Ignorance is Bliss.

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Ytsejamer1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to sporter81's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm no coach but IMO we need to establish the run every game, even when teams are stopping it we have to keep with it because it will still open the pass and eventually the defense will wear down and the run will produce . 

    [/QUOTE]

    And that right there is why Charlie Weis was brilliant as OC...bringing Brady along at a slower pace, not asking him to carry the entire team too soon.  Our play sction was deadly...

    However, just to play devil's advocate for a second...I DO wonder how Weis would have called games if he knew he had an attrocious defense like we currently have now.  hmmmm

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, for starters that early 2000s offense wouldn't have won anything in the playoffs with this defense. I don' think they would have even gotten out of the first round. 

    [/QUOTE]


    True...they would not of gotten the stops needed to beat Oakland. There is no way in hell this defense could stop a offense that had Gannon, or some of those third and shorts that basically was critical to win that game. Could you picture Patrick Chung covering Tim Brown in the snow?

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    Um, they probably could have scored more then 14 and 17 points in the biggest games.

    We have a FB and 4 TE's on the roster, we have power packages. We practice running the ball. Last year we didn't do much of that. We had 2 TE's on the roster. The philosophy was different. You guys can keep talking in circles but we are seeing an offense that is committed to more then just relying on Brady to figure it out.

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Um, they probably could have scored more then 14 and 17 points in the biggest games.

    We have a FB and 4 TE's on the roster, we have power packages. We practice running the ball. Last year we didn't do much of that. We had 2 TE's on the roster. The philosophy was different. You guys can keep talking in circles but we are seeing an offense that is committed to more then just relying on Brady to figure it out.

    [/QUOTE]

    UMMMMM.  Again, 8 possession games, due to D not getting off the field.

    When you know your possessions are limited, are you going to try and run out the clock and take your own sweet time scoring, which would limit possessions further?

    If you don't trust your D to make a stop in a 12 possession game then it makes sense to keep them off the field.  Not so much when your possessions are already decreased dramatically and you can't afford to waste any more.

    Teams have been using this strategy against high scoring O's for years and years and years.

    Did you miss those games?

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    In response to sporter81's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm no coach but IMO we need to establish the run every game, even when teams are stopping it we have to keep with it because it will still open the pass and eventually the defense will wear down and the run will produce . 

    [/QUOTE]


    You know what "keeping with it" gets you when the run is ineffective? Punts.

    Of course you always still run here and there to keep a defense honest.

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Um, they probably could have scored more then 14 and 17 points in the biggest games.

    We have a FB and 4 TE's on the roster, we have power packages. We practice running the ball. Last year we didn't do much of that. We had 2 TE's on the roster. The philosophy was different. You guys can keep talking in circles but we are seeing an offense that is committed to more then just relying on Brady to figure it out.

    [/QUOTE]


    Um... Probably not. They actually scored more points per possession in the last SB than they did in the 2004 SB.

    Can't score that many points if your D can't get off the field and give you a decent number of possessions to try and score those points.

    But, you've been told this, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, but it just never sinks in.

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    Funny looking at the title and subject matter of this thread. Seems other threads started with a contrary viewpoint have been labeled as "starting trouble". But if you do it, it's okay, right?

     

    Ignorance certainly is bliss, for some.

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    The Patriots went scoreless for the final 11:20 of the game. But hey, they had good points per possession so all is good.

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    In response to digger0862's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Patriots went scoreless for the final 11:20 of the game. But hey, they had good points per possession so all is good.

    [/QUOTE]

    So, scoring more per possession than the 2004 team could just isn't good enough? They have to score even more than more?

    That makes perfect sense on some other planet.

    Well they did manage to score enough to give the D a lead until less than a minute was left. Of course Eli going through our D like a hot knife through butter with 5 for 6 totaling 74 yards put the keebosh on that lead, eh?

