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

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81'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": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : I think you mean all of those people that are "aligned" with rustyperv.  The fact that you have made up this fantasy world of posters that have alliances with other posters and the "mod" overlords who refuse to protect you is pathetic. The fact that you then accuse others of this is hilarious. Posted by JetMangione[/QUOTE] Mangione do you really like the Patriots? You're here more than just about anyone and seem to have a couple of friends here. Do you like the Pats or are you here to heckle? If its to heckle then that's kind of pathetic that one would spend this much time at it. I'm sure there are Jets forums that you could talk about them,
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy'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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Bingo!! And bingo! to a few other posts you wrote. Really I cannot believe that even the most stubborn of people on here can even argue about why we were the way we were last year on offense at this point. It totally blows my mind...completely. I'm actually starting to think that Rusty IS all the people that are still clinging to this argument...which is a depressing thought.
    Posted by mthurl[/QUOTE]

    So what you're really saying is that Laurence Maroney and Sammy Morris in 07', a 32 year old Antwoine Smith that averaged 3.5 yards a carry in his final season as a Patriot were more talented than Law Firm, Ridely and Vereen last year?

    That's why they chose to be 17th in rushing attempts last season, why they barely played Law Firm against the Jet's in the first and only playoff game the season before (1st round exit) and only attempted 18 rushes to the Raven's 52 attempts in the 1st round exit the season prior?

    2010 was the closest thing to balance that O'Brien produced in his tenure as coordinator, he rode Law Firm to get us ranked 10th in rushing attempts, we had the #1 ranked offense, Brady put together his most efficient season only throwing 4 picks and 36 TD's.... yet when the playoff's roll around O'Brien makes Woodhead the featured back against the Jet's defense.  I don't need to stare at stat's to know that you go with what got you there and 5'6" Woodhead isn't a featured back.  

    Dumb, predictable offensive game planning, poor use of the system he inherited.... O'Brien stunk in the playoff's, he was the opposite of clutch, he choked under pressure. He couldn't play with a slim lead as evidenced by the Super Bowl and couldn't escape the 1st round the two season's prior.

    Talent was never the issue... only talent at coordinator.  The guy was a choke artist.

     
  3. 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:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs": Mangione do you really like the Patriots? You're here more than just about anyone and seem to have a couple of friends here. Do you like the Pats or are you here to heckle? If its to heckle then that's kind of pathetic that one would spend this much time at it. I'm sure there are Jets forums that you could talk about them,
    Posted by sporter81[/QUOTE]

    He supports babe because babe argues with everyone here. Jetsboy is just here to act like a punk from behind the safety of the internet. he's most likely the kid who gets his lunch money stolen every day. This is how he compensates.
     
  4. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Bingo!! And bingo! to a few other posts you wrote. Really I cannot believe that even the most stubborn of people on here can even argue about why we were the way we were last year on offense at this point. It totally blows my mind...completely. I'm actually starting to think that Rusty IS all the people that are still clinging to this argument...which is a depressing thought.
    Posted by mthurl[/QUOTE]

    Nope. I'm still me. Although I never said the offense didn't get us to the playoffs. No sane person could deny that. The playoffs were a different story. The defense kept us in the game against the Ravens. Even Brady admitted that. And the defense held it's own in the SB. despite all the whining about TOP the Giants only had one more possession and more importantly made no mistakes. One sure stat is that the team that makes the fewer mistakes has a much better chance of winning.
     
  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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : I have to assume with comments like this you must not think BB is that good on the Defensive side. You might be right, when we stay on one subject and it always goes back that Defense hasn't been good, and BB is known for his Defense, what's your take on this. He gets the personnel, Coaches, schemes, everything. Why do you think BB is not that good on the Defensive side. Just curious.
    Posted by bobbysu[/QUOTE]

    Nope, not at all.  I think 8 defensive starters going on IR hurt the D,  I also think losing players hurt the D.  I also think players like Spikes and Chung and others being out for half the year, hurt the D.  I also think the young guys and the lock out, hurt the D.
    The depth was stressed beyond reasonable limits to the point where they were picking guys off the streets and playing offensive guys on D.
    I think BB did the best he could with what he had.  That's actually saying a lot.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp'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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Nope, not at all.  I think 8 defensive starters going on IR hurt the D,  I also think losing players hurt the D.  I also think players like Spikes and Chung and others being out for half the year, hurt the D.  I also think the young guys and the lock out, hurt the D. The depth was stressed beyond reasonable limits to the point where they were picking guys off the streets and playing offensive guys on D. I think BB did the best he could with what he had.  That's actually saying a lot.
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    So knowing that our D was so beat up as you just admitted, would you say the defense should have been expected to hold the gints under 19 points?

