Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots

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

    Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots

    Gronkowski is a find, sort of.  It it wasn't for the back he would have been a high 1st rounder.   The back is still an issue, how long it will hold up and such.  But I would have to disagree on the WR arguement.  Very good established WRs.  I would think we would have them beat at TE but the WR corp for the Jets is very good.

    The problem with the comparison is you are comparing established players to 1st and 2nd year guys.  The established players will win every time.   Even going into the past was Bruschi the player he was in his first two years?  Did he start?  McCourty is a stud.  Did Revis have this good of a start?  It took a number of years before we heard of Revis island.  Yet Revis is viewed better than McCourty.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots

    In Response to Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots:
    Gronkowski is a find, sort of.  It it wasn't for the back he would have been a high 1st rounder.   The back is still an issue, how long it will hold up and such.  But I would have to disagree on the WR arguement.  Very good established WRs.  I would think we would have them beat at TE but the WR corp for the Jets is very good. The problem with the comparison is you are comparing established players to 1st and 2nd year guys.  The established players will win every time.   Even going into the past was Bruschi the player he was in his first two years?  Did he start?  McCourty is a stud.  Did Revis have this good of a start?  It took a number of years before we heard of Revis island.  Yet Revis is viewed better than McCourty.
    Posted by garytx


    Gronk and Hernandez will (hopefully) continue to grow and improve during the next 3-4 years. We just need to address some problems that we've really had since 2005.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from garytx. Show garytx's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots

    In Response to Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots:
    In Response to Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots : Gronk and Hernandez will (hopefully) continue to grow and improve during the next 3-4 years. We just need to address some problems that we've really had since 2005.
    Posted by BubbaInHawaii


    To see Tate not develop this year was very disturbing.  He's the guy that can get separation but doesn't seem to read the defense right.

    The pass rush should be addressed.  Meaning DE and OLB.  More defensive help.  The Pats have to have another hit though.  They also have to patch up with Mankins.  Light can be resigned and the OL remains solid. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots

    In Response to Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots:
    Every single play you mentioned was a total defensive failure, not the Holmes catch which was tight coverage and a great catch. I write them all off. Period.  Welker is not a home run RAC guy, he can get lost in traffic for five to ten yards but isn't fast enough to run away from most 43 ILBs. If you can't see that watching him, then you are imagining things. Branch is a gillion years old, and does not get open against elite corners. The Jets kept Revis on him this time, and he was a ghost.  Tate made one catch, one catch. It was not the same play. Holmes was literally occluded and still tracked the ball through a CB and still kept his feet in. And Holmes makes catches like that every other week. Tate could not track the ball when he was wide open, and had one juggling catch because he was atrociously late for a catchable ball that a credible deep threat would have taken to the house.  Seriously, compare that to the amazing amount of plays where he isn't open because he can't make cuts right and has trouble tracking the ball, then add in his five drops on easy catches, and it is evident that he just doesn't have the natural talent to be an NFL big play WR. Sorry. That is my evaluation.   I could go to the Panthers roster and do what you just did. Name a play for each loser against the worst players in the league that were broken plays, or find a guy who played terrible all season long and had one good play. Doug Gabriel had a 45 yard catch for NE. Maybe they should get him? Yeah, check, he is every bit as good as Santonio Holmes. Right. Now I've figured it out.  Here is what it is: Branch -- aged guy who is almost a JAG, but can make a savvy play Welker -- very good (no longer elite or even great) slot guy with zero home run ability Tate -- very disappointing second year player with little promise outside of speed Pryor -- absolutely unknown commodity who they wouldn't let on the field until a game that was 100% garbage time Hernandez -- promising rookie TE with ups and downs Gronk -- promising rookie TE, who is more a possession guy The last two, who do NOT match up on the perimeter, and are not home run threats. They are TEs. TE's don't take it to the house. And neither of them are the kind of player other teams have to game plan around. And no, neither of them (especially Hern's bunch of drops this season) is as talented before the catch as Holmes is, and neither is as talented after the catch. You need to watch other teams play man and see what it looks like when you have WRs that go out and get balls that are not perfect throws. NE doesn't have a guy who can do that consistently. That is fact. If you think NE has one WR that matches up with Holmes or Edwards you are not really watching dude. Sorry. If Brady were QBing that game for the Jets, Holmes and Edwards would have had unreal sick numbers, but Sanchez is so terrible it takes him three tries at a wide open WR to get one down. If Cotchery were NE's slot he would be every bit as good as Welker, and would provide a bit more top end speed that would scare defenses. 
    Posted by zbellino


    I agree 98%.  I think Hernandez is spectacular with the ball in his hands.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rick8795. Show Rick8795's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots

    Could be an argument that the younger players got overloaded/overcoached prior to the playoff game. Tried to do too many things, and fiddled with what got them there.

