Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    This is in Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : This goes back to my theory about how some here like Pezz need a popular name on the jersey in order to feel secure in thinking soemthing will work. Dillon is a perfect example. He was great here and in Cincy, but if Brady is supposedly so much better now, we shouldn't need a lead back as great as Dillon, should we? Stevan Ridley will never be Corey Dillon in any which way, shape or form, but conceptually, he can provide what Dillon did and maybe do a tad more in the receiving game and in space. But, he hasd to be treated like a lead RB and how Dillon was. The only time Dillon came off the field was when Dillon needed a breather, we used Faulk strategically or in a 2 minute style offense. That's it.
    Posted by Dusty Bottoms


    Tell it to the coach.   I happened to really like BJGE.  He's as reliable as they come but he got hurt and when he came back, his production dropped.(probably lingering injuries)
    The other two rookies had their own problems.  Hopefully those are gone.
    What BB had wasn't good enough and that"s what we've been saying all along.
    That and the porous D causing the team to pass more to score more.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs :  As great as a coach as BB is, he'll never see another ring here again if he doesn't keep Brady under 40 passes in the postseason.
    Posted by Dusty Bottoms


    Right numbnuts. Except other than the desperation drive the D collapse forced on us in the SB at the end, Brady had well under 40 passes. You lose again junior.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsGnome. Show PatsGnome's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    I find passing the ball all around the the field exciting for a season or two. After the first and second season of passing, running the ball and playing defense becomes more fun to watch. Which team can hold on to the ball the longest, time of possession. Which team has the better defense and can force the other team to punt on a three and out. Running and Defense is more exciting to watch.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    I find passing the ball all around the the field exciting for a season or two. After the first and second season of passing, running the ball and playing defense becomes more fun to watch. Which team can hold on to the ball the longest, time of possession. Which team has the better defense and can force the other team to punt on a three and out. Running and Defense is more exciting to watch.
    Posted by PatsGnome


    Then you must be very unexcited. Because our team's running and defense were abysmal last season.

    Though, I think a vast majority of NFL fans would disagree with you on which is more exciting. I really don't care. I just like seeing the boys hold up the Lombardi.


     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Pats 3rd down D wasn't very good when Spikes and Chung weren't there, that's true. But, that was the only aspect that you can lean on in this discussion. NE is infamous for having a bend but don't break D allowing teams to et up yards, but NE's dynasty era Ds would get stops or hold teams to FGs. The difference now is, the QBs are better than they were in the '00s and Goodell sets up the league to favor the offense.  This is not debatable. Our D held the Giants to FGs in the SB. PS Moore did not allow the completion. It was on the other side of the field. Moore actually broke up each play on 2nd and then 3rd down to force the FG.    The Brady INT right on the heels of the Spikes INT was abysmal. Yes, the D and some luck bailed out Brady's crappy 2 INT day. Are you trying to lie here and tell us Brady didn't suck? He even said he sucked.
    Posted by Dusty Bottoms


    Moore did allow the completion.  I believe 2 plays before the break-up.
    Not saying it was TB's best game just that they were ahead and the D had FLACCO looking like Montana. Why do you always blame the O for not being ahead by 3 scores?  Sometimes it's gonna be 3 scores and sometimes it's gonna be 3 points.  Ahead  by 3 with 6 seconds left is still ahead as it is with 35 and 57 seconds. 
    The other side of the ball has to play too, in the last few minutes.
    If you are always putting it on the shoulders of TB, you are basically saying they have no D.  In that case you would be correct.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Then you must be very unexcited. Because our team's running and defense were abysmal last season. Though, I think a vast majority of NFL fans would disagree with you on which is more exciting. I really don't care. I just like seeing the boys hold up the Lombardi.
    Posted by BabeParilli


    Tell us again how safeties and INTs don't matter
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Tell us again how safeties and INTs don't matter
    Posted by glenr


    Hi Rusty, I never said safeties and interceptions don't matter.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    Babe and Mangione aligned and both wrong.  What a shock!
    Posted by Dusty Bottoms



    He and I disagree often, But we agree you are a buffoon and he does give our QB more credit than you, a self proclaimed Pats' fan.

    But you'e got company in your Brady bashing. UD6 and ManningRules agree with you wholeheartedly.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    No, the Jets schedule was a cupcake schedule. And they were nowhere near a top 10 offense anyway.
    Posted by Dusty Bottoms


    They had 377 points, four points away from the Texans at #10. That's pretty "near". You really make us Pats' fans look bad with your lies and nonsense.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:


    This just about sums everything up that has been argued over the last two years or so. Why don't we run more? Because we don't have the talent to do it (or at least we didn't...maybe now we do). Belichick was very open about the fact that he doesn't see a Dillon out there on our field.

    So again, why didn't we put the ball into Benny's hands more often last year? Because he didn't deserve it. Plan and simple - you don't take the ball out of Brady's hands and put it into Benny's...you just don't.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    I think Corey Dillon was very underrated. Loved his stiff arm, it was really just a punch. Guys like him don't grow on trees, his numbers speak for themselves.
    Posted by shenanigan


    I know! That stiff arm was one of the most violent things I've seen from a runner. This guy was such a violent/angry runner...he seemed to be mad at every single guy that tried to tackle him. The funny part is he was such an upright type of runner and yet HE was the one dishing out the punishment.

