Brady

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: Brady

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    I am talking about decision making in general, whether it be during a play or before.  We should have kept running it even after Ridley was knocked out.  The execution before that left a lot to be desired, regardless.



    The next time the Pats offense touched the ball after the Ridley fumble, they were down 28-13 with 11:13 to go in the game.  No team in the NFL continues running in this situation.

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

    Re: Brady

    This is a shocking analysis. Who here would have expected you of all people to make excuses for every aspect of the mediocre team except the HOFer?

    I'm on board with you junior. Let's get rid of this Brady guy and go with Mallet. Then we will win it all for sure!

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Brady

    All the negative comments were derived becasue of 3 losses (2-Giants, 1-Baltimore). Both those teams are tough on defense with an offense that is capable of scoring 20+ points. get the answers for thoses teams and we may get that elusive superbowl. 

     

    Of course if this "read option" gets any tread that's a different set of problems.

    Getting rid of Brady is not the answer. 

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

    Re: Brady

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    Plenty of blame to go around, but not much at all on the O Line, the running game,



    Yeah junior, the run game was fabulous at 3.8 ypc from the RBs. Man o man if we had done that more we really would have showed those Ravens. You're really a football genius all right.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Brady

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    Why do you think that is?  It's because the passing calls and the execution sucked and they didn't get playaction going.

     

    Did they even try to let Lloyd run deep and target him? No.

     




    Astonishing how you have all the gameplan answers. BB hire this football genius!

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

    Re: Brady

    Babe-babe- babe- There was plenty of guys that didn't play well for the pats on Sunday. The HOF QB just happened to be one of them. I didn't see anybody that said they should get rid of Brady for Mallett but you.

    As a HOF QB maybe people were expecting a much better game from him?

    Maybe everybody isn't as big a fan of your aging QB as they used to be?

    maybe they have good substantial reasons for this?

     But then again trying to discuss anything negative about Brady falls on deaf ears with you...You are a very closed minded guy

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Brady

     

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/sports/football/tom-brady-being-among-the-best-is-a-worthwhile-debate.html

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: Brady

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    Why do you think that is?  It's because the passing calls and the execution sucked and they didn't get playaction going.

    Did they even try to let Lloyd run deep and target him? No.



    Lloyd hasn't been used as a deep threat all year; at least, not as much as Gronk, Hernandez or even Welker.

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

    Re: Brady

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    Plenty of blame to go around, but not much at all on the O Line, the running game,

     



    Yeah junior, the run game was fabulous at 3.8 ypc from the RBs. Man o man if we had done that more we really would have showed those Ravens. You're really a football genius all right.

     

     

     

     


    What did Baltimore average in the game? The mere fact you're mentioning the final YPC as if it meant something is pathetic.

    DO you really think Brady played well? Apparently, so. Explain how he played well, please.




    Right junior. The actual yards a back gets when he runs is unimportant. Thanks for the enlightenment on the game. LMAO@U

    Brady did not play well but played better than anybody else on the O. Frankly if I were him I would have audibled to a run as much as possible and let the RBs take the blame. Because his receivers were getting no separation and the few times that they did they dropped the ball far too much. And despite not getting sacked he was harried way too much.

    This is what happens against most good teams we play. The running is mediocre if not downright terrible and the receivers can't get free.

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Brady

    In response to LHNYJ's comment:

    Babe-babe- babe- There was plenty of guys that didn't play well for the pats on Sunday. The HOF QB just happened to be one of them. I didn't see anybody that said they should get rid of Brady for Mallett but you.

    As a HOF QB maybe people were expecting a much better game from him?

    Maybe everybody isn't as big a fan of your aging QB as they used to be?

    maybe they have good substantial reasons for this?

     But then again trying to discuss anything negative about Brady falls on deaf ears with you...You are a very closed minded guy

     




    Oh don't you fret. I'm all in with the get rid of Brady and go with Mallet brigade.

    I'm quite sure if the Ravens had Brady and we had Flacco we would be SB bound.

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

    Re: Brady

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to jri37's comment:

     

    Nobody is denying the offense wasn't good but that fumble did matter. at that point they were down 8 and still moving the ball effectively.

    Bottom line the offense insability to cash in red zone oppotunities for TD's in the 1st half and the welker drop, Ridley fumble and the uneven and somnetimes poor play by Brady did them in for the 2nd half.

    Defensively, the lack of secondary depth caught up to them and was the achilles heel in the 2nd half I hope to never see Cole, Arrington and Gregory in coverage again. Gregory can not cover any TE.

     




    Agreed.  I agree all of it matters. The D didn't rise up and bail out the inpetitude of the offense either, which was disappointing. I think losing Talib hurt and that's why they started throwing. I would have done the same thing.  Cole was on an island and it hurt.

     

    It wasn't good enough on D, but it would have been nice if the offense, for ONCE, in these recent playoffs HELPED the D a little bit.

    The one TD to Boldin over McCourty was just a nice play on their part.  Ball thrown at the right point, the right arc, nice catch, etc.

    Even down 14-13, our offense just couldn't bear down and put drives together.

     




    No, it would have been nice to see the DEFENSE help the offense for once as they surely needed it.

    A batted down pass, a fumble recovery, a pick, a sac or a little pressure to cause a bad throw, tackling, no stupid penalties, no balls flying over there heads for 20 yards or allowing RB's to run free.......... Any thing but allowing 4 td's in 4 RZ attempts would have been just swell.

