Everybody knows it....

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Everybody knows it....

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    I have been vocal recently saying that I thought the O line was falling short in the biggest games against the biggest opponents. What you may have missed in my statements is that it is clear the O line is very, very good: (1) solid run blocking (in large part due to very good execution and technique taught by Dante S), (2) solid pass blocking (ditto), and (3) great depth - possibly best depth in the league.

     

    What is overlooked by those who treat the O line with the same religious fervor as some treat TB or BB (as the case may be) is that in their excellently well rounded abilities they can fall short against THE BEST in THE BIGGEST games. When we really want to be able to run into the teeth of a D the most beastial run Ds are generally up to the challenge. When we HAVE TO pass the most dominating pass rushes push TB to the limits and reduce time for receivers to get open.

    The strength of the O line is not really debatable. THey are really good. But in light of each playoff loss since 2007 (including 2 SBs) the inability to DOMINATE the way a champ does and even more than that, the inability to simply offset the opponent's defensive strength has been ALL TO PLAIN TO SEE.

    So yes, it is easy to wax on abount how good the O line is because they ARE. But they have also fallen short... I don't think it is really debatable.

     

     




    Dude, last time:

     

    The playcalling, subbing of the RBs and our predictability on offense is why the O Line looks worse in these big games than what their quality level is.

    It is not a coincidence that good front 7s with a pass rush, since the pass first, finesse shotgun spread became more prevalent in 2005 for us, that this has been a problem.

    It is now 2013 with a plethora (do you know what a plethora is? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mTUmczVdik )

    People whine about how our run game stinks, Maroney, BJGE, Ridley, whoever else, but it's the lack of giving our O Line a chance. We don't establish a run much in first halves, our O Line is asked to pass protect over 40 times and it's simply too much pressure to do that every week against the elite Ds in the playoffs.

    Brady has got to stop audibiling and being baited by defenses into the passing formations and pass plays.

    Run the ball.

     



     

    this post is a PLETHORA of nonsense 




    And you were expecting something other than nonsense from that source? Impossible.

     

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Everybody knows it....

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:

     




    When am I ever nasty to other posters? 

     

     




    u are a miserable b*stard who usually has something cruel/cold/nasty to say

     


    The axiom - The enemy of my enemy is my friend -comes to mind.

     

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

    Re: Everybody knows it....

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    So, would it be fair to say our O-line looks great during the season, but gets a bit exposed in the playoffs?




    I'm not sure I'd use the word 'exposed' but I would say for some reason their play has been inconsistent in the playoffs.  Generally, they've looked good in the first round but in the AFCCG and SB the last few years have not brought their A game.  I would say that is pretty much the case for the entire team however.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Everybody knows it....

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    This is an odd turn to this thread. Prolate is wildly aligning with troll Babe and trolls like Gunty and acts like it will be well received.

    Meanwhile, Gunty is actually accurate in calling out the miserable and toolish TCal.

     

     

     




    Prolate has strangely been attempting to reason with you lately. A fool's errand if there ever was one, because you cannot reason with a fool.

     

    Hopefully he has seen the error of his ways.

     



    I'm just teasing Rusty a bit.  Really, I like Rusty.  I also think there's a grain of truth in his assessment of the offense, but he's taken it to such an extreme that it's become absurd. 

     

    The Pats really do rely too heavily on the shotgun and Brady to win every game.  I've said this since 2009.  I even remember when it really struck me first--it was during that regular season Ravens game that the Pats won in OT--I distinctly remember turning to my cousin who was at the game with me and saying: "they've got to get out of the shotgun and put BJGE in the backfield."  God, I sounded almost like Rusty or True Champ . . . 

    It's just that after watching them for years I think I understand why they do what they do.  I always assume that when it comes to coaching decisions, Belichick is always right.  Maybe my faith in BB as a coach is too high, but I think he's one of the best game planners in football and I don't think he'd continue to allow the heavy use of the shotgun offense to continue if he thought it was not the absolute right thing to do.  So why does he continue to use it? I think three reasons:

    • First, it mostly works--they have been among the league leaders in offense for three or four seasons
    • Second, it's what they are good at
    • Third, the talent they have really fits with that type of offense and hasn't recently fit well with anything else

    It's nice to say the Pats should be more diverse and be able to run other types of offense.  In fact, I completely agree that a more diverse offense would indeed be better.  But moving away from your strength simply for the sake of diversity isn't necessarily a winning strategy.  You have to move from one strenght to another strength.  If you move to something you're just not very good at, then being more diverse is actually likely to make you worse, not better.

    My belief is that BB knows what his offense can do and can't do better than anyone.  He sticks with what they can do and doesn't put them in position to fail be trying to do things they just aren't designed to do well.  Hopefully, he's trying to bring in talent that allows them to do more things well.  In fact, it seems exactly like that's what he's doing.  New RBs, new TEs, new receivers--even some new linemen.  Hopefully they work out, because ultimately it's the talent that wins games and we need more talent and more diverse talent to not rely so much on that shotgun offense and the short pass to the slot receiver. 

     

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

    Re: Everybody knows it....

