, we aren't having a feud.  I refuse to let malicious posts thinly disguised as criticism go unanswered.  Opinions are one thing, but just posting maliciously isn't something I care to tolerate.  RR thinks if he keeps going, I will get tired and leave him be to do this sort of stuff.  I won't.  The threads he has commented in without engaging in THIS kind of stuff, I don't bother him.  He steps outside the lines, I challenge his statements.  That's all it is.  I don't have an issue with him other than his posting behavior.  
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Texas-Pathetic. Show Texas-Pathetic's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    Rajon,

    Surprisingly, Davesdone is having a hard time swallowing this thread; I guess he's choking too.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from unclealfie. Show unclealfie's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    Yes, we all know what choke means.

    Call it what you will and invoke any sports cliches you want; it doesn't matter. We lost the damm game. Period.

    Get over it and look forward to the draft and next year.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davedsone. Show Davedsone's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    Tex... oh, forget it.  You know what I think about you.  
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from RajonRondowski. Show RajonRondowski's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke.:
    [QUOTE]You guys should just end the feud and have a beer. It's not worth having a p1ssing content on a chat board. I'll see if Obama is available to help smooth the time over a bud light.  In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke. :
    Posted by Rockdog1293000[/QUOTE]

    -

    You are right.  I put the guy on ignore. If he wants to stalk me then he can go ahead. I was amused for a moment.

    Your points, however are well taken.

    That's such a silly argument. Suddenly the pats aren't talented. I guess this team scored over 30 points per game with smoke and mirrors. Brady can't be talented because he was a sixth round pick. Maybe he's one of the best two QB's ever, but that doesn't mean he's any talented. You need a first round pick like Sanchez or Alex Smith to be considered talented.

    If only the pats had a guy like Vernon Gholston at OLB, and a guy like McKnight at RB

    They go 14 - 2, are hands down considered the best team in the NFL, favored to win the SB, and then when they cough up the biggest game of their season, all of a sudden out come the excuses -- they aren't talented enough, it was a rebuilding year, a just a bad day, and so on and so forth, and to disagree with this spin control makes you a bad fan, etc. etc, according to the thought process so prevalent on this forum.  So they choked on a big game.  It's been years since they won anything, but there's always next season.  You're right, they could go undefeated.  Hope springs eternal.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke.  They go 14 - 2, are hands down considered the best team in the NFL, favored to win the SB, and then when they cough up the biggest game of their season, all of a sudden out come the excuses -- they aren't talented enough, it was a rebuilding year, a just a bad day, and so on and so forth, and to disagree with this spin control makes you a bad fan, etc. etc, according to the thought process so prevalent on this forum.  So they choked on a big game.  It's been years since they won anything, but there's always next season.  You're right, they could go undefeated.  Hope springs eternal.
    Posted by RajonRondowski[/QUOTE]


    Well, wait a minute . . .  Sane, sober fans looked at this team at the beginning of the season--assessed the young defense, the injuries to key players like Bodden and Warren, the lack of a second proven wideout, the uncertainty in the running game, the questions on the O-line --and said maybe 9-7. Only the usual homers were saying 16-0 or 14-2. Toward the end of the season, people got carried away by a team playing over their heads and began anointing the Pats the best team in the league. They were playing like it - - - but really if you looked at the talent - - - it was still the team you projected for 9-7 at the beginning of the year.  Improved with experience, no doubt, but still not without question marks.  And with the D-line as beat up as it was, with Spikes having been suspended, and with questions about Hernandez's hip, you had to look at this team and wonder how it was going to perform in the playoffs. 

    People are looking at the Jets game as a huge fall only because they had placed the current Pats team on an unrealistically high pedestal.  This was always the 9-7 team we saw in the preseason.  Good coaching and a bit of luck got us to 14-2. But reality hit us hard last weekend.