    Why can't Kraft step in and get a proven OC, along the lines of a Mike Martz?

    Borges will always take the contrarian view because if he doesn't no one will read his columns. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from itllnevahapn. Show itllnevahapn's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots

    the holmes catch was a great catch by a great throw, its was impossible to stop that one, also the dline was so thin who even played on the dline. this draft should shore up our "d"
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jjaycee. Show jjaycee's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots

    Stop complaining about Borges! I reside in the NYC metro area, and suffer, having to endure the NY Times sports section. You won't believe this, but they actually have  female staff sports writers!!!!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnHannahrulz. Show JohnHannahrulz's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots

    The Jets paid for and acquired very talented and very hungry players. It is clear that they have a mortgage the future and win now management philosophy. Woody, Holmes, Jenkins, Scott, Cromartie, Edwards Tomlinson etc.....were any of these players drafted and developed by the Jets ? Nope. Doesn't matter what you have on paper you still have to go out and execute a successful gameplan.

    When I saw Revis closing his side of the field and Cro Man hooking and jamming guys at the line in the Indy game it was clear to me that you need big physical receivers to succeed some of the time against the Jets. This is what ZB is saying. You can't have a bunch of slot guys and burners that lack the physicality (is that a word) to create seperation with the best CBs. Mccourty and Arrington are very young and some routes are very difficult to defend without getting flagged. Live and Learn.

    I never wanted to say this, but I have felt for some time that the fix was in on the Jets getting to the SB. I don't think it's the result of any vast all-encompassing conspiracy or the way most felt about the Saints. In the end it comes down to economics. The Packers, Steelers and Bears have huge fan bases that surpass their immediate region (eg; fans all over the States) and New York is (hmmmmph) the largest media market with a football team ( No L.A.). From a demographics standpoint the NFL and its media partners have come awfully close to hitting this one out of the park (economic home run threat ?). As a Patriots fan i realise that while the same may be said of the NE fanbase, I just see those other teams as more entrenched franchises (jets excepted, giants not excepted).  It p-sses me off, but their is not alot a can do about it (go to games, buy the merch).

    If the Patriots teams of the past are any indication, the rebuilding process can complex and difficult. To maintain a level of talent commensurate with previously great players is just difficult. Compare the Cowboys of the 90s to the current cowboys. You just don't have an enormous amount of player turnover without some loss of talent, leadership, and ability to execute. This current incarnation of the Patriots are in the process of establishing leaders on and off the field. I don't expect it to happen overnight; i expect there will be some trial and error involved. I don't find it constructive or even intelligent to mention great players from another era other than to indicate their greatness. Should Belichick really be thinking "If I had Big Willie circa 2004 I would have won this game "? It's a nice thought, but it's not grounded in reality any more than my thinking Luis Tiant circa 72  would make a great addition to the Sox rotation. With a cap in place the owners/GMs/Staff have to be very careful about where the allocate the money for the players and with some 17 impending free agents (my guess) I expect to see some tough decisions, that the Patriots fan base might not be entirely pleased with, being made in the coming months. I doubt Belichick or Bob Kraft takes any of these decisions lighty.

    ZB Baldwin ?


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

    Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots

    The defense was not below average, it was slightly above average, with flashes of greatness. There is quite a lot of talent on the team but it isn't loaded and as deep as it was in the past. They did overachieve but so has every Pats team that went the distance. They have always been no name defenses. 

    The inexperience killed them. Plain and simple. Too many new faces who hadn't been in big games. 

    You could see that the defense gave up yards, but managed to make the big plays. It was pretty clear that if you got a game where they didn't make the big plays on d they would be vulnerable. 

    The Jets were very prepared and had a good game plan. 

    The Pats are a draft or two away from building that championship d but they can get there. 