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    This is an odd turn to this thread. Prolate is wildly aligning with troll Babe and trolls like Gunty and acts like it will be well received.

    Meanwhile, Gunty is actually accurate in calling out the miserable and toolish TCal.

     

     

     




    Prolate has strangely been attempting to reason with you lately. A fool's errand if there ever was one, because you cannot reason with a fool.

     

    Hopefully he has seen the error of his ways.

     



    I'm just teasing Rusty a bit.  Really, I like Rusty.  I also think there's a grain of truth in his assessment of the offense, but he's taken it to such an extreme that it's become absurd. 

     

    The Pats really do rely too heavily on the shotgun and Brady to win every game.  I've said this since 2009.  I even remember when it really struck me first--it was during that regular season Ravens game that the Pats won in OT--I distinctly remember turning to my cousin who was at the game with me and saying: "they've got to get out of the shotgun and put BJGE in the backfield."  God, I sounded almost like Rusty or True Champ . . . 

    It's just that after watching them for years I think I understand why they do what they do.  I always assume that when it comes to coaching decisions, Belichick is always right.  Maybe my faith in BB as a coach is too high, but I think he's one of the best game planners in football and I don't think he'd continue to allow the heavy use of the shotgun offense to continue if he thought it was not the absolute right thing to do.  So why does he continue to use it? I think three reasons:

    • First, it mostly works--they have been among the league leaders in offense for three or four seasons
    • Second, it's what they are good at
    • Third, the talent they have really fits with that type of offense and hasn't recently fit well with anything else

    It's nice to say the Pats should be more diverse and be able to run other types of offense.  In fact, I completely agree that a more diverse offense would indeed be better.  But moving away from your strength simply for the sake of diversity isn't necessarily a winning strategy.  You have to move from one strenght to another strength.  If you move to something you're just not very good at, then being more diverse is actually likely to make you worse, not better.

    My belief is that BB knows what his offense can do and can't do better than anyone.  He sticks with what they can do and doesn't put them in position to fail be trying to do things they just aren't designed to do well.  Hopefully, he's trying to bring in talent that allows them to do more things well.  In fact, it seems exactly like that's what he's doing.  New RBs, new TEs, new receivers--even some new linemen.  Hopefully they work out, because ultimately it's the talent that wins games and we need more talent and more diverse talent to not rely so much on that shotgun offense and the short pass to the slot receiver. 

     



    I think this a reasoned and accurate description of what the Pats have been doing offensively and why they've been doing.  I also agree that changing it up simply to change it up doesn't make sense.  If you're expectation is that the change will be equally effective or at least close to it then it makes sense.  And it sure looks to me like the move is underway to a more diverse approach offensively.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Everybody knows it....

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    So, would it be fair to say our O-line looks great during the season, but gets a bit exposed in the playoffs?

     




    I'm not sure I'd use the word 'exposed' but I would say for some reason their play has been inconsistent in the playoffs.  Generally, they've looked good in the first round but in the AFCCG and SB the last few years have not brought their A game.  I would say that is pretty much the case for the entire team however.

     




    Playing great during the season and than being "inconsistent" in the playoffs sounds like the textbook definition of "exposed" to me.

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

    Re: Everybody knows it....

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    So, would it be fair to say our O-line looks great during the season, but gets a bit exposed in the playoffs?

     




    I'm not sure I'd use the word 'exposed' but I would say for some reason their play has been inconsistent in the playoffs.  Generally, they've looked good in the first round but in the AFCCG and SB the last few years have not brought their A game.  I would say that is pretty much the case for the entire team however.

     

     



    No run game established in first half and 40+ passes, most from the shotgun.  There's your answer.  We have leads in those games, too.

     




    Why oh why doesn't BB "get it" like you do einstein?

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

    Re: Everybody knows it....

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    So, would it be fair to say our O-line looks great during the season, but gets a bit exposed in the playoffs?

     




    I'm not sure I'd use the word 'exposed' but I would say for some reason their play has been inconsistent in the playoffs.  Generally, they've looked good in the first round but in the AFCCG and SB the last few years have not brought their A game.  I would say that is pretty much the case for the entire team however.



    Playing great during the season and than being "inconsistent" in the playoffs sounds like the textbook definition of "exposed" to me.

     



    Gotta agree - exposed as being inconsistent; yep.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Everybody knows it....

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    This is an odd turn to this thread. Prolate is wildly aligning with troll Babe and trolls like Gunty and acts like it will be well received.

    Meanwhile, Gunty is actually accurate in calling out the miserable and toolish TCal.

     

     

     




    Prolate has strangely been attempting to reason with you lately. A fool's errand if there ever was one, because you cannot reason with a fool.

     

    Hopefully he has seen the error of his ways.

     



    I'm just teasing Rusty a bit.  Really, I like Rusty.  I also think there's a grain of truth in his assessment of the offense, but he's taken it to such an extreme that it's become absurd. 

     

    The Pats really do rely too heavily on the shotgun and Brady to win every game.  I've said this since 2009.  I even remember when it really struck me first--it was during that regular season Ravens game that the Pats won in OT--I distinctly remember turning to my cousin who was at the game with me and saying: "they've got to get out of the shotgun and put BJGE in the backfield."  God, I sounded almost like Rusty or True Champ . . . 