    As far as the Pats not winning anything in years, have you followed the NFL for more than two weeks?  I mean what team wins the Super Bowl every year?  What team even makes the playoffs every year?  Your expectations are absurd.  You've got to give BB at least a chance to rebuild the team that was great in 2004, but by 2006 was old and slow.  It's young again now--it just needs a few more talented players and it will be a true contender.  My guess (and I said this at the beginning of the season) is that BB is trying to get the team to peak for next year or the year afterwards so Brady will have a winner for the last years of his career. If he succeeds at that, he'll have proved his greatness as a coach. But we need to give him a chance . . . rebuilding a team does take time.  

    Calling BB a choker is ignorant . . . it shows a complete lack of understanding of the dynamics of the NFL . . . and in many ways it shows a limited ability to appreciate greatness when it's standing right next door in Foxboro.

    I fly in from Canada to see the games because I think this team is so exceptional.  You've got the Pats right in your backyard.  And all you do is call them chokers. 

    You don't deserve to be a fan. However close you live to the team.




     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    Spheroid,

    With all due respect - the pats run this year given expectations was not all that different from the colts run a year ago. 

    A year ago, most pundits were not picking the colts to win their division.  Many suggested they may not even make the playoffs.  Anywhere from 8-8 to 10-6 were the predictions.  Obviously, they far exceeded that expectation going 14-0 before resting players for the playoffs.  The hype machine was revved up although the colts produced 8 or 9 4Q comebacks in order to win those games.  Their wins were not at all decisive like the pats last 6 or 7 with the exception of GB. 

    So, the colts make it all the way to the sb and lose.  This board went ape sh*t with the choker label.  maybe a few pats fans didn't, but the majority did. 

    If the choker label works for the colts last year who also exceeded expectations but did not win nearly as decisively as the pats did this year, went to the SB where the pats did not this year, then that label, as it relates to the pats is accurate.  Sorry.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke.:
    [QUOTE]Spheroid, With all due respect - the pats run this year given expectations was not all that different from the colts run a year ago.  A year ago, most pundits were not picking the colts to win their division.  Many suggested they may not even make the playoffs.  Anywhere from 8-8 to 10-6 were the predictions.  Obviously, they far exceeded that expectation going 14-0 before resting players for the playoffs.  The hype machine was revved up although the colts produced 8 or 9 4Q comebacks in order to win those games.  Their wins were not at all decisive like the pats last 6 or 7 with the exception of GB.  So, the colts make it all the way to the sb and lose.  This board went ape sh*t with the choker label.  maybe a few pats fans didn't, but the majority did.  If the choker label works for the colts last year who also exceeded expectations but did not win nearly as decisively as the pats did this year, went to the SB where the pats did not this year, then that label, as it relates to the pats is accurate.  Sorry.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    So, it seems you're saying that your Colts are chokers and therefore the Pats must be too?  Not buying it. I don't accept the premise, so it's hard to agree to the conclusion.




     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. This team has one of the toughest schedules in the history of the nfl. They blew out teams like Pitt, NYJ, and had a winning streak that extended through playing pretty much every team in the playoffs. Call it what you want- underperformance, choke, or whatever is most PC to not disrupt your fragile mind- but it was an awful awful performance at the worst time. 

    What people thought in the preseason was irrelevant. Were the Saints picked last year? Does that mean they were also lucky? 

    I have to ask you if you've followed this team for more than two weeks. This 'untalented' Patriots team has one of the top two QBs ever to play the game, an O line with two probowlers who kept Brady clean all year, a set of WR's who fit the patriots scheme perfectly (and it was obvious since they led the NFL in scoring by a wide margin), two probowlers in the d backfield (if you argue BM shouldn't be there then they have another deserving guy in chung), a MLB who led the NFL in tackles, and one of the best NT's in the league. 

