Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

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

    Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    We hoped Gronk was near his norm but he obviously was a shadow of his normal self.

    You just can't take away Brady's #1 weapon and expect to win the SB.

    In a close game like this you have to believe him being 100% would have made all the difference in the world.

    In hindsight it was a valiant effort considering the handicap. We almost pulled off beating a red hot Giants' team with one hand tied behind our back.

    Dirty baahstahd Pollard strikes again.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from yakv. Show yakv's posts

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    It Hurts But What will hurt more 
    will be all the talk about  tarnished legacy
    next season will have to be a cross road for BB and TB 

    time to reload cuase the window will be closing ,
    no more underwoods , ocho ,
    we to open the wallets get some free agents 
    mario williams and others 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    It would have helped for sure but Gronk doesn't play Defense nor does he play O line. We were beat by a better overall balanced team.

    On to next year.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from FrogLegs. Show FrogLegs's posts

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    How could the coaches NOT draw a game plan not involving Gronk??? They knew he was not able to play. Using him has a decoy just doesn't cut it for a SB!!! I guess the Giants realized pretty quickly that Gronk would not be a threat. The coaches had 2 weeks to be inventive but no, they even released Underwood removing one of the few WR options they had. Bitter...
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from donrd4. Show donrd4's posts

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    In Response to Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi:
    We hoped Gronk was near his norm but he obviously was a shadow of his normal self. You just can't take away Brady's #1 weapon and expect to win the SB. In a close game like this you have to believe him being 100% would have made all the difference in the world. In hindsight it was a valiant effort considering the handicap. We almost pulled off beating a red hot Giants' team with one hand tied behind our back. Dirty baahstahd Pollard strikes again.
    Posted by BabeParilli


    Their other hand was up their AZZ....
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from palookaski. Show palookaski's posts

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    In Response to Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi:
    We hoped Gronk was near his norm but he obviously was a shadow of his normal self. You just can't take away Brady's #1 weapon and expect to win the SB. In a close game like this you have to believe him being 100% would have made all the difference in the world. In hindsight it was a valiant effort considering the handicap. We almost pulled off beating a red hot Giants' team with one hand tied behind our back. Dirty baahstahd Pollard strikes again.
    Posted by BabeParilli


    Agree! Gronk is a difference maker and it's clear when one player was not effective it cost the Pats. The Pats need difference makers like a True RB, WR and 3 on defence.

    I do not hold any future hope for Ridley, Vereen, McCourty, Cunningham  and a few other top picks were wasted. Manningham being so open and McCourty playing him so loose trying to catch up with him and no time to lQQk up and defend a pass. Disgusting!
    People say Spikes had a good game, not me, reaction time too slow.

    Have a good day!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Brad34. Show Brad34's posts

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    In Response to Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi:
    It Hurts But What will hurt more  will be all the talk about   tarnished legacy next season will have to be a cross road for BB and TB  time to reload cuase the window will be closing , no more underwoods , ocho , we to open the wallets get some free agents  mario williams and others 
    Posted by yakv

    I agree. I believe this team maybe over achieved particularly with the defense they had even though they appeared to play better at the end of the year. The team is very close to a dominant multi superbowl winning team with the addition of a couple of pieces. Open the purse strings whilst Brady is still capable.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from GadisRKO. Show GadisRKO's posts

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    In Response to Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi:
    In Response to Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi : Agree! Gronk is a difference maker and it's clear when one player was not effective it cost the Pats. The Pats need difference makers like a True RB, WR and 3 on defence. I do not hold any future hope for Ridley, Vereen, McCourty, Cunningham  and a few other top picks were wasted. Manningham being so open and McCourty playing him so loose trying to catch up with him and no time to lQQk up and defend a pass. Disgusting! People say Spikes had a good game, not me, reaction time too slow. Have a good day!
    Posted by palookaski


    Wow, you are clueless aren't you? Spikes was one of the bright spots on D and that WASN'T McCourty getting beat by Mario Manningham, that was Sterling Moore...

    How clueless can you be?

    No future for Ridley? He was a stud out there when BB allowed him to be, what Pats team were you watching all season? I know he wasn't on the field during the Super Bowl but that's on BB being stubborn and not wanting a rookie to fumble the game away.

    Only thing I agree with is that we need an outside the numbers guy like Vincent Jackson to help this offense desperately. A safety from FA and some front seven players from the draft.

    With that said, I think we would have won had Gronk been 100%. F*** Bernard Pollard...
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    I'm not convinced that a 100% healthy gronk would have guaranteed a sb win.