    And there is a lot more to the game than pure talent. The coaching is just as important. Maybe not more important, but not less important either. 
     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from nbdev1234. Show nbdev1234's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots

    I agree 100%, and we have been watching this get worse every year.  Sure we have had 2 good drafts, but what happened in the 3-4 drafts before those?  So now we have the old/er guys (G Warren, Light, Koppen, Taylor) and/or injured guys (Neal, T Warren, Bodden, Faulk) and 75 very young players.  Only a few I would consider 'in-between' - Wilfork, Mankins, Brady, BCain...

    So if we are rebuilding - why are we still paying top dollar for tickets, etc?  Shouldn't they use Seymour's $$ on Ngata, and Moss's $$ on Vincent Jackson, and Light's $$ on Hali?

    Regular season was one thing - when you hit playoffs, and coaches start looking at weaknesses and tendencies and schemes, the inexperienced guys show up like a zit on prom night.  That zit didn't look so bad hanging out with friends at the mall...different story on prom night.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots

    i don't buy the lack of talent argument. i say coaching is flawed.

    for the third straight playoff loss (not counting bradyless 2008), the game plan, particularly the offensive side of it, was flawed.  in each of those years, they won a humungous number of games during reg season, and they normally have the toughest reg seasons.  if they had the talent to accumulate those wins, they have the talent to win playoff games.

    in everyone of those games, the fans here wondered and protested why they did what they were doing in those games as early as second quarter.

    common factors? giving up on the running hard through the middle right at the very start. it's like saying right away we are going to let tb score and you can do nothing to stop it. there was nothing to guess about what they were going to do - not by us, the fans and certainly not by the jets on sunday. honestly, other than that gadget early, was there any time during the entire game when you were surprised that they would pass (yes pass). no because all the time you rpetty much expect them to pass. everyone knew that their running game did not ahve to be taken seriously.

    regadless of which path you take on why they did not run the ball enough....
    1) they lost faith on their running game too early
    2) lack of talent - RB or OL - was valid reason to give up on the running game early
    these are both coaching problems.

    ultimately i believe that bb needs to adjust the offensive philosophy. 2001-2004, they won SBs because opponents did not really expect 100% that bb was going to put a huge amount of the burden on tb to win it on the playoff games. now...everyone expects that on tough downs they pats will go witht eh biggest offensive weapon that is tb.

    i believe they need to a state where they do not have to rely on tb to win. for that to happen they need to establish early in the season, that their running game is good enough to win the season. they need to make other teams worry about the running game. and it's not just the RB that is key to this. they need OLs who can slug it out and grind out in front vs the quick, tiny OLmen who excel oin prtecting tb but can't seem to do well when asked to run block.




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

    Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots

    I think anybody who thinks it's the coaching needs to go back and watch the game.  There were a number of drives that were stopped dead because of a turnover, dropped pass or penalty.  That is not the OC's fault.  It was lack of execution.  It looks like the game plan would have worked if it were carried out.  How anyone can blame the many gaffs of this game by the Pats on the OC is beyond me.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots

    Here's my take on this.  I think there are still big gaps in talent.  We have good slot receivers and good (though still developing) TEs, but (as Zbellino points out) we have no real wideouts and also no real running backs.  Because of this, our offense tends to be very one-dimensional.  In general this season, our offense was best when we got something out of our running game. We might have been able to beat some poor defensive teams with short passes only, but against better defenses we needed to at least mix in the run a bit. 

    So we're handicapped by a lack of talent. But I do think the coaches also took a bit of a gamble on Sunday. I haven't seen the game on film (I was there live), but from memory, it seems like we tried to use a lot of spread formations with Brady in the shotgun and either no backs or with Woodhead as a blocking/receiving back.  From these formations we're just not going to do much but throw our short passes (we don't have a deep threat) or run draws and reverses. The defense knows this and can therefore focus on just a few types of plays.  I think the Pats' coaching staff must have decided this was our strength so we'd go mano-a-mano against the Jets defense and see if we could win. The Jets, however, were ready for it and could stop it.  Personally, I would have liked to have seen the Pats coaches switch earlier (in the first half) to a more run-oriented offense and see if that would have worked.  They waited until the fourth quarter (when it was far too late) to do that.  They may have thought our run game was too weak to beat the Jets and therefore that we were better off sticking with our short passing strength. But once it was clear that the short passing game wasn't working, I'm not quite sure why it took so long to make an adjustment and come up with an alternative.

    So we were handicapped by a lack of talent, which forced a fairly one-dimensional game plan, but I'm not sure why the coaches didn't adjust faster once it was obvious that the game plan wasn't working.  Maybe they just have no confidence in any part of our offense other than the short pass? They evaluate their own players, too . . . so they know their own team's weaknesses just as well as the Jets do. 


