Brady

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

    Re: Brady

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    [QUOTE]
    They absolutely share in it.



    So it's not really "simple as that" then.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes it is. He was not sharp today. Simple as that. That is my opinion, we can agree to disagree.

    I suspect you might be one of those, and it is fine, that always see things from one side.

    If the receivers do well Brady made them look good. If the receivers do poorly the receivers just stunk. That is cool. There are a lot of those folks on this board. You are in good company.

    I simply don't think that way. 

    [/QUOTE]

    If you ask Brady, he will most likely say he stunk it up, needs to play better and THAT is the opinion that counts!

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

    Re: Brady

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]
    They absolutely share in it.

     

     



    So it's not really "simple as that" then.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes it is. He was not sharp today. Simple as that. That is my opinion, we can agree to disagree.

     

    I suspect you might be one of those, and it is fine, that always see things from one side.

    If the receivers do well Brady made them look good. If the receivers do poorly the receivers just stunk. That is cool. There are a lot of those folks on this board. You are in good company.

    I simply don't think that way. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If you ask Brady, he will most likely say he stunk it up, needs to play better and THAT is the opinion that counts!

     

    [/QUOTE]


    BB didn't think TB stunk it up.

    Patient "angle" route, big-time throw, gutsy catch in traffic.

    "I thought Danny stepped up and made some big catches in some tough situations," coach Bill Belichick said. "Tom, as always, competed like he always does. He made some great throws in critical times."

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Brady

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    BB didn't think TB stunk it up.

    Patient "angle" route, big-time throw, gutsy catch in traffic.

    "I thought Danny stepped up and made some big catches in some tough situations," coach Bill Belichick said. "Tom, as always, competed like he always does. He made some great throws in critical times."


    Brady made many great throws. He wasn't perfect but I thought he played great given all his new WRs and TEs. It's going to be fun watching this offense grow.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Brady

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    Yes it is. He was not sharp today. Simple as that. That is my opinion, we can agree to disagree.

    I suspect you might be one of those, and it is fine, that always see things from one side.

    If the receivers do well Brady made them look good. If the receivers do poorly the receivers just stunk. That is cool. There are a lot of those folks on this board. You are in good company.

    I simply don't think that way. 



    If the poor play of the rookie receivers take part in the poor passing production, it's not as simple as "he was not sharp today".  It's more complicated than just the QB not being sharp.  The rookie receivers failing time and time again also took part in it.

    I don't ride the Brady Train all day.  A good pass must be caught by a good receiver.  A good receiver needs a good pass etc etc.  Sometimes good passes are dropped.  Sometimes bad passes are caught.

    Saying it's a simple as Brady wasn't sharp today goes again logic.  With what he was given for targets and the time he was given to perform, I thought he did well, or average at least.

    Amendola and Edelman helped out.  The Goofball Brigade didn't help at all.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Brady

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

     



    Do you need help with editing the quote box?  I can help you if you'd like.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Brady

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    On the last drive TB was 7 for 7 for 36 yards.   He basically had 2 guys who he could depend on at that point (Vereen and DA).  Buffalo knew this too, because the passing windows were needle thin.  YAC stats were rare.

    So, down 1 with the game on the line he was close to perfect.  Best of all the winning field goal left virtually no time left on the clock so we didn't have to suffer through another potential disaster in the secondary.

    Thank You Tom Brady.

     



    This  ^

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Brady

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Yes it is. He was not sharp today. Simple as that. That is my opinion, we can agree to disagree.

    I suspect you might be one of those, and it is fine, that always see things from one side.

    If the receivers do well Brady made them look good. If the receivers do poorly the receivers just stunk. That is cool. There are a lot of those folks on this board. You are in good company.

    I simply don't think that way. 

     



    If the poor play of the rookie receivers take part in the poor passing production, it's not as simple as "he was not sharp today".  It's more complicated than just the QB not being sharp.  The rookie receivers failing time and time again also took part in it.

     

    I don't ride the Brady Train all day.  A good pass must be caught by a good receiver.  A good receiver needs a good pass etc etc.  Sometimes good passes are dropped.  Sometimes bad passes are caught.

    Saying it's a simple as Brady wasn't sharp today goes again logic.  With what he was given for targets and the time he was given to perform, I thought he did well, or average at least.

    Amendola and Edelman helped out.  The Goofball Brigade didn't help at all.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I get what you are hung up on. There are tons of things that affect how a players performance and even place in history untimatley ends up being perceived. The thread was about Brady so I was just trying to keep it simple and focused on him and I didn't feel he was as consistently sharp as usual. That is really regardless of all the extentuating circumstances. I've seen him be better with less or roughly the same. I've seen him be worse with better. I did not want to get into all the minutia so bottom lined it from my own point of view. But if it makes you or anyone else feel better simply call it a misspoken addon phrase and consider the "simple as that" part removed. 