    Was the onus on the offense or the defense to perform up to the standard we as fans have come to know in N.E?

    This is what we call a "trap"!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

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

    Speaking of Rusty, is he banned again?  And is Dusty Bottoms the real Rusty or just a Rusty impersonator?  




     
  8. 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:
    [QUOTE]Speaking of Rusty, is he banned again?  And is Dusty Bottoms the real Rusty or just a Rusty impersonator?  
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Is it time for someone to create a 6 degrees of Rusty game?
     
  9. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Nope, not at all.  I think 8 defensive starters going on IR hurt the D,  I also think losing players hurt the D.  I also think players like Spikes and Chung and others being out for half the year, hurt the D.  I also think the young guys and the lock out, hurt the D. The depth was stressed beyond reasonable limits to the point where they were picking guys off the streets and playing offensive guys on D. I think BB did the best he could with what he had.  That's actually saying a lot.
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    The whole thing goes back to trying to rebuild the whole team at the same time. Both the defense and offense was getting old. Rebuilding both squads with limited draft picks and the salary cap is impossible in a short time in the modern NFL. Look at how many teams have come and gone from the championship mix over the last 12 years while we've been in the hunt almost every season.
     
  10. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Well played^ And the defense was ranked 15th, not 31st... they still tally scores in the NFL with points.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    The defense bashers like to use the worst sounding stat just like the Pats haters on ESPN. They don't seem to realize that points decide games.
     
  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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : So what you're really saying is that Laurence Maroney and Sammy Morris in 07', a 32 year old Antwoine Smith that averaged 3.5 yards a carry in his final season as a Patriot were more talented than Law Firm, Ridely and Vereen last year? That's why they chose to be 17th in rushing attempts last season , why they barely played Law Firm against the Jet's in the first and only playoff game the season before ( 1st round exit ) and only attempted 18 rushes to the Raven's 52 attempts in the 1st round exit the season prior? 2010 was the closest thing to balance that O'Brien produced in his tenure as coordinator, he rode Law Firm to get us ranked 10th in rushing attempts, we had the #1 ranked offense, Brady put together his most efficient season only throwing 4 picks and 36 TD's.... yet when the playoff's roll around O'Brien makes Woodhead the featured back against the Jet's defense.  I don't need to stare at stat's to know that you go with what got you there and 5'6" Woodhead isn't a featured back.   Dumb, predictable offensive game planning, poor use of the system he inherited.... O'Brien stunk in the playoff's, he was the opposite of clutch, he choked under pressure. He couldn't play with a slim lead as evidenced by the Super Bowl and couldn't escape the 1st round the two season's prior. Talent was never the issue... only talent at coordinator.  The guy was a choke artist.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    Let me ask you this...did they win the Super Bowl in the years (with the running game) that you are referring to? I honestly don't remember what they did in Smith's last year - I don't think they won it though (I could be wrong) - if I remember he wasn't very good his last year. I know they didn't win it with Maroney. So my point is perhaps Belichick learned/or thinks pounding mediocre backs into the line of scrimmage is not conducive to winning. Could that be it?
     
    In all honesty I think the years/backs you are referring to are pretty similar in talent when you take into account that Faulk used to be a part of THOSE teams and not this one.  
     
  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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Nope. I'm still me. Although I never said the offense didn't get us to the playoffs. No sane person could deny that. The playoffs were a different story. The defense kept us in the game against the Ravens. Even Brady admitted that. And the defense held it's own in the SB. despite all the whining about TOP the Giants only had one more possession and more importantly made no mistakes. One sure stat is that the team that makes the fewer mistakes has a much better chance of winning.
    Posted by glenr[/QUOTE]

    I would agree with you that the defense won that game against the Ravens (along with a gift drop). Did you think OUR offense was going to do well in that game before hand? They were going against the number one rated pass defense in the NFL and our best receiving option went down.

    I won't come out and say the defense was terrible in the Super Bowl, but I will say they were nowhere near the level needed to win a game like that. They could not do anything that difference making defense could do. No three and outs, no turnovers, absolutely could not get off the field in the most crucial of times. The thing is we expected that (there were no expectations of them...and they delivered it to a T). They didn't let the Giants just go bombs away all game...it was more like a methodical dissection of the D.

