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

  1. 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:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : They're pink hat tools who just recently started following football. 
    Posted by Dusty Bottoms


    Stop bashing Brady or your not helping this argument, Brady carries out the plays that are sent in, he didn't call them...
     
  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 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.
    Posted by wozzy


    Wrong as usual wozzydoo. We controlled the TOP because we got 29 1st downs to the Panthers 17. And only 7 of those 29 1st downs came from running. Brady threw the ball 48 times goofball. Only one SB in history saw more than 3 passes in excess of that. We only ran 35% of the time compared to our seasonal 46%. But no complaints about balance from you because they won and that would spoil your spin. Phoney.

    Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

     
  3. 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 : Stop bashing Brady or your not helping this argument, Brady carries out the plays that are sent in, he didn't call them...
    Posted by wozzy


    Good work wozzydoo. Slap that disgusting troll down. See, you can do it if you try.
     
  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:
    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


    You're thinking of the Rams.
     
  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:
    Actually, the QB that doesn't turn it over (or the least) is the one that comes out on top with TOP.
    Posted by Dusty Bottoms


    wrong, you can control Top while throwing picks as long as the D gets off the field in under 30 imutes.  Brady threw picks in the winning SB's but the D got off the field in under 30 minutes and they won ToP.

    Do you think the Pats would have won any of those Super Bowls if those D's failed to produce even one 6 & out and got no turn-overs?  Answer it.
    If you want, we can go through the play-by-plays and remove all the D's 3 & outs and 6 & outs and all their turn-overs and see where we stand. 
     
  6. 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

    No arguing with morons, that's the rule...

    This post is hidden because you are ignoring BabeParilli
    This post is hidden because you are ignoring BabeParilli
    This post is hidden because you are ignoring BabeParilli
    This post is hidden because you are ignoring pezz4pats
     
  7. 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:
    No arguing with morons, that's the rule... This post is hidden because you are ignoring BabeParilli Stop Ignoring BabeParilli This post is hidden because you are ignoring BabeParilli Stop Ignoring BabeParilli This post is hidden because you are ignoring BabeParilli Stop Ignoring BabeParilli This post is hidden because you are ignoring pezz4pats Stop Ignoring pezz4pats
    Posted by wozzy


    can't beat um, ignore um.  Right Wozzy doo?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79'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 : wrong, you can control Top while throwing picks as long as the D gets off the field in under 30 imutes.  Brady threw picks in the winning SB's but the D got off the field in under 30 minutes and they won ToP. Do you think the Pats would have won any of those Super Bowls if those D's failed to produce even one 6 & out and got no turn-overs?  Answer it. If you want, we can go through the play-by-plays and remove all the D's 3 & outs and 6 & outs and all their turn-overs and see where we stand. 
    Posted by pezz4pats


    Totally agree... the fact in 2001 the offense score a whole 12 points... the D won TOP and turn over battle.
     
  9. 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

    I was just thinking...maybe one of us can start a thread on our kicking game tomorrow and then we can fill it with 10k posts about the running game. We can do it!!

    And then for fun Rusty can pop in and tell us we all need to go to college.
     
  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 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 do need to get to college.  The taxpayers who pay your salary are not very happy. lol
    Posted by Dusty Bottoms


    Relax, just because you couldn't make it in Massachusetts doesn't mean you have to get so testy all the time. Try yoga.
     
  11. 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 : Do you think those Ds were helped by a more methodical, balanced offense? "Answer it". NEWSFLASH: Our offense in those years helped those Ds and vice versa. It's called complementary football and since 2007 (minus most of 2010), we haven't had it. 
    Posted by Dusty Bottoms


    Answer the question.
    Do not ask another question.
    Brady and the O had 3 & outs, picks and fumbles in those games.  How did they win?  They won by the D doing their jobs.
    They lost with the D not doing there jobs by not getting turn overs and 3 & outs. 
    Live with it and pray the D plays better this year.  Brady's getting too old to carry the D any more. 
     
  12. 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

    Dude just won't stopping ripping Brady...

    There's a reason that O'Brien is gone and Brady isn't.
    There's a reason that Lloyd came and Ocho went.
    There's a reason that Gaffney came and Ocho went.
    There's a reason that Belichick moved up to draft two defensive players in the first round.
    There's a reason that BJGE wasn't re-signed.

    All this change... and what's the constant? Tom Brady. There's a reason why, and it's not because he's the problem.
     
  13. 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:
    So if the D is very good this year and he's still tossing picks and throwing 40+ times against good Ds, what will you're reaction be? Was he trying to protect a D in 2007? Funny, his best "protection" of a D was in 2010 when he handed it off more and was under center more, until he screwed up royally in the playoffs. He wasn't protecting the D in the AFC title game this year either. Or in 2007 for that matter.  5 INTs in his last 2 AFC title games AT HOME. AWFUL.
    Posted by Dusty Bottoms


    What is this gibberish?  What does that have to do with the question you can't answer?  The 2010 D was ranked 25th and had the worst Top in the league.  That also means the O had the worst ToP in the league, in case you don't know.
    Handing it off more, evidently didn't help the Top, now did it?.  That's because the sucky D ALWAYS loses ToP.  They won with Brady's arm and a little diversity on O.  period. 
    The D failed again, as usual.  Hopefully they can help the O win a game this year.  That's my dream.
     