    Don't throw this no talent garbage out there now because they lost their last game. You are basing this judgement entirely on the last game. I'm sure you blamed the Browns game on lack of talent too? Clearly the drive to nowhere, Brady's awful INT, the fake punt, Crumps drop, and the general malaise that cost the team the game was lack of talent. NOT. They just didn't execute and played an awful game. Guys like Deion Branch and even Belichick echoed the thought that the pats played a bad game.  

    How do you explain the Bears game? Or the steelers? Or the 2nd Jets game? Was talent holding them back then too? How do they blow out the class of the NFL without talent? 

    Every team was injured (even the jets). The fact that Hernandez and Spikes weren't 100% didn't stop them from winning their previous games. In fact, their depth at those positions actually proves your 'lack of talent' argument is false. Guyton, Fletcher, Gronk certainly did a good job and are talented players in their own right.  


    In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke. : Well, wait a minute . . .  Sane, sober fans looked at this team at the beginning of the season--assessed the young defense, the injuries to key players like Bodden and Warren, the lack of a second proven wideout, the uncertainty in the running game, the questions on the O-line --and said maybe 9-7. Only the usual homers were saying 16-0 or 14-2. Toward the end of the season, people got carried away by a team playing over their heads and began anointing the Pats the best team in the league. They were playing like it - - - but really if you looked at the talent - - - it was still the team you projected for 9-7 at the beginning of the year.  Improved with experience, no doubt, but still not without question marks.  And with the D-line as beat up as it was, with Spikes having been suspended, and with questions about Hernandez's hip, you had to look at this team and wonder how it was going to perform in the playoffs.  People are looking at the Jets game as a huge fall only because they had placed the current Pats team on an unrealistically high pedestal.  This was always the 9-7 team we saw in the preseason.  Good coaching and a bit of luck got us to 14-2. But reality hit us hard last weekend. As far as the Pats not winning anything in years, have you followed the NFL for more than two weeks?  I mean what team wins the Super Bowl every year?  What team even makes the playoffs every year?  Your expectations are absurd.  You've got to give BB at least a chance to rebuild the team that was great in 2004, but by 2006 was old and slow.  It's young again now--it just needs a few more talented players and it will be a true contender.  My guess (and I said this at the beginning of the season) is that BB is trying to get the team to peak for next year or the year afterwards so Brady will have a winner for the last years of his career. If he succeeds at that, he'll have proved his greatness as a coach. But we need to give him a chance . . . rebuilding a team does take time.   Calling BB a choker is ignorant . . . it shows a complete lack of understanding of the dynamics of the NFL . . . and in many ways it shows a limited ability to appreciate greatness when it's standing right next door in Foxboro. I fly in from Canada to see the games because I think this team is so exceptional.  You've got the Pats right in your backyard.  And all you do is call them chokers.  You don't deserve to be a fan. However close you live to the team.
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    Have you watched the last three postseason games? How would you describe their performance? How many times have they lost three games in a row under BB? Based on their lack of postseason success this team is turning into the colts and chargers (teams that this board do label as chokers). 



    In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke. : So, it seems you're saying that your Colts are chokers and therefore the Pats must be too?  Not buying it. I don't accept the premise, so it's hard to agree to the conclusion.
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke.:
    [QUOTE]I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. This team has one of the toughest schedules in the history of the nfl. They blew out teams like Pitt, NYJ, and had a winning streak that extended through playing pretty much every team in the playoffs.:
    Posted by Rockdog1293000[/QUOTE]

    Yep, but this was a weird year in the NFL where every team seemed to struggle at times, and many of the good teams went though periods where injuries turned them into bad teams (Pittsburgh's O-line, Packers' QB, Colts' receivers, etc.).  I'm not saying the Pats were a bad team--just not the unbeatable juggernaut people seem to have come to believe because of a streak after that awful Browns game.