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    Why is O'Brien always the scape goat? If BB wanted to play Ridley in the playoffs last year he would have but he benched him instead. Some of you are just as stubborn as the people you accuse of being Brady Ball Washers, refusing to change your stance on anything. 

    I understand that BB doesn't micro manage his coaches but if he sees a tremendous flaw in his team's philosophy I'd sure as hell hope he'd step in and do something about it. Last year he didn't which is why they didn't run the ball as much as you wanted them to..deal with it.

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    In response to CaptainZdeno33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why is O'Brien always the scape goat? If BB wanted to play Ridley in the playoffs last year he would have but he benched him instead. Some of you are just as stubborn as the people you accuse of being Brady Ball Washers, refusing to change your stance on anything. 

    I understand that BB doesn't micro manage his coaches but if he sees a tremendous flaw in his team's philosophy I'd sure as hell hope he'd step in and do something about it. Last year he didn't which is why they didn't run the ball as much as you wanted them to..deal with it.

    [/QUOTE]


    It's pretty obvious why. Because some fellas around here think they can coach better than BB but are too chicken to confront him by name, so they criticize O'Brien.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yes, yes, yes, balance is good.  Don't know any one saying differently.

    Buttttt...... you run at all cost people are soooooooooooo silly.

    It's not the quantity, it's the quality.  Why is this so hard to understand?  There are also little nagging things like protection and playing from behind that determine when and when not to run.

    Last year it was not effective, whether a performance issue or protection issue or playing from behind issue or a fumbling issue or an injury issue or rookie issue or coaching issue or a not trusting your defense issue,  it just wasn't great. That's alot of issues.

    Sometimes it's not about getting 4.4 ypc, it's about needing 9 or 10 or 26.

    Sometimes it's about going shotgun for max protection, more time for plays to develope and a higher yield per throw, all of which the SG affords.

    Sometimes it's about using your best blocking and pass catching back in the up tempo/no huddle offense.

    Saying you MUST not give up on the run and you Must have at least a 45/55 ratio is not realistic.   Every game is different.   What IS realistic is going with what's working.  If you can do both effectively then great!  If you can't, then you go with your strength or do whatever it takes to give you the best chance.

    There is no ratio or magic potion formula to insure success.

    Ridley me this:  What did the cards, hawks and ravens do when the Pats stout run D held Wells to 15 carries, Lynch to 14 carries and Rice to 20 carries?

    Answer:  They threw for a gazillion yards and, oh ya, WON!

    Pretty sure they weren't fretting about their run game... Ya think?

    [/QUOTE]

    The 3 Amigo will never get that you only run if it's working.  It's the constant 3rd and longs, setup by a poor running, that lead to Brady getting killed and us losing.  Thus allowing Rusty to bash Brady.

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    Which doesn't explain how we didn't run "well" in 2003 with Smith averaging 3.5 yards per carry and Faulk averaging 3.6 YPC... but for SOME REASON we fed Smith the rock in the playoffs (16 carries in the 1st game, 22 in the 2nd game and 26 carries in the Super Bowl) as well as a heavy dose of Kevin Faulk and SOMEHOW we won a Super Bowl despite our defense giving up 30 points...

    Funny how we didn't have RB talent for what, 5 years, yet somehow we didn't look to address that need?  You people are daft...  We had one tightend and one fullback on the roster last year, this year we have 5 total.

    I guess Mike Reis is another run happy homer... but hey, you guys probably have greater insights into the Patriot's inner working than he does.

     

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Which doesn't explain how we didn't run "well" in 2003 with Smith averaging 3.5 yards per carry and Faulk averaging 3.6 YPC... but for SOME REASON we fed Smith the rock in the playoffs (16 carries in the 1st game, 22 in the 2nd game and 26 carries in the Super Bowl) as well as a heavy dose of Kevin Faulk and SOMEHOW we won a Super Bowl despite our defense giving up 30 points...

    Funny how we didn't have RB talent for what, 5 years, yet somehow we didn't look to address that need?  You people are daft...  We had one tightend and one fullback on the roster last year, this year we have 5 total.