    Although Brady had a 91 QB rating, the passing game was pretty much shut down and OBIE had no plan B. Plus, the D failed when we needed them to win the game for the Patriots.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    In Response to Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi:
    It Hurts But What will hurt more  will be all the talk about   tarnished legacy next season will have to be a cross road for BB and TB  time to reload cuase the window will be closing , no more underwoods , ocho , we to open the wallets get some free agents  mario williams and others 
    Posted by yakv


    As always the draft is crucial and the failures we have seen lead directly to some of these street scrubs being depended upon in a SB. Better drafting would certainly have meant another championship.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    Agreed. Gronk was nowhere close to game ready, and that might have made the difference.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    In Response to Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi:
    It Hurts But What will hurt more  will be all the talk about   tarnished legacy next season will have to be a cross road for BB and TB  time to reload cuase the window will be closing , no more underwoods , ocho , we to open the wallets get some free agents  mario williams and others 
    Posted by yakv



    How about Reggie Wayne? Or is he too old now? Of course, if we win with him, they'd all say "you couldn't do it without an ex-Colt."
     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    In Response to Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi:
    This is a very disturbing theread. I stopped reading about 4 or 5 posts down. We have mental midgets all scoruing for the same kinds of excuses as they sit there and type with Brady underoos on their heads. Unbelievable. It was 17-15 at the start of the 4th!  After NE's opening drive inn the 3rd, the offense did absolutely nothing! Gronk or no Gronk, get to the line, run your plays, and more important run the ball with the lead!  BJGE had 10 efffing carries total! If you liked the opening drive out of halftime, you should want to see more of BJGE and some Ridley. SOme Pats fans are morons.
    Posted by RustyGriswold


    Rusty, if you think having the guy who just had the greatest season in history for a TE being negated by injury is not a HUGE factor in this game I can't help you with that. It's no-brainer 101.

    AGAIN - in three of our 4 losses this year the D failed to get the stop in the last minute.
     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    Welker catches ball with 4 mins to go...GAME OVER
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from jbolted. Show jbolted's posts

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    It 's a biitch when your HOF TE can barely move in the biggest game of the year, ain't it? I truly wish he was healthy and you would've won, just as I wish Gates/Rivers/LT were healthy a few years back.
     
  19. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    In Response to Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi:
    Actually, they moved it fine, they just didn't mix in the run enough. And at least our HOF QB isn't an immature moron like Philip Rivers is. Enjoy the long way down, Boltspank.
    Posted by RustyGriswold

    Ok spilt milk, have some more sour grapes.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MoreRings. Show MoreRings's posts

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    In Response to Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi:
    We hoped Gronk was near his norm but he obviously was a shadow of his normal self. You just can't take away Brady's #1 weapon and expect to win the SB. In a close game like this you have to believe him being 100% would have made all the difference in the world. In hindsight it was a valiant effort considering the handicap. We almost pulled off beating a red hot Giants' team with one hand tied behind our back. Dirty baahstahd Pollard strikes again.
    Posted by BabeParilli


    I hope B Pollard dies of aids
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from upstart. Show upstart's posts

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    In Response to Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi:
    We hoped Gronk was near his norm but he obviously was a shadow of his normal self. You just can't take away Brady's #1 weapon and expect to win the SB. In a close game like this you have to believe him being 100% would have made all the difference in the world. In hindsight it was a valiant effort considering the handicap. We almost pulled off beating a red hot Giants' team with one hand tied behind our back. Dirty baahstahd Pollard strikes again.
    Posted by BabeParilli

    Not at all. The league needs to reinstate illegal videotaping, then we go all the way next year!
    21-17.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from FrnkBnhm. Show FrnkBnhm's posts

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    The problem was not that Gronk was hurt. The problem was this team was built in such a way that only three players mattered to their success. Without Gronk, Welker and Brady all at 100% the Patriots were not the same team. The offense was not only predicated way too much on throwing the ball. It was predicated too much on throwing the ball to the same three guys over and over. Branch or Ocho needed to step up an become a weapon and neither could do it. 

    The coaching staff had to know on the day after the Ravens game that there was a chance Gronk would not be 100%. With two weeks to prepare they could not come up with an offense that could consistently move the ball (they basically had two effective drives in that entire game).

    This team was flawed all season. They showed how to beat them in the Pittsburg game and the regular season Giants game. The played bad teams for 9 weeks after that got lucky against the Ravens (Lee Evans' drop and Billy Cundiff's miss). The Patriots luck just ran out on the biggest stage.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    In Response to Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi:
    The problem was not that Gronk was hurt. The problem was this team was built in such a way that only three players mattered to their success. Without Gronk, Welker and Brady all at 100% the Patriots were not the same team. The offense was not only predicated way too much on throwing the ball. It was predicated too much on throwing the ball to the same three guys over and over. Branch or Ocho needed to step up an become a weapon and neither could do it.  The coaching staff had to know on the day after the Ravens game that there was a chance Gronk would not be 100%. With two weeks to prepare they could not come up with an offense that could consistently move the ball (they basically had two effective drives in that entire game). This team was flawed all season. They showed how to beat them in the Pittsburg game and the regular season Giants game. The played bad teams for 9 weeks after that got lucky against the Ravens (Lee Evans' drop and Billy Cundiff's miss). The Patriots luck just ran out on the biggest stage.
    Posted by FrnkBnhm


    If you think missing a HOF caliber TE wasn't the problem then you're missing just about everything.

    Other than Brady, Gronk is by far the most important component of this O. This is because talent is very thin at most skill positions.

    Beyond Wes, the WR situation is poor. Our backfield is populated by guys taken off the scrap heap.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    In Response to Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi:
    In Response to Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi : Not at all. The league needs to reinstate illegal videotaping, then we go all the way next year! 21-17.
    Posted by upstart


    Here's your new assignment. Try not to be a moron.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share