    At the beginning of the season the Pats offense struggled quite a bit--remember?  We were concerned.  It got a lot better when they started utilizing BJGE more.  If there was one coaching mistake the Pats made against the Jets last week it was trying to win with the spread offense rather than using BJGE. This wasn't a "choke" (i.e., loss of nerve)--it was bad game planning.  My guess is the Pats felt the Jets could stop their running game (they did in the Meadowlands) and also wanted to score fast and early to force the Jets to play from behind. So they focused on the passing game.  But it didn't work and they didn't adjust.  That is a mistake--but it's not necessarily a mental breakdown. And it's a mistake the Pats fell into because they know their offense has only one strength.  And the reason for that? Because the running backs aren't that talented, the line is only so-so at run blocking, and there's no real wideout anywhere to be seen. 

    Holes in talent led to a questionable game plan--and that caused the loss.

    Choke is just a word.  It's kind of an ad hominem to bandy about if you don't have real arguments. 







     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    Choke = 1987 49ers = 2009 Colts = 2010 Patriots

    14-2 is no fluke. These teams were expected to win and they didn't.
    The 49ers went on to win the next two super bowls.
    I'm sure the Patriots have moved on. Maybe we should too.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    I agree coaching certainly was an issue, but they certainly had the talent to do other things against the Jets. Running BJGE more would've helped. I just think a poor game plan and execution doesn't mean they lack talent. I actually this team will be GREAT next year based on the pieces they've added in the 09 and 10 drafts. 


    In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke. : Yep, but this was a weird year in the NFL where every team seemed to struggle at times, and many of the good teams went though periods where injuries turned them into bad teams (Pittsburgh's O-line, Packers' QB, Colts' receivers, etc.).  I'm not saying the Pats were a bad team--just not the unbeatable juggernaut people seem to have come to believe because of a streak after that awful Browns game. At the beginning of the season the Pats offense struggled quite a bit--remember?  We were concerned.  It got a lot better when they started utilizing BJGE more.  If there was one coaching mistake the Pats made against the Jets last week it was trying to win with the spread offense rather than using BJGE. This wasn't a "choke" (i.e., loss of nerve)--it was bad game planning.  My guess is the Pats felt the Jets could stop their running game (they did in the Meadowlands) and also wanted to score fast and early to force the Jets to play from behind. So they focused on the passing game.  But it didn't work and they didn't adjust.  That is a mistake--but it's not necessarily a mental breakdown. And it's a mistake the Pats fell into because they know their offense has only one strength.  And the reason for that? Because the running backs aren't that talented, the line is only so-so at run blocking, and there's no real wideout anywhere to be seen.  Holes in talent led to a questionable game plan--and that caused the loss. Choke is just a word.  It's kind of an ad hominem to bandy about if you don't have real arguments. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke.:
    [QUOTE]Have you watched the last three postseason games? How would you describe their performance? How many times have they lost three games in a row under BB? Based on their lack of postseason success this team is turning into the colts and chargers (teams that this board do label as chokers).  In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke. :
    Posted by Rockdog1293000[/QUOTE]

    Well maybe some people call those teams chokers, but I don't.  The Colts win or lose on their passing game. If you disrupt the timing of that passing game, you get Manning off his game and the team can't win. It's not that great a team without Manning and his receivers (and the two pass rushers).  The Chargers on the other hand just aren't very disciplined--regular season or playoffs. Decent talent, but mistake prone.  That's a coaching problem if you ask me.


     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke.:
    [QUOTE]Have you watched the last three postseason games? How would you describe their performance? How many times have they lost three games in a row under BB? Based on their lack of postseason success this team is turning into the colts and chargers (teams that this board do label as chokers).  In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke. :
    Posted by Rockdog1293000[/QUOTE]

    Yep . . . I've watched the games (on TV when away and in the stadium when at home).  I think talent is the main problem here.  The 2004 defense was great. That team (regular season and playoffs) controlled games in a way almost no other team I've seen has done.  But in 2005, we started to lose key players (Law, Phifer, Johnson, Bruschi for part of the season) and the defense became must less dominant. The running game was also starting to decline.  In 2006 it was clear the defense was old and slow and we started losing our receiving corp too.  In 2007, the offense was very good (though still no running game), but the D was looking pretty shoddy by season end. In 2008, the offense got very weak--no receivers other than Welker and Moss and still no running game. That continued in 2009 and even this season. The defense however, has been slowly coming back.  It's younger and faster now, with some talent.  It needs more talent and that will take a year or two, but it's getting closer.  The offesne really needs some revamping.  We need real wideouts, we need a top-tier running back, and we need to improve the line. 