    I guess Mike Reis is another run happy homer... but hey, you guys probably have greater insights into the Patriot's inner working than he does.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    ?????  It means they found a way to make it work.  Do you think 16-24 carries (which isn't that much) is the reason for the sucess? UGH
    They DID address the need BECAUSE it sucked last year.  Get it?

    Here's what Rogers had to say on his run game.  Any of his sound familiar?  Guess he's just a know nothing troll too.  Guess the FACT that BB used the run game the way he did, means he's a know nothing coacch too.   Speaking of daft?  WOW

     

    Rodgers says the Packers’ running game isn’t good enough Posted by Michael David Smith on October 31, 2012, 2:43 PM EST Packers Texans Football AP

    Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers says the passing attack in Green Bay is carrying the offense, and it’s past time for the Packers to get things going on the ground.

    Rodgers said during his weekly radio show on WAUK-AM that the Packers can’t just throw the ball on every play, and so they’ve got to get more out of their running game than they had on Sunday, when they picked up 66 yards on 26 carries.

    “Quantity is important – we want to have a certain amount of runs every game to keep them honest,” Rodgers said, via the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “But I have to say the quality of them has not been anywhere where we’d like them. . . . We’ve got to run the ball better.”

    Packers coach Mike McCarthy said this week that he’s sticking with Alex Green, who is averaging just 2.9 yards a carry, as the No. 1 running back. So there aren’t any reinforcements coming to turn things around, at least until Cedric Benson returns from a foot injury, which won’t happen for several weeks.

    Which means that Rodgers, who is on pace to throw a career-high 594 passes this season, is going to keep having to carry the offense. Rodgers is right that the Packers’ running game isn’t good enough, and there’s little reason to think it’s going to get better any time soon

     

    ***** Note, Rogers is a dck that will throw his team under the bus and TB would never do that but I'd be willing to wager good money that TB thought the same way .

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Which doesn't explain how we didn't run "well" in 2003 with Smith averaging 3.5 yards per carry and Faulk averaging 3.6 YPC... but for SOME REASON we fed Smith the rock in the playoffs (16 carries in the 1st game, 22 in the 2nd game and 26 carries in the Super Bowl) as well as a heavy dose of Kevin Faulk and SOMEHOW we won a Super Bowl despite our defense giving up 30 points...

    Funny how we didn't have RB talent for what, 5 years, yet somehow we didn't look to address that need?  You people are daft...  We had one tightend and one fullback on the roster last year, this year we have 5 total.

    I guess Mike Reis is another run happy homer... but hey, you guys probably have greater insights into the Patriot's inner working than he does.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Wooz Wooz, we did address the running game - we traded for Corey Dillon..remember? We drafted Vareen in the second and Ridley in the third when the hall of fame BJGE was coming off his ground breaking 1000 yard season. Belichick even then knew that Benny was nothing more than average and no reason to take the ball out of Brady's hands. We signed Fred Taylor for 5 million at some point in between. This team has always been infatuated with the tight end position too...what's the point you're trying to make here? That Belichick didn't want to run and now he does? Because to me it was because he was smart enough to realize that he couldn't do it effectively with Benny...it's why he let him go. It's why he drafted not one, but two guys to replace him. It's why Benny is doing terrible in Cincy right now. Bill was right.

    No one is saying run=not good. We are just saying running well=a good thing...not running well=no reason to pound it for one yard gains and three yard loses, when Brady can flip it to Welker for seven (which he has done 200 times over the last two years).

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    Yeah, explain how we won a ring again giving up 30 points in the Super Bowl, with runners who had much worse than Law Firm like numbers, that is of course if running Smith 26 times in the Super Bowl and throughout the playoffs had nothing to do with it?  