    It's just that after watching them for years I think I understand why they do what they do.  I always assume that when it comes to coaching decisions, Belichick is always right.  Maybe my faith in BB as a coach is too high, but I think he's one of the best game planners in football and I don't think he'd continue to allow the heavy use of the shotgun offense to continue if he thought it was not the absolute right thing to do.  So why does he continue to use it? I think three reasons:

    • First, it mostly works--they have been among the league leaders in offense for three or four seasons
    • Second, it's what they are good at
    • Third, the talent they have really fits with that type of offense and hasn't recently fit well with anything else

    It's nice to say the Pats should be more diverse and be able to run other types of offense.  In fact, I completely agree that a more diverse offense would indeed be better.  But moving away from your strength simply for the sake of diversity isn't necessarily a winning strategy.  You have to move from one strenght to another strength.  If you move to something you're just not very good at, then being more diverse is actually likely to make you worse, not better.

    My belief is that BB knows what his offense can do and can't do better than anyone.  He sticks with what they can do and doesn't put them in position to fail be trying to do things they just aren't designed to do well.  Hopefully, he's trying to bring in talent that allows them to do more things well.  In fact, it seems exactly like that's what he's doing.  New RBs, new TEs, new receivers--even some new linemen.  Hopefully they work out, because ultimately it's the talent that wins games and we need more talent and more diverse talent to not rely so much on that shotgun offense and the short pass to the slot receiver. 

     




    You said if perfectly... The comment " You have to move from one strenght to another strength.  If you move to something you're just not very good at, then being more diverse is actually likely to make you worse, not better." is very true here... it is also true in managing investments.

     

     
  19. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Everybody knows it....

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    Prolate calls me premise "absurd" yet we have a mountain of evidence to back the premise, not to mention BB just walked from Welker by design.  



    I don't feel like disagreeing with the first half, but the second half is not clear cut as you claim.  Most reports have the Pats signing Amendola only after they determined Welker wanted too much money as his agents had unrealistic expectations of his market value.  If what you are saying is true they never would have talked to Welker for that long and they never would of made an offer of any kind.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Everybody knows it....

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    I think you miss my point.. or perhaps I simply have made the point over multiple threads and so am not being clear enough. I know with salary caps you cant dominate year in and year out. You might for one or two maybe. What I am saying is that

    (1) there is not just one way to make this team a SB champ (and it is a hairs breath away as it is)

    (2) one way is to improve the D - and there is more than one way to do that

    (3) one way is to improve the O - and there is more than one way to do that...

    (4) my belief is that the O and D lines set up the rest of the O and D for success (or failure)...

    (5) so if you make either the O or D line dominant it will put this team over the top. Becuase we have TB... and those TEs... and a very good stable of RBs.. and perhaps a very good stable of WRs (we shall see but I am expecting good things or better)... because of all that upgrading the O line would do great things. THe two places to maybe do that are C or RG.

    (6) - I think this O line is one of the best in the league...

    (7) Just as I think the Pats are one of the very best teams in the league I think they need to get just a little better.... just as I think that I apply the same logic to the O line as one way to accomplish the former.

    ... does that make sense?



    I get ya. If we had a better o-line we would win more. If we had a better d-line we'd win more. We would love to have better talent in many areas but we have to go with who we have and I think they're talented enough.

    As you get deeper in the playoffs you're going to meet some talented teams that can neutralize your strengths. This is true for all teams not just the Patriots. It then comes down to coaching and execution.  This is where the Patriots need to improve, especially the execution.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Everybody knows it....

    Rusty has this theory that Belichick got rid of Moss and Welker because he couldn't stop Brady from throwing to them.  Rusty seems to believe that Brady is out of control and can't stop throwing to his "binkies" and the only way Belichick can take control is to keep taking away the "binkies."  

    This, of course, is looney.  Belichick is forced to cut players just because he can't control his quarterback any other way?  That's silly.  It's funny: for about two years I was arguing that the receiving corp was not as good as people said, that Brady wasn't really surrounded by a plethora of top weapons as Rusty claimed, that Welker was productive in this offense but not really a top receiver, that the talent at the offensive skill positions wasn't quite good enough.  Belichick letting Welker (and before him Moss) walk doesn't prove Rusty's nutty theories about Belichick not being able to control Brady except by taking his toys away.  What it does prove is that Belichick agrees with me that the weapons around Brady aren't quite good enough and need to be improved.  That's what we're seeing.  It's why BJGE (another of Rusty's wunderkinds) was let go and Ridley and Vereen drafted to replace him.  It's why Hern and Gronk were drafted. And it's why guys like Moss and Welker and even Lloyd have been let go and the receiver corp completely rebuilt this year.  The one constant in all this change is Brady.  Only in Rusty's topsy turvey world would Belichick be cutting "the best talent Brady has ever had around him" in an attempt to get control over the one player who Rusty thinks is a problem--Brady--and who Belichick has signed to play until he's 40 years old!

     

     

     

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share