    I'd love to see Ridley become that type of runner because he's got some size and maybe with a little work he could develop that power. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : We did in 2010 and we went t 14-2 by keeping Brady under 40 passes. Then January hit, Brady threw 40+ times, and Brady folded against the Jets. 1 god awful INT out of nowhere and horrendous drives that scored no points, or 3 and outs. So, you're wrong as usual. You need the security of a superstar RB on the jersey in order for us to feature a run game? What is your opinion of Antowain Smith?  If we didn't take the ball from Brady's hands with him running it, we don't win SB 36 or SB 38. Swing and a miss again, Hurlie.   If you ran the team, we'd apparently carry no RBs and just carry 10 WRs and 2 TEs. LMAO
    Posted by Dusty Bottoms


    I already told you my opinion of Antowain Smith...let's do it again. Antowain was a first round draft pick out of Houston, he ran an unusually good 40 time for a back his size and had good production in college. When Smith came here he was more than serviceable for us and he had a few things that Benny didn't...Smith could break tackles without having to be going full speed (he was bigger and stronger). Smith had at least as much quickness and more speed. Smith performed at a level that convinced Belichick to resign him to a nice contract...Benny didn't.

    These are two different guys here Rusty, do yourself a favor and pay attention when you watch football. It's more than just getting all excited when Gruden draws little circles on those replays and gets all excited. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from vertigho. Show vertigho's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    BJGE was an awful catcher of the ball.

    If I had a nickel for everytime I saw a 3 yard pass clank off his hands...
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnHannahrulz. Show JohnHannahrulz's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    The jets surrender points the Pats give up yardage. I.ll take yardage over points every time. As for the backs it's been comittee for awhile.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : BJGE breaks tackles. He's also a better pass receiver than what SMith was. he just showed his receiving skills the other night agaisnt the vaunted and legendary Jets D you love so much. lol  Fact is, Weis was serious about committing to a run game and Brady hasn't been with two younger OCs here in McDaniels and O'Brien.
    Posted by Dusty Bottoms


    Listen every runner breaks tackles, it's just a matter of when or how they break them. Benny wasn't the type of runner that was going to break tackles in the hole - he didn't have the power or pop for that. Smith did...so did Dillon. Now when you can't break those types of tackles you had better be quick or pretty damn allusive...he wasn't.

    Is it not enough that Belichick came out and actually explained why he didn't run it that much?

    And to say that Benny caught the ball better than Smith is dumb because they both weren't pass catchers. Seriously?
     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : We did in 2010 and we went t 14-2 by keeping Brady under 40 passes.
    Posted by Dusty Bottoms


    We ran one more time per game in 2010 than we did in 2011 twit.
     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    So, on average 16 more rushes? 1 per game?  Hmm.  As stated, it's not quantity, but quality (playcalling). Imagine how much better Brady would be against good Ds if we use the run more strategically like we saw in 2010?  lol
    Posted by CliffordWasHere


    Who should we bring in to determine when to "more strategically" use the run? You?
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    He did it in 2010 to the tune of a 14-2 record and an MVP season from Brady because of it.
    Posted by CliffordWasHere



    You have no proof the 2010 MVP was gained by running more or less. He won MVP in 2007 and passed many more times than in 2010 and went 16-0.

    Your problem is you look at 2 things and draw a conclusion because it seems those two isolated things prove what you believe. And that's why you so often look like a bonehead. Because other pertinent things that you ignore completely discredit your conclusions.  You have no interest in what is. You only have an interest in what you want things to be.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : You have no proof the 2010 MVP was gained by running more or less. He won MVP in 2007 and passed many more times than 2010 and went 16-0.
    Posted by BabeParilli


    Rusty thinks proof is the alcohol content of his beer.  Even then, he'd be wrong cuz alcohol is half of proof.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Seriously?  Again with the facts?
    Posted by JetMangione


    To him, facts are just pesky little details getting in the way of his professing grand theories which fully illustrate his superior football savvy over BB.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    The funny part about this thread is it's pure history of the topic on this board...the beloved argument of why we don't run enough/Brady passes too much. I mean it's been going on forever...Brady is spoiled, the offensive coordinator doesn't know what he's doing, no diversity, balance, we are not "smash mouth", etc, etc, etc.

    And here today the head coach - future Hall of Fame - Bill Belichick, comes right out and tells the media why we don't run it as much. He simply says he does what is best for HIS TEAM to win games. Period.

    If it means QB sneaking 300 times a year (because that's the best way for us to move the ball) then that's what he'd do. If it means keeping the ball in Brady's hand, opposed to the immortal BJGE, that's what he'd do...and it's what he did. He came right out and said that if there was a Corey Dillon on this team the ball would go to him more often, because he'd deserve the touches.

    Is that enough? Do we still need to argue about why we didn't run it more last year? Do we need Belichick to go right over to people's houses and have a BBQ with you to lay out the steps one by one as to why Benny wasn't mindlessly fed the ball last year? Will that do it? All set? Good?   
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share