Gresh Slapping CHB on 98.5

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from CablesWyndBairn. Show CablesWyndBairn's posts

    Re: Gresh Slapping CHB on 98.5

    In response to rtuinila's comment:

    In response to CablesWyndBairn's comment:

     

    I respect Zo, but a Welker-centric offense was a choice based on available personnel at times.  The guy showed up to play every game.  When they had drafted and developed talent at other positions, they chose to feature Edelman, their TEs and their running game more, and Welker still flourished.  I think the over-emphasis on Wes catching balls was, at times, more about who they had at the other WR positions than anything else. 

    If it was a bad investment of salary to pay Wes what he wanted, then how did they justify paying Amendola?  All the durability concerns they supposedly had about Wes pale in comparison to Amedola's health problems.  They had to have a replacement and they may have overpaid.  Hernandez was supposed to be the new Wes, and losing him was huge.   

    It's fine to say we're moving on from Welker because we think the age and the number of hits were taking their toll.  They paid Amedola and they drafted 3 WRs as part of their strategy.  I don't really think a Wes-centric offense was the problem, I think it's blaming Wes for taking a deal somewhere else, a cardinal sin to Boston fans and media.         



     



    I'm sorry to disagree with you on this one Cables, I usually agree with you but I think the problem with the Wes centric offense were the drops at the most inopportune times and the inability to win the big one while he was the focus. They tried twice and didn't make it. Then last year, they didn't even make the dance.

     




    I don't think we necessarily disagree.  Let me clarify.  I'm not saying Wes-centric was the way to go.  We all know that Brady is at this best when he has multiple targets.  Wes was the best option and Brady certainly went to that well in some critical situations with unfortunate results.  Now that Wes is gone it seems people are saying he was the problem with the offense, he was Brady's binkie.  Maybe so. But for a lot of his time here he WAS the offense.  In the 2nd Pats vs. Giants SB, Brady had Hernandez -- who he tried to go to a lot with mixed results, Welker, a badly dinged Gronk, an old Branch and an ineffective Chad Johnson.  Wes was money that game until he dropped a tough catch that hit him right in the hands.  If he catches that ball maybe we miss Wes more.    

    I'm all for diversifying the offense, but Brady went to Welker when Welker was about all he had.  Now that he's not here I don't think he should be faulted for being Bradys toughest, most reliable receiver.  The cupboard was bare (injuries or bad personnel decisions) at times when WW was the go-to guy.     

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

    Re: Gresh Slapping CHB on 98.5

    In response to FrankDooley's comment:

     

    So, you hold no player or players accountable for performing well all year on offense and then severly underperforming in January and February?

    How does that make sense?  So, the player or players who, as humans, all of a sudden crap the bed in ONE game, that's on BB?

    You can't have your cake and eat it too, which is what you're trying to do.

    The fact is, SB 46's loss is worse for two reasons:

    1. It would have atoned for SB 42's debacle.

    2. NE had control of the game the entire second half after not playing all that well in the first half, up 10-9 at the half.

    So, our D while holding them to FGs, waiting on Brady and Welker, whoever else (Mankins) to get their revenge from SB 42, THEY were our WORST players and the most expensive!

    So, whining about not paying Brady in 2010 fast enough or Mankins, etc, Kraft is cheap, then BB does it, the players need to hold themselves accountable. 

    The players.

    The approach was to invest heavily on offense because offense wins championships today. I agree with the approach.

    Now, that was since 2007 when BB gave Brady Moss and Welker. 2010, he had to adjust due to Moss's situation and he gave him two TEs, and reacquired Branch.

    Just look at how Brady played with the tools he was given by BB in the postseasons!

    Not good, dude!

    So, BB takes the fall for INTs on 1st downs or not running to the right of the end zone or throwing high and wide?

    Why? Why is BB responsible for those decisions on the field?



    I am saying if on field decisions cost them Super Bowl 42, and then five years later similar decisions by the same players are still costing you Super Bowls. That means you have not fixed the problem and that is not good coaching. Personally, I do not think on field decisions "cost" them either Super Bowl. I think the Giants had a superior game plan on offense and defense in both games, and BB was not able to adjust at halftime.  

    Do you think there is a chance that some of those mistakes were made by players because the Giants managed to defend the Patriot offense in a way they were not prepared for?

    If they are straight bad decisions, at some point, holding the players accountable is the head coach. Don't you think? Is that not a part of the head coach job description?

    Again, your own argument works against you, if Welker, Brady and Mankins are our most expensive and our worst players in the biggest game of the year then I would say the GM failed the team on that one.

    If BB invested heavily in the offense because offense wins championships and still didn't win a championship then he invested in the wrong people on offense. So that is a failure as a GM. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share