    I will certainly agree that the offense wasn't good enough either.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp'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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Let me ask you this...did they win the Super Bowl in the years (with the running game) that you are referring to? I honestly don't remember what they did in Smith's last year - I don't think they won it though (I could be wrong) - if I remember he wasn't very good his last year. I know they didn't win it with Maroney. So my point is perhaps Belichick learned/or thinks pounding mediocre backs into the line of scrimmage is not conducive to winning. Could that be it?   In all honesty I think the years/backs you are referring to are pretty similar in talent when you take into account that Faulk used to be a part of THOSE teams and not this one.  
    Posted by mthurl[/QUOTE]

    Smith in his last year was a poor version of BJGE. he averaged around 3.5 ypc. he was stuffes at the line almost every play but given his size he always fell forward.

    However, that didn't stop Charlie Weiss from feeding Smith the ball 28 times for something like 83 yards. Pounding the rock against a very aggressive Carolina 4 m,an pass rush...you know kind of like the Giants?

    This opened up the offense by wearing down Carolina's stifling defense come 2nd half. We scored the most points in our SB history, after our vaunted defense got torched by Jake Delhomme int the 2nd half...largely due to the running of Stephen Smith and Deshaun Foster wearing us down.
     
    Good thing Weiss was not as one dimensional in his play calling as Bill Obrien. After 7 or 8 carries of 25 or 30 yards we would have pulled the plug on the run game. We probably would have given the Panthers the ball back quicker with excessive passing....just like we did the Giants in the 2nd half of this last SB!
     
  14. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : So knowing that our D was so beat up as you just admitted, would you say the defense should have been expected to hold the gints under 19 points? Was the onus on the offense or the defense to perform up to the standard we as fans have come to know in N.E? This is what we call a "trap"!
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    They held them to 19 points because of the low possessions that they, themselves caused.
    I do expect them to at least perform to their regular season standards.  They did not.  Is that to much to ask?
    Their job is to keep the score low and get the ball back to the O, preferably more than 8 times a game, so that the O has ample opportunity to score.
      The worst defensive team in the NFL can get the ball back to the O more than 8 times a game. 
    They were beat up all year and managed to get the ball to the O more than 8 times a game. ( except against the jints, coincidence?)  No excuse!
     
  15. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Smith in his last year was a poor version of BJGE. he averaged around 3.5 ypc. he was stuffes at the line almost every play but given his size he always fell forward. However, that didn't stop Charlie Weiss from feeding Smith the ball 28 times for something like 83 yards. Pounding the rock against a very aggressive Carolina 4 m,an pass rush...you know kind of like the Giants? This opened up the offense by wearing down Carolina's stifling defense come 2nd half. We scored the most points in our SB history, after our vaunted defense got torched by Jake Delhomme int the 2nd half...largely due to the running of Stephen Smith and Deshaun Foster wearing us down.   Good thing Weiss was not as one dimensional in his play calling as Bill Obrien. After 7 or 8 carries of 25 or 30 yards we would have pulled the plug on the run game. We probably would have given the Panthers the ball back quicker with excessive passing....just like we did the Giants in the 2nd half of this last SB!
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    Could be mistaken, but didn't the D get 3 Turn-overs and a pic six?  Would it still have been the highest scoring game without those, or similar to last years?
     
  16. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Smith in his last year was a poor version of BJGE. he averaged around 3.5 ypc. he was stuffes at the line almost every play but given his size he always fell forward. However, that didn't stop Charlie Weiss from feeding Smith the ball 28 times for something like 83 yards. Pounding the rock against a very aggressive Carolina 4 m,an pass rush...you know kind of like the Giants? This opened up the offense by wearing down Carolina's stifling defense come 2nd half. We scored the most points in our SB history, after our vaunted defense got torched by Jake Delhomme int the 2nd half...largely due to the running of Stephen Smith and Deshaun Foster wearing us down.   Good thing Weiss was not as one dimensional in his play calling as Bill Obrien. After 7 or 8 carries of 25 or 30 yards we would have pulled the plug on the run game. We probably would have given the Panthers the ball back quicker with excessive passing....just like we did the Giants in the 2nd half of this last SB!
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    No no no no Truechump. We would have scored 50+ points in that SB if we ran less. That poor running held us back.