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

    Re: Brady

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    All in all I thought he played well today considering he was under some heavy pressure (which I'm sure he'll see every week now) and the fact that he was throwing to rookies. I've read a couple of negative posts about him and of course we have rusty running around bashing the best player in franchise history, but I thought we wouldn't of won without him. There was a third down pass to Amendola where he had about an inch to fit the ball...he did. If Thompkins had got his feet down, or came back for a ball in the endzone his stats would of been better and the game a little easier. I thought he battled out there...I thought he took his hits well (like he always does) and got right back up like it never happened. He lined everybody up out there and tried to put them in the best position to win - and in the end he drove his team right down the field to win the thing.

    I can't believe people can discount what this guy does every week, I really can't. There are 28 qb's in the league that wouldn't of stood a chance out there today throwing to the young guys he was throwing to today on the road...that's a fact. We are lucky to have him.



    I agree 100 percent about Brady winning this game. Excellent throws and the defense knew it was coming due to Ridley benching. At the same time though, people are gonna question anything they don't understand. They don't understand the receivers are not on the same page, routes are wrong, guys lined up wrong, etc...it is going to happen. I mean, shoot, guys here think Bill Belichick can't evaluate talent anymore, and he has 2 more rings then Tommy does. Some guys just don't get it.

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

    Re: Brady

    Brady was not at his best today for whatever reason.  When the game was on the line, however, he was sharp.  The game winning drive was classic Brady.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Brady

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    Brady was not sharp today. Simple as that.



    He wasn't his best, but he also was surrounded by a bunch of receivers who didn't seem to know what they were doing.  He made some pretty good throws to Amendola, Vereen, and Edelman.  I don't think you can put the throws to Thompkins on Brady . . . that was Thompkins not running good routes. And Sudfeld looked pretty mediocre to me.  I think Thompkins will eventually come around; I'm not as sure about Sudfeld.  I know he caught a lot of balls in camp and preseason, but I've never liked the way he moves.  I said this after one of the preseason games:  he looks like he runs awkwardly to me and doesn't have great balance or body control.  We'll see, but I'm not sold on him being a long-term solution at that second TE position.  

     

     

     

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

    Re: Brady

    Clutch =\= sharp in general.

    The last drive was beautiful, converting on 3rd downs, playing the clock etc. And sure there were some mental mistakes from the rookies. But the fumble on the sneak, the overthrown pass down the sideline to Vereen, a bit overthrown on a potential TD pass to Edelman in the corner. Those weren't sharp.

    This game was, like it or not, easy opponent or not, won by the D. One (1) sustained drive did they give up. After the Bills scored the TD to go ahead they shut them down, and forced a 3-&-out with about 5 minutes left of the 4th quarter, were even a single new first down for the Bills could have lost the game.

    This is what I want from the team, them playing clutch. Forget about the stats, the easy wins, high fantasy numbers. I want them to execute come crunch time, and they did just that yesterday.

    Supra societatem nemo

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Brad34. Show Brad34's posts

    Re: Brady

    Imagine Manning throwing to this many rookies and unheralded players. He'd be complaining about needing his guys out there ASAP. Brady is a class act and shoulders the blame. BB and Kraft really don't appreciate what they have there. If they did they would surround him with weapons year after year.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from DanishPastry. Show DanishPastry's posts

    Re: Brady

    Isn't that what they are trying to do? To get him weapons?

    I don't think they deliberately try to not give him weapons. What has been the knock on the receivers the last couple of years? That they are to small, don't stretch the field, and cannot go up and fight for the ball.

    well, we know this years group are bigger and faster than previous editions, but only time will tell if one or more playmakers emerge from the group. I strongly believe that you cannot use the very first game of the rookies for projecting their impact, not for the next game, and not for the season. We've seen the potential, it is still there.

    By the way, and slightly off-topic. Did anyone notice the non-calls for pass interference that Thompkins should have gotten? I counted at least twice, were his arm was heavily pulled as he was trying to make the catch.

    Supra societatem nemo

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: Brady

    Who is this nut job? Could it be? That is a lonely and sorry individual with one devout supporter. Mods should ban him in perpetuity. It would clean this board up.

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

    Re: Brady

    In response to GEAUX-TIGRES's comment:

    Who is this nut job? Could it be? That is a lonely and sorry individual with one devout supporter. Mods should ban him in perpetuity. It would clean this board up.




    Me?