    So the talent issues are there.  The trajectory, though is good.  It's just that it takes time.  You only have so many draft picks and so many free agent signings every year.  Building a top team isn't easy and it's not fast. If BB won it all this year, it would have been a Herculean feat.  If he wins two years from now, he'll still be a candidate for best coach of all time in my opinion. 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    But relatively speaking they still were the best team in the NFL with their talent level. That's what frustrates me. You look at any team and there are holes:

    the Jets has Sanchez, no real force for a passrush, and less than a dominant D based on regular season stats.

    The steelers o line is awful, and they aren't really prolific. They can't stop a quick passing attack with their secondary and LB's.

    The bears have Jay Cutler and a crappy receiving corp.

    The packers look like the best team of all, but they are far from unbeatable unless Aaron Rogers plays unbelievable. 

    You mention 2004. That team was blown out by Pittsburgh on halloween. They went 14-2, and beat Pitt in the playoffs that year. I'm sure not having Corey Dillon for that game hurt, but they still were blown out of the water. I doubt any one players makes that big a difference. Are you saying the pats were more talented than Pitt that year? 

    By the way, who was playing in the defensive backfield in 2004? Remember that Ty Law was hurt and they had a makeshift lineup. Troy freakin Brown was playing DB! The colts and steelers were both considered more talented teams. 

    My point? It all comes down to execution in the playoffs. the pats were awful last week and that's why they lost. There's no doubt the '10 pats had holes (3rd down pass D, too many yards given up), but so did every other winning pats team.

    There's no doubt the roster will be improved next year, but it won't matter if the coaching staff either a) lays an egg or b) is too stubborn. It also won't matter if Brady plays tight in the playoffs. You can apologize for his playoff performance all you want, but he has had pedestrian numbers in the playoffs since winning the sb in 2004. You can blame the coaching, receivers, or any other popular scapegoat but it's on Brady to perform when they need him the most. He simply hasn't done that consistently in the postseason. 

    In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke. : Yep . . . I've watched the games (on TV when away and in the stadium when at home).  I think talent is the main problem here.  The 2004 defense was great. That team (regular season and playoffs) controlled games in a way almost no other team I've seen has done.  But in 2005, we started to lose key players (Law, Phifer, Johnson, Bruschi for part of the season) and the defense became must less dominant. The running game was also starting to decline.  In 2006 it was clear the defense was old and slow and we started losing our receiving corp too.  In 2007, the offense was very good (though still no running game), but the D was looking pretty shoddy by season end. In 2008, the offense got very weak--no receivers other than Welker and Moss and still no running game. That continued in 2009 and even this season. The defense however, has been slowly coming back.  It's younger and faster now, with some talent.  It needs more talent and that will take a year or two, but it's getting closer.  The offesne really needs some revamping.  We need real wideouts, we need a top-tier running back, and we need to improve the line.  So the talent issues are there.  The trajectory, though is good.  It's just that it takes time.  You only have so many draft picks and so many free agent signings every year.  Building a top team isn't easy and it's not fast. If BB won it all this year, it would have been a Herculean feat.  If he wins two years from now, he'll still be a candidate for best coach of all time in my opinion. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    I also disagree about the time it takes to build a winner. It could only take a year to build a superbowl winner. This isn't the 1990's. See the Pats in 2001 and the saints last year. Drastic changes in the competitive landscape happen every year in the NFL.