    Law Firm at worst is way better than Anwoine Smith running in the tail end of his career.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Which doesn't explain how we didn't run "well" in 2003 with Smith averaging 3.5 yards per carry and Faulk averaging 3.6 YPC... but for SOME REASON we fed Smith the rock in the playoffs (16 carries in the 1st game, 22 in the 2nd game and 26 carries in the Super Bowl) as well as a heavy dose of Kevin Faulk and SOMEHOW we won a Super Bowl despite our defense giving up 30 points...

    Funny how we didn't have RB talent for what, 5 years, yet somehow we didn't look to address that need?  You people are daft...  We had one tightend and one fullback on the roster last year, this year we have 5 total.

    I guess Mike Reis is another run happy homer... but hey, you guys probably have greater insights into the Patriot's inner working than he does.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Wooz Wooz, we did address the running game - we traded for Corey Dillon..remember? We drafted Vareen in the second and Ridley in the third when the hall of fame BJGE was coming off his ground breaking 1000 yard season. Belichick even then knew that Benny was nothing more than average and no reason to take the ball out of Brady's hands. We signed Fred Taylor for 5 million at some point in between. This team has always been infatuated with the tight end position too...what's the point you're trying to make here? That Belichick didn't want to run and now he does? Because to me it was because he was smart enough to realize that he couldn't do it effectively with Benny...it's why he let him go. It's why he drafted not one, but two guys to replace him. It's why Benny is doing terrible in Cincy right now. Bill was right.

    No one is saying run=not good. We are just saying running well=a good thing...not running well=no reason to pound it for one yard gains and three yard loses, when Brady can flip it to Welker for seven (which he has done 200 times over the last two years).

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't understand what part of this he doesn't get. Wozzy, if you think these posters are daft then you must think BB is too because he actually had the opportunity to run it more but didn't. Again, no one is saying balance isn't a good thing. Got it?

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    Nobody is saying BALANCE isn't a good thing NOW, but I've been saying it since 2009 and was told all along that I was wrong.  Dead wrong.

    Now everybody agrees because there's an obvious shift back to balance, but these people arguing that we just weren't "talented" enough are the same people arguing for the past four years that the run game in today's NFL was a thing of the past, that it was unnecessary, that our offensive line wasn't built for that, that we didn't have a deep threat in the passing game and that's why we don't run.

    Now that we re going back to the run, they knew it all along.... The scapegoat isn't Bill O'Brien, it's Law Firm... it's a joke.  

    Another example how everybody becomes an expert in hindsight and their opinions shift with the changing tide.

     

     

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yeah, explain how we won a ring again giving up 30 points in the Super Bowl, with runners who had much worse than Law Firm like numbers, that is of course if running Smith 26 times in the Super Bowl and throughout the playoffs had nothing to do with it?  

    Law Firm at worst is way better than Anwoine Smith running in the tail end of his career.

    [/QUOTE]


    What are you talking about, the Carolina Super Bowl? There are so many factors that go into these games that I don't even know where to begin. What's your point anyway? That running won that game for us, or that our defense wasn't good? Becasue I'd disagree with both. Are you saying that Belichick was smarter then? Because I don't know if I'd agree with that either.

    That Super Bowl was my favorite - just a crazy crazy up and down game. Carolina had that long touchdown pass and long TD run. Tom was super sharp on that last drive, but he threw a back breaking pick as well. Damien Woody was out and we were concerned about blocking that defensive tackle they had (can't remember his name). The second half was totally different from the first. Our defense was just gased and fell apart in the second half...Harrison played that last drive with a broken arm. The whole thing was nuts.

    So what are saying, that we used to run more and our defense wasn't that good?

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    Again... we've gone from Maroney sux, to running the ball is passe and a relic of the past, to the O Line isn't made for running, to we don't possess a deep threat so we can't run, to Law Firm sux... laughable how you people have flip flopped over the years.  

    Now that BB or rather McDaniel's is addressing the PROBLEM, you've all suddenly become proponents of balance.

    But when I started a thread entitled "balance" 3 or 4 years ago I was crazy... truly time does erase all.