     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2010. Show Evil2010's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots

    Borges has always been a Pats hater and a terrible writer. After being fired by the Globe ( how hard is that) he was hired by the NY owned Herald for one purpose. To continue attacking the pats.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheBB. Show TheBB's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots

    Talent may be a problem but the Patriots personnel problems are not as serious as they may seem. The biggest concerns seem to be the pass rush, adding a true wideout, upgrading the o-line, maybe adding a veteran to the secondary and getting rid of f***ing Brandon Merriweather in the process, easy right?

    Wrong.

    Coaching seems to be a much bigger problem not from a scheme standpoint but from a motivational standpoint. Belichik seems to have lost his ability to make his team hungry for the post-season and to act like they have something to prove. Even Brady seemed to lack his typical leadership qualities.
    Remember when Brady was making his o-line look like a bunch of scared kids (throwing a lot of hair around in the process). Remember when he was psyching up every last player that came of the field when we won in Miami? They seemed to have so much drive and passion during the regular season...

    Where the hell does all that go during the post-season?

    The team played with 0 passion and 0 grit, even at 14-11 one could feel the game was lost. Brady did nothing to fire up the team after they cut it to three. Our over-reliance of Belichik and Brady's football IQ seems to come at the expense of the "all or nothing" postseason attitude that gave teams like the saints, the jets, the cardinals, even the f***ing seahawks post-season success. Belichik seems to be at a complete loss for finding ways to make his team turn it on in the post-season. While I admire his "let your playing do the talking philosophy", it simply did not work. Vicious rivalries are the fuel great players need to play their best game, I'm not saying let's go out and start calling Rex a fat f***, but they need to act and play like there is not tomorrow because there isn't. The theme this year has been going back to the Patriots way of yore, but we're turning into the damn Colts...

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from stewart7557. Show stewart7557's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots

    In Response to Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots:
    By Ron Borges/Boston Herald The feeding frenzy has begun, as www.bostonherald.com/search/?searchSite=true&topic=Bill+Belichick&mode=score&sorting=pubdate " /> Bill Belichick knew it would one day. “Blame someone!!!’’ a talking head screams on radio and TV at the top of his falsetto. “HE BLEW IT!’’ a headline hollers atop a screed contending The Einstein of Football “lost his way and lost the game.’’ It is barely 48 hours since the better team on the day they played the game won at Gillette Stadium, and the predictable has happened. The Patriots [ team stats ] were not knocked out of the playoffs by a better team. It was the coach’s fault. “Come ohhhnnnn!’’ some fans around here whine. “He shoulda done somethin’!’’ Like what? “He didn’t make no adjustments!!!!’’ they moan, as if there’s something you can adjust about the fact too many of their players are better than too many of your players. For the better part of the past decade the coach of the Patriots has gotten far more credit for his players’ success than he deserved. Today he’s getting far more blame for their failures. You want to know why the Patriots have lost three straight playoff games? Do you really? If you do, don’t look at the homeless-looking guy in the hoodie. Look in the places where games are decided. Look where Richard Seymour [ stats ] used to stand and see who’s standing there now: Eric Moore (when he’s not standing in the UFL). Look where Mike Vrabel used to stand and see who’s standing there now: Rob Ninkovich. Look where Tedy Bruschi [ stats ] used to stand and see who’s standing there now: Brandon Spikes (when he’s not suspended or making an amateur porno film). Look where Willie McGinest used to stand and see who’s standing there now: Jermaine Cunningham (when he’s not on his back) or Tully Banta-Cain [ stats ] (when he’s not on the bench). Look where Ty Law used to stand and see who’s standing there now: a rookie named Devin McCourty, who Sunday, in his first playoff game, played like a rookie in his first playoff game. Look where Asante Samuel [ stats ] used to stand and see who’s standing there now: Kyle Arrington. Look where Rodney Harrison [ stats ] used to stand and see who’s standing there now: Brandon Meriweather, Patrick Chung or James Sanders [ stats ] (take your pick or take all three. I’ll take Harrison, thanks). That’s seven defensive players with a combined 19 Super Bowl rings as Patriots. Tell me which one has been replaced by a player equal or better? Don’t bother with film study. The answer is none. You want to know why the Jets beat the Patriots on Sunday? You want to know why they’re going to the AFC Championship Game for the second straight season while His Hoodedness is in the dungeon studying “3 Games to Glory, Vol. I-III?” Because they’re better. Not better at quarterback. Not by a longshot, so forget the “why didn’t Brady do something?’’ theme. Find an open man on tape from that game and he’d be happy to throw to him. Instead, break down the Jets and break down the Patriots unit by unit, then ask yourself which you’d take? Jets backs or Patriots backs? Jets receivers or Patriots receivers? Jets linebackers or Patriots linebackers? Jets secondary or Patriots secondary? Jets defensive line or Patriots defensive line? Jets offensive line or Patriots offensive line? If you took even one of the Patriots units that started on Sunday you’ve proven one thing. You’re a soccer fan. Professional football is about Jimmys and Joes, not X’s and O’s. In this case it’s about Richards and Rodneys and Tedys and Tys, not Hoodies and hidden video cameras. It’s about recognizing honestly what you were and what you have become, and dealing with it like grownups. When Bill Belichick coached those guys, he was a member of Mensa. When he coaches the defenders he has now, he’s National Honor Society. Same church. Different pew. Coaching is important in football. Probably more important than in any other team sport. It can take average and make it a little better, and take above average and make it a little better, and take great and make it Super. But it can’t beat better with worse very often, especially not in the playoffs. The Patriots were 14-2 with a fatal flaw: Their defense was below average. Not average. Below average. That defense finished 25th in the NFL overall and 30th against the pass. Fact, not opinion. It finished 32nd in third-down efficiency (the ability to get off the field), which is dead last in the NFL. Fact, not opinion. It finished eighth in the NFL in scoring defense, but prior to playing the Bills and Dolphins in the final two games of the regular season (a total of 10 points scored by teams who finished 28th and 30th, respectively, in the league in points per game), the Patriots were 17th in the NFL, which is one below middle of the pack, which in truth was what they were. Fact, not opinion. That’s not championship caliber or even close to it, and Sunday it showed, just as it did a year earlier when the Baltimore Ravens trampled the defense. The Patriots didn’t lose Sunday because Bill Belichick lost his way. They lost because his Jimmys and Joes aren’t as good as his Tys and Tedys.
    Posted by -EdithBunker-