  14. 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:
    Dude just won't stopping ripping Brady... There's a reason that O'Brien is gone and Brady isn't. There's a reason that Lloyd came and Ocho went. There's a reason that Gaffney came and Ocho went. There's a reason that Belichick moved up to draft two defensive players in the first round. There's a reason that BJGE wasn't re-signed. All this change... and what's the constant? Tom Brady. There's a reason why, and it's not because he's the problem.
    Posted by vertigho


    We have identified the problem and it is Rusty. (and all his fake accounts)
     
  15. 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 :NEWSFLASH: Our offense in those years helped those Ds and vice versa.
    Posted by Dusty Bottoms


    This offense helped this defense much more than those offenses helped those defenses.

    It's called scoring numbnuts. Given a normal number of possessions this offense did more than those. That helps the D. Just ask them.
     
  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:
    No arguing with morons, that's the rule... This post is hidden because you are ignoring BabeParilli Stop Ignoring BabeParilli This post is hidden because you are ignoring BabeParilli Stop Ignoring BabeParilli This post is hidden because you are ignoring BabeParilli Stop Ignoring BabeParilli This post is hidden because you are ignoring pezz4pats Stop Ignoring pezz4pats
    Posted by wozzy



    Stick your head in the sand wozzydoodle the ostrich boy.
     
  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:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Relax, just because you couldn't make it in Massachusetts doesn't mean you have to get so testy all the time. Try yoga.
    Posted by mthurl


    The term "run out of town on a rail" comes to mind.


    a punishment in Colonial America in which a man (rarely a woman) was made to straddle a fence rail (usually the triangular split-rail rather than the modern machine-milled) held on the shoulders of at least two men, with other men on either side to keep him upright. The victim was then paraded around town or taken to the city limits and dumped by the roadside. Intense pain came from the weight of the body resting on the sharp, narrow edge and injuries from the ride could, if the victim were stripped, cut the crotch and make walking painful.

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

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

    " We have the weight of three rings on our side, you have two losses and numerous first round exits...  but somehow you're correct.  Laughable."

    What's laughable and pathetic is how factionalized the forum has become. Instead of free thinking people folks are falling into camps and accusing others of fake ID manipulation. Absurd. 

    What this article quoting BB settles to some degree is the running game debate. It comes directly from BB and it's not really arguable. You go with the talent you have. 

    What the article does not settle of course is the offense versus defense argument.  That tired argument will go on and on here until Brady retires or gets past him prime and then we'll no longer be a Super Bowl contender at all and we can finish that argument off.
     
  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

    I love the way some of our posters argue that running the ball more was the sole reason for the Pats controlling TOP in the 2003 Super Bowl while completely ignoring the role the defense played in keeping the Panthers off the field.  The fact is, the Pats offense had first-half drives of the following length:

    2:43
    1:43
    2:58
    1:23
    7:05
    2:10 (TD)
    0:49 (TD)

    Of seven first-half drives, only one was long.  The Pats were not grinding out yards with the run and controlling TOP on long offensive drives.  A big reason they weren't killed on TOP was that the Panthers for the most part had even shorter drives thanks to the defense making stops. 

    A lot of our "broad-minded" posters ignore every aspect of the game except one.  I have nothing against running and think it is a very important part of the game--but it's just one part.  There's a whole bunch of other things going on too and ignoring all those other things and single-mindly attributing all successes to running and all failures to the lack of running is an odd way to be broad minded. 



     

     
  20. 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:
    In response to "Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs": 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.
    Posted by TrueChamp

    The offense also had seven first-half possessions, which means Smith averaged less than two carries per possession. I know, number of possessions isn't important in your world, but we're talking about the real world. Because the defense was getting the offense back on the field quickly, the offense had multiple chances despite six of their seven drives being short drives that lasted under three minutes. The offense does get credit for helping TOP with its one 7 minute drive early in the second period, but the TOP battle was won in large part because the defense held up its part of the bargain and got the Panthers off the field fast.  Because the Panthers weren't regularly mounting four to six minute drives (as the Giants were in 2011), the offense had time to run 38 plays over 7 drives in the first half alone! The Pats had 11 more plays in the first half of 2011 than they did in 2003.  Some of that was because of the safety play with resulted in an eight second possession in 2011, but the Pats other three drives in 2011 were 4:36, 1:36, and 3:55, which aren't that bad when compared with 2003 where most of their first-half drives were under three minutes.  When you have 11 more plays you should expect more running plays.  In fact, their first-half running percentage in 2003 was higher than in 2011 (39.4% versus 33.0%), but over 38 plays, the difference would have amounted to just 2.5 more first-half running plays in 2003 when compared with 2011. This is actually a very small difference when you realize that the Pats last drive in the first-half of the 2011 game was a hurry up TD drive at the end of the half where they passed on a very high percentage of the plays.  



     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from 1guy1sharp. Show 1guy1sharp'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 have identified the problem and it is Rusty. (and all his fake accounts) Posted by BabeParilli
    This , X1000
     
  22. 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:
    " We have the weight of three rings on our side, you have two losses and numerous first round exits...  but somehow you're correct.  Laughable." What's laughable and pathetic is how factionalized the forum has become. Instead of free thinking people folks are falling into camps and accusing others of fake ID manipulation. Absurd.  What this article quoting BB settles to some degree is the running game debate. It comes directly from BB and it's not really arguable. You go with the talent you have.  What the article does not settle of course is the offense versus defense argument.  That tired argument will go on and on here until Brady retires or gets past him prime and then we'll no longer be a Super Bowl contender at all and we can finish that argument off.
    Posted by BostonTrollSpanker


    Leon the Jets troll is back under the name of coolpat.

    The accusation of multible IDs is a tactic of babe's. He uses it whenever someone smashes his reasoning with facts. Disagree and you are Rusty. This is how he keeps his ego intact. Instead of many posters proving him wrong it's just one with a dozen names.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share