    See stupido. Just because you say something doesn't make it real. And that's all you do. You say something and you think because you said it it's true.
     
  17. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : The defense bashers like to use the worst sounding stat just like the Pats haters on ESPN. They don't seem to realize that points decide games.
    Posted by glenr[/QUOTE]
     

    Very Rustylike jargon there Rusty.
     
  18. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : The defense bashers like to use the worst sounding stat just like the Pats haters on ESPN. They don't seem to realize that points decide games.
    Posted by glenr[/QUOTE]

    Worse sounding stats?  They had the worse stats.  Don't know how you can make that sound pretty.
    Just answer this, glen.  Do you think the Pats would have won 1 SB if in those games, the D failed to even produce 1, 6 & out  (not even 3 & outs) and failed to even produce 1 turn over?   Anybody think so?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid'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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Smith in his last year was a poor version of BJGE. he averaged around 3.5 ypc. he was stuffes at the line almost every play but given his size he always fell forward. However, that didn't stop Charlie Weiss from feeding Smith the ball 28 times for something like 83 yards. Pounding the rock against a very aggressive Carolina 4 m,an pass rush...you know kind of like the Giants? This opened up the offense by wearing down Carolina's stifling defense come 2nd half. We scored the most points in our SB history, after our vaunted defense got torched by Jake Delhomme int the 2nd half...largely due to the running of Stephen Smith and Deshaun Foster wearing us down.   Good thing Weiss was not as one dimensional in his play calling as Bill Obrien. After 7 or 8 carries of 25 or 30 yards we would have pulled the plug on the run game. We probably would have given the Panthers the ball back quicker with excessive passing....just like we did the Giants in the 2nd half of this last SB!
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]


    Ummm . .  in the first half of the 2003 Super Bowl, by my count, the Pats passed on 60.5% of their plays (23) and ran on 39.5% (15, 13 by Smith and 2 by Faulk).  The offense had two quick three and outs and two drives that stalled in 5 or 6 plays. Despite fabulous starting field position, they failed to score on their first five possessions. They finally scored on two short possessions (the last of these all passes) near the end of the second quarter.  

    A big difference between 2003 and 2011, however, was that the Pats offense had seven first half possessions.  They only scored on two of them, but given so many tries, they were able to convert 14 points.  The reason they had so many possessions was twofold: first, the offense's own drives were mostly short.  And, second, the defense had five series where they prevented Carolina from getting a first down (either three and outs or turnovers). The defense repeatedly gave the ball back to the offense with good field position, helping the offense overcome its rather slow start.  

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

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

    In 2003 the Pat's had no RB depth, Smith was on his last legs.  BB or Weis in their wisdom basically sat him for the first half of the season and used Faulk as a featured back.  I took a lot of heat on this forum because I defended the move. Many of you know it alls weren't here, but those that were will remember.

    Smith was considered by most posters here as washed up, the sky was falling and our playoff chances were slim because of our anemic run game... how far have we come where now a run game is wholly irrelevant to posters?

    When the playoff's started Weis fed Smith the rock.  1st game against Tennessee we ran, but Tennessee had a solid run D so Tom picked them apart.

    2nd game Weis had to keep Peyton Manning and his "high powered" offense off the field, he fed Smith the rock 22 times for 100 yards. We won the time of possession...

    In the Super Bowl the Panthers were so solid defensively, but Weis didn't flinch, he fed Smith the rock 26 times even though Carolina was pretty good stopping it.  But we controlled the time of possession.

    We won another Super Bowl with a runner who was one year removed from retirement and had nothing left in the tank because of our style of play.

    Narrow minded thinkers here now think the running game had nothing to do with it, the time of possession was won running the ball, a common denominator with all our Super Bowl runs.  All of these games were won by the slimmest of margins but Weis always made sure we had the ball last and the best clutch Qb in the game drove the field and the clutch kicker ended it.  Kind of the opposite of what happened last year... no?

