Re: Brian Billick calls pats
posted at 11/27/2012 9:42 AM EST
In response to ipotnyc's comment:
In response to zbellino's comment:
In response to BabeParilli's comment:
In response to sam0377's comment:
In response to BabeParilli's comment:
In response to mthurl's comment:
It depends on what the guy is actually talking about...is he talking about the offense? Is he talking about the defense? Or is he talking about the team overrall?
If he is talking about the offense then he is a moron. Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez are pretty special players. Ridley is not chopped liver and Woodhead and Vareen are pretty good third down backs. Our offensive line has a left tackle that may have as much talent as anyone in football.
If he is factoring in the defense, then I do think they are average enough to perhaps bring the whole team down to a lower level, however I wouldn't call it a pedestrian level. If he is just talking about the talent of the defense alone, then I do think he and others that are not from the area would call it pedestrian.
Billick for the most part has been pretty pro Patriots from what I've seen unless we are playing the Ravens. The same can be said for when Aikman bashed our defense last year calling them the worst he's seen make the playoffs (Aikman has always been fair). I would NOT call this team pedestrian, but I would certainly call our defense that...or even worse.
By "pedestrian" I think he means without Brady they are an 8-8 team. That's not crazy talk. Ridley is an improvement over Benny but still is averaging only .4 yards over the norm. Good, but hardly *wow* material. Gronk and Wes are stars, but Billick might be thinking just how starry they would be with a Sanchez throwing to them for instance. And I doubt he is aware of Solder's potential. Of course, like everybody else except some kool-aide drinkers here, he sees the D as below average to just plain bad.
Without Brady he simply sees them having the same talent a bunch of teams have. He's not far off the mark if off the mark at all.
I do see it as a bias. See how Green bay faired against giants yesterday. How are they ranked so high and not pedestrian. We went toe to toe with this defence with giants who just spanked GB. Looking at last nights game SB defence was real work of whatever you want to call it on BBs part.
Without Rodgers the Pack is pretty pedestrian as well.
And the Saints are probably bad without Brees. The same for a lot of teams out there.
I can think of a few like Chicago, San Fran, the Giants, the Texans to a degree, where I don't think a QB change would radically alter the outcome. But all those teams are just stocked with talent on offense and defense (especially) in a way that NE and GB and a few others are not.
Moral of the story is the oldest lesson in football:
Winning is all about a QB/Oline, and more importantly a Defense. Everything else, IMO, is a hood ornament.
Sensible and excellent point. I'd even add the Falcons, Steelers, and Broncos to the list of current teams that would drop a few notches without their QBs.
At the end of the day, you just need the QB/Oline and the D to play their best in the SB and you win it all. I would add a time chewing RB to the mix, too. Pats have that in Ridley.
The NYG are a reverse conundrum. Surround a pedestrian QB with some big playmakers and a D, and you win.
Not to open that debate, but too many teams win without a "big" running back. The Steelers and Packers and Saints all won superbowls recently with less than 20 carries from their backs. It certainly helps, but it's not something that "most" teams use to win the Superbowl in the modern NFL.
But the look at what all the winning (and losing) teams have in common.
Ben Roth, Brady, Manning, Rogers, Brees, Warner (when he was good). And most of them have a top tier defense, or one that was top tier by the end of the season.
Basically, it is ONE way to win. But you are better off getting yourself a "D" and a "QB" because most winning teams carry those in common.