    I agree with Borges. While I was impressed with the 14-2 record this year...that defense always concerned me. We need another dominant Defensive End and a pass rushing - edge setting linebacker. Defense wins in the NFL ......The Pats offense is really solid - but in the playoffs.....9 out of 10 times......the dominant defensive team wins.........I dont know why but BB seems to have decided to outscore his opponent rather than stress a dominant defense that was so successful in the 3 super bowl wins.  

    I hope to see the PATS trade up in the draft and go for quality defensive players.....Id rather have 2 really good defensive players than 5 or 6 potential or role players. We have plenty of good role players already..we need 2 impact defenders in our front 7 to become really really good


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

    Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots

    Couldn't agree more with this assesment, the talent is not there. I don't care that they're are young, there is no number 4 overall pick in the draft in the front seven (McGinnest) that stands 6'5" and runs a 4.5. THere is no number 7 overall in the draft that is 6'6" and is unblockable (Seymore). They don't have a 6'3" safety that hits everything in sight and the guy he hits actually goes down after (unlike Merriweather). THey may be young, but aside from McCourtey and Mayo, they cannot be considered guys that will grow up and dominate their positions. I like Chung, but he really disapeared a times this season. They have very little on the D line and nothing outside at linebacker.

    Can't get mad at Brady for having an off game, when he took a team with 8 and 8 talent and brought them a first round bye...Can't blame him for an off game last year either, that team was even worse. THe defense needs to improve and money needs to be spent, it's not the coach or the QB.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots