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

    Re: Brady

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    Plenty of blame to go around, but not much at all on the O Line, the running game,

     



    Yeah junior, the run game was fabulous at 3.8 ypc from the RBs. Man o man if we had done that more we really would have showed those Ravens. You're really a football genius all right.

     

     

     

     


    What did Baltimore average in the game? The mere fact you're mentioning the final YPC as if it meant something is pathetic.

    DO you really think Brady played well? Apparently, so. Explain how he played well, please.

     




    Right junior. The actual yards a back gets when he runs is unimportant. Thanks for the enlightenment on the game. LMAO@U

     

    Brady did not play well but played better than anybody else on the O. Frankly if I were him I would have audibled to a run as much as possible and let the RBs take the blame. Because his receivers were getting no separation and the few times that they did they dropped the ball far too much. And despite not getting sacked he was harried way too much.

    This is what happens against most good teams we play. The running is mediocre if not downright terrible and the receivers can't get free.

     

     



    It almost appears like he doesn't want to be out there.  You will go to your grave defending Brady, but the rest of us will call it like it is.

     

    5-8 yards on 1st down carries is not "mediocre".




    I wouldn't have wanted to be out there either.

    I'm not going to spend another year arguing with you genius. Brady has to go. 3.8 ypc is good running. The defense is elite.

    Anything else you want me to agree with moron?

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

    Re: Brady

    After the game I said Brady's play was terrible, after giving it some thought I would call his play average, to below average. He had tipped passes - that I would have to put on him. He had a meaningless, game over throw and pick at the end...that I would put on him. And he left points off the board before the end of the half. He also made some poor decisions I thought on third downs (throwing into coverage and not running for a first).

    He also did some good things...a throw to Welker for 15 plus yards between a corner and safety, was a throw I thought few could make. He had drops that would of easily extended drives and given us more points. And for the most part he didn't take sacks or get the ball stripped from his hands - I thought he moved around the pocket well and bought himself more time on numerous occassions.

    Overall I'd call his performance average, to poor. He didn't give us a advantage that we need from him, and that's the problem - if he doesn't play excellent we will lose against good teams. I think that says a lot about our team...you take away Tom and we are not very good.

    He played well against Houston and the defense gave up 28 points. He played poor against Baltimore and the defense gave up 28 points. Same old, same old. Baltimore had poor field position that entire game and yet they drove down the field, time and time again with no resistance. We don't deserve to be going to the Super Bowl. What was going to happen there? Maybe Tom would play lights out and we'd win 45 to 28...or he'd play average and we'd lose 28 to 14.

    We will never win another Super Bowl with our defense like this. Never. 

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

    Re: Brady

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    Overall I'd call his performance average, to poor. He didn't give us a advantage that we need from him, and that's the problem - if he doesn't play excellent we will lose against good teams. I think that says a lot about our team...you take away Tom and we are not very good.



    Isn't that true of most teams?  QB is the most important position on an NFL team.  It is hard to win if they don't play well.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Brady

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to jri37's comment:

     

    Nobody is denying the offense wasn't good but that fumble did matter. at that point they were down 8 and still moving the ball effectively.

    Bottom line the offense insability to cash in red zone oppotunities for TD's in the 1st half and the welker drop, Ridley fumble and the uneven and somnetimes poor play by Brady did them in for the 2nd half.

    Defensively, the lack of secondary depth caught up to them and was the achilles heel in the 2nd half I hope to never see Cole, Arrington and Gregory in coverage again. Gregory can not cover any TE.

     




    Agreed.  I agree all of it matters. The D didn't rise up and bail out the inpetitude of the offense either, which was disappointing. I think losing Talib hurt and that's why they started throwing. I would have done the same thing.  Cole was on an island and it hurt.

     

    It wasn't good enough on D, but it would have been nice if the offense, for ONCE, in these recent playoffs HELPED the D a little bit.

    The one TD to Boldin over McCourty was just a nice play on their part.  Ball thrown at the right point, the right arc, nice catch, etc.

    Even down 14-13, our offense just couldn't bear down and put drives together.

     

     




    No, it would have been nice to see the DEFENSE help the offense for once as they surely needed it.

     

    A batted down pass, a fumble recovery, a pick, a sac or a little pressure to cause a bad throw, tackling, no stupid penalties, no balls flying over there heads for 20 yards or allowing RB's to run free.......... Any thing but allowing 4 td's in 4 RZ attempts would have been just swell.




    This is it in a nut shell, and that will be it for the rest of eternity apparently. It's been the story for 8 years now. We will not win a Super Bowl with the defense like it is now...not going to happen. I'm just going to get used to it and enjoy the regular season when we go up against the trash cans from our division - those teams that lay down like dogs in December (because they are out of the playoff picture) that lend us a false sense of security.  

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mike-J-D. Show Mike-J-D's posts

    Re: Brady

    I feel like the offensive gameplan was good.  Execution, not so much.  I think they stayed balanced for as long as could be expected.  When they got away from balance near the end, whether they had to or not I'm sure is a point of contention, they turned it over.  Brady was average at best.     In many situations, below average.  That's fine if you're Flacco or Eli Manning.  They're simply not asked to do as much as Brady.  Brady is held to a higher standard-- and rightly so-- and he has to play better in this offense to win against good defenses. The offense only put together one complete drive.  Drops and bad decisions derailed the rest. 

    The defense came to play from the start.  Talib getting hurt was a huge blow but were good enough to win if the offense played better than average.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Brady

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     And he left points off the board before the end of the half.



    BB is not allowed to call a time out?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share