    In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke. : Yep . . . I've watched the games (on TV when away and in the stadium when at home).  I think talent is the main problem here.  The 2004 defense was great. That team (regular season and playoffs) controlled games in a way almost no other team I've seen has done.  But in 2005, we started to lose key players (Law, Phifer, Johnson, Bruschi for part of the season) and the defense became must less dominant. The running game was also starting to decline.  In 2006 it was clear the defense was old and slow and we started losing our receiving corp too.  In 2007, the offense was very good (though still no running game), but the D was looking pretty shoddy by season end. In 2008, the offense got very weak--no receivers other than Welker and Moss and still no running game. That continued in 2009 and even this season. The defense however, has been slowly coming back.  It's younger and faster now, with some talent.  It needs more talent and that will take a year or two, but it's getting closer.  The offesne really needs some revamping.  We need real wideouts, we need a top-tier running back, and we need to improve the line.  So the talent issues are there.  The trajectory, though is good.  It's just that it takes time.  You only have so many draft picks and so many free agent signings every year.  Building a top team isn't easy and it's not fast. If BB won it all this year, it would have been a Herculean feat.  If he wins two years from now, he'll still be a candidate for best coach of all time in my opinion. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    We have different opinions and will probably never agree about what the real issue is (and that doesn't matter anyway), but thanks for keeping the convo civil. Too many times on this site differences in opinion turn into name calling arguments. I'm ready to move on and watch this team get more talented in the offseason and cross my fingers that postseason success will follow another good regular season. If you're ever near section 104 pregame next year look me up. 

    In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke. : Yep . . . I've watched the games (on TV when away and in the stadium when at home).  I think talent is the main problem here.  The 2004 defense was great. That team (regular season and playoffs) controlled games in a way almost no other team I've seen has done.  But in 2005, we started to lose key players (Law, Phifer, Johnson, Bruschi for part of the season) and the defense became must less dominant. The running game was also starting to decline.  In 2006 it was clear the defense was old and slow and we started losing our receiving corp too.  In 2007, the offense was very good (though still no running game), but the D was looking pretty shoddy by season end. In 2008, the offense got very weak--no receivers other than Welker and Moss and still no running game. That continued in 2009 and even this season. The defense however, has been slowly coming back.  It's younger and faster now, with some talent.  It needs more talent and that will take a year or two, but it's getting closer.  The offesne really needs some revamping.  We need real wideouts, we need a top-tier running back, and we need to improve the line.  So the talent issues are there.  The trajectory, though is good.  It's just that it takes time.  You only have so many draft picks and so many free agent signings every year.  Building a top team isn't easy and it's not fast. If BB won it all this year, it would have been a Herculean feat.  If he wins two years from now, he'll still be a candidate for best coach of all time in my opinion. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke. : So, it seems you're saying that your Colts are chokers and therefore the Pats must be too?  Not buying it. I don't accept the premise, so it's hard to agree to the conclusion.
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    No - this board of pats fans said it last year about a colts team that went to the superbowl.  Its not my premise.  Not my criteria.  Its the board's. 

    If you don't believe it about the pats this year, then you must not have believed it about the colts last year, but the only dissenting opinions last year on this board came from colts fans like me.  If you were silent, you tacitly accepted the premise.  

    Thus, by the pats not even meeting the board's criteria for the colts, they get the label as they labeled the colts.

    Own it.  
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from sniveller. Show sniveller's posts

    Re: Anatomy of a Choke.

    Offence wins games, defence wins championships. Let's face it, the Pats D just wasn't up to it in the playoffs. They did well in the regular season when TB gave them big leads to sit on, but they couldn't produce when it mattered. They were only down by 3 at the start of the 4th and couldn't hold. The rookies are good but they're still raw. So, no the Pats aren't chokers. They're a young team that improved a lot faster than any of us expected them to and they'll only get better.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share