    Sorry, no. I'm not the next incarnation of Rusty. Did I really say something that was so out of place? This was not his greatest game, but he came through in the end. What is the problem?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Brady

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:



    well, we know this years group are bigger and faster than previous editions, but only time will tell if one or more playmakers emerge from the group.



    If bigger and faster were the keys to success, scouting would take place at basketball courts and track and field events.

    These are descriptions that have been used by optimists to cloak the fact that 32 teams had the opportunity to pick these guys 224 times and no one wanted them.  It's not because they aren't big enough or fast enough.  It's because they aren't good enough football players.

    Let's hope that changes.  With one game in the books, it isn't good.

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

    Re: Brady

    Well, my point was to take it easy. They are rookies playing in their very first regular season game. Let us give them a couple of weeks before final judgement.

    I'm not saying bigger and faster turns automatically into success, I'm just stating what has been the critique of the teams receivers, and that they have actually tried to adress that issue.  

    Was it the right players to get? I don't know, but one way or the other we are going to find out. Of course they are not all going to pan out. But if just one of Dobson, Boyce and Thompkins is the real deal, things will look a great deal better. Add in that Gronk comes back at some point - hopefully soon - and things will settle down. I still have them as one of the most dominant O's in the league.

    Supra societatem nemo

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

    Re: Brady

     

    Didn't Edelman completely miss a TD pass from Brady causing the need for his sneak in the first place?

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

    Re: Brady

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    a bit overthrown on a potential TD pass to Edelman in the corner. Those weren't sharp.



    A real receiver may well have caught that.

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

    Re: Brady

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    Didn't Edelman completely miss a TD pass from Brady causing the need for his sneak in the first place?



    No. On 1st and goal, Thompkins catches a pass for a short gain, bringing them to the 2 yard line. On 2nd down there is the pass attempt to Thompkins, who cathes but cannot stay inbounds. On 3rd down Blount rushes but is stopped short of the goal line.

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

    Re: Brady

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

     

    a bit overthrown on a potential TD pass to Edelman in the corner. Those weren't sharp.

     



    A real receiver may well have caught that.

     



    7 for 79 and 2 TDs says he is a decent receiver.

    On a side note, Field Yates mentioned that with his punt returns yesterday, Edelman became the NFL's all time leader in punt return average.

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

    Re: Brady

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Didn't Edelman completely miss a TD pass from Brady causing the need for his sneak in the first place?

     



    No. On 1st and goal, Thompkins catches a pass for a short gain, bringing them to the 2 yard line. On 2nd down there is the pass attempt to Thompkins, who cathes but cannot stay inbounds. On 3rd down Blount rushes but is stopped short of the goal line.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Didn't he miss a TD pass in the middle of the EZ at some point?

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

    Re: Brady

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    Well, my point was to take it easy. They are rookies playing in their very first regular season game. Let us give them a couple of weeks before final judgement.

    I'm not saying bigger and faster turns automatically into success, I'm just stating what has been the critique of the teams receivers, and that they have actually tried to adress that issue.  

    Was it the right players to get? I don't know, but one way or the other we are going to find out. Of course they are not all going to pan out. But if just one of Dobson, Boyce and Thompkins is the real deal, things will look a great deal better. Add in that Gronk comes back at some point - hopefully soon - and things will settle down. I still have them as one of the most dominant O's in the league.

    Supra societatem nemo




    Don't forget Suds.

    And the problem........4 rookies on O.......2 of them UDFA's.

    If ONE pans out, you still got 3 failures and that is very likely.

    Every one understands the need for youth and upgrade, but 4 rooks is just a disaster waiting to happen.

    I was reading, the last time that happened was 1971 and the team went 5-11.

    Thank God for TB, but unfortunately, he can't do it alone.

    Amandola and Edelman were great, but what happens when one or both goes down?

    What then?  

    I can see replacing two of the last years, #1 offensive starters, mainly Branch and Lloyd, but 4?

    Not Good.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from DanishPastry. Show DanishPastry's posts

    Re: Brady

    Yes, he did. Maybe on the same drive?

     

    Supra societatem nemo

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

    Re: Brady

    Brady had some off throws but on some of the throws it was clear him and his receivers aren't in sync yet. Such as Thompkins in the back of the endzone. It's a play we've seen a 100 times where Hernandez or Welker or Branch would have immediately turned and ran back to the open spot. Thompkins made the mistake of stopping and not turning into the open space. Brady use to the old WR crew made the mistake of thinking Thompkins would turn back to the open space when he had enough space to turn and run it to at least bring it to inside the 5. The fumble was very unBrady like but I consider it the exception and discount it as a random brain f@rt on his part that is rarely seen. Just need some time for the receivers and Brady to get on the same page but it's there. We can see it's there, it just needs to come together


    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus

     

Share