    Just a side note, Carolina had one fumble in the game with zero INT's, each team had one turnover... we won because we had the ball last. A 41 yard field goal by V man ended the game...
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp'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": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Ummm . .  in the first half of the 2003 Super Bowl, by my count, the Pats passed on 60.5% of their plays (23) and ran on 39.5% (15, 13 by Smith and 2 by Faulk).  The offense had two quick three and outs and two drives that stalled in 5 or 6 plays. Despite fabulous starting field position, they failed to score on their first five possessions. They finally scored on two short possessions (the last of these all passes) near the end of the second quarter.   A big difference between 2003 and 2011, however, was that the Pats offense had seven first half possessions.  They only scored on two of them, but given so many tries, they were able to convert 14 points.  The reason they had so many possessions was twofold: first, the offense's own drives were mostly short.  And, second, the defense had five series where they prevented Carolina from getting a first down (either three and outs or turnovers). The defense repeatedly gave the ball back to the offense with good field position, helping the offense overcome its rather slow start.   Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE] I think I understand your problem now my friend. You don't realize the impact a grind it out balanced offense can have on a good defense. Believe it or not these men are not machines. They get tired. Smith had 13 carries in the 1st half......which is 3 more then our power back had in the entire game in last years SB. So in conclusion. You would rather have a defense that surrenders 29 points but gets some 3 and outs then a defense that surrenders 19 points? Oh btw it would have been 13 if our offense could have maintained TOP.....like they did in 03.....with 3.5 ypc A Smith getting 28 carries. Good God Man.
     
  22. 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:
    [QUOTE]In 2003 the Pat's had no RB depth, Smith was on his last legs.  BB or Weis in their wisdom basically sat him for the first half of the season and used Faulk as a featured back.  I took a lot of heat on this forum because I defended the move. Many of you know it alls weren't here, but those that were will remember. Smith was considered by most posters here as washed up, the sky was falling and our playoff chances were slim because of our anemic run game... how far have we come where now a run game is wholly irrelevant to posters? When the playoff's started Weis fed Smith the rock.  1st game against Tennessee we ran, but Tennessee had a solid run D so Tom picked them apart. 2nd game Weis had to keep Peyton Manning and his "high powered" offense off the field, he fed Smith the rock 22 times for 100 yards. We won the time of possession... In the Super Bowl the Panthers were so solid defensively, but Weis didn't flinch, he fed Smith the rock 26 times even though Carolina was pretty good stopping it.  But we controlled the time of possession. We won another Super Bowl with a runner who was one year removed from retirement and had nothing left in the tank because of our style of play. Narrow minded thinkers here now think the running game had nothing to do with it, the time of possession was won running the ball, a common denominator with all our Super Bowl runs.  All of these games were won by the slimmest of margins but Weis always made sure we had the ball last and the best clutch Qb in the game drove the field and the clutch kicker ended it.  Kind of the opposite of what happened last year... no?
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    No, narrow minded people think that's the only reason they won those games.
    Narrow minded people think the D not getting the ball back to the O has no bearing on ToP.
     Offenses can't control Top if the D has the ball for more than half the game.  Can you show me one single NFl game where the O controlled Top if the D had the ball more than 30 minutes?  No you can't because it's impossible.
    The team with the most effecient defense  ALWAYS controls ToP.  Fact!
    You can run the ball 70 times out of 70 plays and if the D isn't getting of the field in less than 30 minutes, you lose the ToP.  You also score less points.
     
  23. 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:
    [QUOTE] Weis always made sure we had the ball last and the best clutch Qb in the game drove the field and the clutch kicker ended it.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    Weis made sure we had the ball last? He determined when the opponent scored and had to kick to us? Learn the game wozzydoo.

    Your new hero McD didn't control who had the ball last to well in '07, eh?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

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

    The final thing I'll say about the Super Bowl last year is that even after Brady's 2nd turnover (int in the 4th) that could have been a catastrophe, the defense held them and made them punt... and still the offense did nothing. Zero points in the 4th. 

    The opposite of watching Tom drive the length of the field so Adam could kick the winning field goal.  How can anyone who watched the first three Super Bowl wins think that this offense was clutch.  BS... it was finesse.  Weak in the playoff's, great in the regular season, like the Colt's we used to make fun of...

    You guys are a either a bunch of clueless tools or you weren't here when we were winning...
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp'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": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Could be mistaken, but didn't the D get 3 Turn-overs and a pic six?  Would it still have been the highest scoring game without those, or similar to last years? Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE] You are mistaken....again. Without looking it up(on my phone) we had 1 turnover, and so did they...a fumble I believe. No pick 6. And yes it would have been our highest scoring SB as well as our most rush att's. As BB said about Charlie Casserly.....when was the last time you were right about anything? Just kidding dude.
     

Share