    In Response to Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots:
    By Ron Borges/Boston Herald The feeding frenzy has begun, as www.bostonherald.com/search/?searchSite=true&topic=Bill+Belichick&mode=score&sorting=pubdate " /> Bill Belichick knew it would one day. “Blame someone!!!’’ a talking head screams on radio and TV at the top of his falsetto. “HE BLEW IT!’’ a headline hollers atop a screed contending The Einstein of Football “lost his way and lost the game.’’ It is barely 48 hours since the better team on the day they played the game won at Gillette Stadium, and the predictable has happened. The Patriots [ team stats ] were not knocked out of the playoffs by a better team. It was the coach’s fault. “Come ohhhnnnn!’’ some fans around here whine. “He shoulda done somethin’!’’ Like what? “He didn’t make no adjustments!!!!’’ they moan, as if there’s something you can adjust about the fact too many of their players are better than too many of your players. For the better part of the past decade the coach of the Patriots has gotten far more credit for his players’ success than he deserved. Today he’s getting far more blame for their failures. You want to know why the Patriots have lost three straight playoff games? Do you really? If you do, don’t look at the homeless-looking guy in the hoodie. Look in the places where games are decided. Look where Richard Seymour [ stats ] used to stand and see who’s standing there now: Eric Moore (when he’s not standing in the UFL). Look where Mike Vrabel used to stand and see who’s standing there now: Rob Ninkovich. Look where Tedy Bruschi [ stats ] used to stand and see who’s standing there now: Brandon Spikes (when he’s not suspended or making an amateur porno film). Look where Willie McGinest used to stand and see who’s standing there now: Jermaine Cunningham (when he’s not on his back) or Tully Banta-Cain [ stats ] (when he’s not on the bench). Look where Ty Law used to stand and see who’s standing there now: a rookie named Devin McCourty, who Sunday, in his first playoff game, played like a rookie in his first playoff game. Look where Asante Samuel [ stats ] used to stand and see who’s standing there now: Kyle Arrington. Look where Rodney Harrison [ stats ] used to stand and see who’s standing there now: Brandon Meriweather, Patrick Chung or James Sanders [ stats ] (take your pick or take all three. I’ll take Harrison, thanks). That’s seven defensive players with a combined 19 Super Bowl rings as Patriots. Tell me which one has been replaced by a player equal or better? Don’t bother with film study. The answer is none. You want to know why the Jets beat the Patriots on Sunday? You want to know why they’re going to the AFC Championship Game for the second straight season while His Hoodedness is in the dungeon studying “3 Games to Glory, Vol. I-III?” Because they’re better. Not better at quarterback. Not by a longshot, so forget the “why didn’t Brady do something?’’ theme. Find an open man on tape from that game and he’d be happy to throw to him. Instead, break down the Jets and break down the Patriots unit by unit, then ask yourself which you’d take? Jets backs or Patriots backs? Jets receivers or Patriots receivers? Jets linebackers or Patriots linebackers? Jets secondary or Patriots secondary? Jets defensive line or Patriots defensive line? Jets offensive line or Patriots offensive line? If you took even one of the Patriots units that started on Sunday you’ve proven one thing. You’re a soccer fan. Professional football is about Jimmys and Joes, not X’s and O’s. In this case it’s about Richards and Rodneys and Tedys and Tys, not Hoodies and hidden video cameras. It’s about recognizing honestly what you were and what you have become, and dealing with it like grownups. When Bill Belichick coached those guys, he was a member of Mensa. When he coaches the defenders he has now, he’s National Honor Society. Same church. Different pew. Coaching is important in football. Probably more important than in any other team sport. It can take average and make it a little better, and take above average and make it a little better, and take great and make it Super. But it can’t beat better with worse very often, especially not in the playoffs. The Patriots were 14-2 with a fatal flaw: Their defense was below average. Not average. Below average. That defense finished 25th in the NFL overall and 30th against the pass. Fact, not opinion. It finished 32nd in third-down efficiency (the ability to get off the field), which is dead last in the NFL. Fact, not opinion. It finished eighth in the NFL in scoring defense, but prior to playing the Bills and Dolphins in the final two games of the regular season (a total of 10 points scored by teams who finished 28th and 30th, respectively, in the league in points per game), the Patriots were 17th in the NFL, which is one below middle of the pack, which in truth was what they were. Fact, not opinion. That’s not championship caliber or even close to it, and Sunday it showed, just as it did a year earlier when the Baltimore Ravens trampled the defense. The Patriots didn’t lose Sunday because Bill Belichick lost his way. They lost because his Jimmys and Joes aren’t as good as his Tys and Tedys.
    Posted by -EdithBunker-

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Do you agree with Ron Borges?:Talent, not coaching, doomed Patriots

    Well Borges ....  why don't you explain 45-3...?  

    A better analysis would go along the lines of "On any Sunday...".  The Jets caught the Patriots a bit complacent, a bit over-confident, a bit too favored (8.5 points),  and then they played a Lombardi like fired up football game.  Ironic that it was Brady who went to see the play "Lombardi".

    Add to that BB's dumb moves (see check...  checkmate)
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share