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    In response to CaptainZdeno33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why is O'Brien always the scape goat? If BB wanted to play Ridley in the playoffs last year he would have but he benched him instead. Some of you are just as stubborn as the people you accuse of being Brady Ball Washers, refusing to change your stance on anything. 

    I understand that BB doesn't micro manage his coaches but if he sees a tremendous flaw in his team's philosophy I'd sure as hell hope he'd step in and do something about it. Last year he didn't which is why they didn't run the ball as much as you wanted them to..deal with it.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, the whole story centers not on McDaniels but on Belichick and McDaniels.  Apparently Belichick is involved this year, but wasn't last year?  Or was just too dumb to understand offense last year until McDaniels educated him? 

    The running talent last year was mediocre or (in the case of Vereen and Ridley) still learning.  They struggled all season to find a decent third TE or fullback (remember Dan Gronkowski and Lousaka Polite?).  The offense was designed to be as effective as possible with the talent they had.  I'm sure it was designed by O'Brien and Belichick working in tandem much like this year's was designed by McDaniels and Belichick.  The desire to improve the run was always there--it was obvious in 2010, when O'Brien and Belichick tried to use BJGE more often; it was obvious in the draft in 2010, when they picked up not one, but two, running backs.  It was even obvious early in 2011.  The problem was always talent. The coaches aren't and weren't stupid, despite what a few posters on here think.   

     

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    Typically the time to address a talent deficiency is before you need to, not after you've been playing with it for 4 years... but OK.  Coaching is the most underrated aspect of football by it's fans, they are absolutely clueless in that regard and the Pat's get raided every year from it's coaching tree... but I don't suppose that's had any effect because coaching doesn't really matter when you have Tom Brady.

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Nobody is saying BALANCE isn't a good thing NOW, but I've been saying it since 2009 and was told all along the way that I was wrong.  Dead wrong.

    Now everybody agrees because there's on obvious shift back to balance, but these people arguing we just weren't "talented" enough are the same people arguing for the past four years that the run game in today's NFL was a thing of the past, that it was unnecessary, that our offensive line wasn't built for that.

    Now that we re going back to the run, they knew it all along.... The scapegoat isn't Bill O'Brien it's Law Firm... it's a joke.  Another example how everybody becomes an expert in hindsight and their opinions shift with the changing tide.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Can you show us where one person said that running was unnecessary?

    The fact that people have pointed out that it's much easier to pass with the new rules doesn't support that.  The Fact that throws generally yield more yards than runs, doesn't support that.

    Thats just the truth and it doesn't mean you don't do it.  It just means it's advantagous to pass in certain situations and that those situations are plentiful, therefore you pass more than run.

    The only exceptions to that would be if your own QB sucked (JETS) or you are playing a poor run D with a stout pass D.  You can wear a D down by passing too.

    Also, negative runs are just as bad as sacks but incompletions aren't.    So, which would you choose?  The negative runs?????? Seems as though there were a few of those in the 4th qtr of the SB last year.  Remember those?

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    Again... time makes experts of us all.

     

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    Again... we've gone from Maroney sux, to running the ball is passe and a relic of the past, to the O Line isn't made for running, to we don't possess a deep threat so we can't run, to Law Firm sux... laughable how you people have flip flopped over the years.  

    Now that BB or rather McDaniel's is addressing the PROBLEM, you've all suddenly become proponents of balance.  You love the run!!

    But when I started a thread entitled "balance" 3 or 4 years ago I was crazy... truly time does erase all.

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

    Re: Ignorance is Bliss.

    Just for ish and giggles let's play a theoretical;

    If the Patriot's win a ring this year, and continue to lead the NFL in rushing attempts, will the run game have had anything AT ALL to do with our success?

    Because after all this time, as you've all completely dismissed the past and all your flip flopping on why we didn't run, so now that we actually do run, and if we're succesul at it on the championship stage; is it still unimportant?

     

Share