In response to pezz4pats' comment:
In response to russgriswold's comment:
In response to mthurl's comment:
In response to russgriswold's comment:
In response to mthurl's comment:
In response to russgriswold's comment:
I'll give this one more shot then I'm done discussing it. I'll say he didn't play well in the last AFC championship game...and I think you can say that for a lot of players on that team that day. You've listed a lot of games and truthfully the guy has played in probably more big games than any player in the history of the league, and he has played well in most of them, outstanding in others and poor in a few of them. Truthfully the team gets as far as they do most every year because of him. Playing poorly to the best pass defense in the league (Baltimore) is not what you are looking for, but it's to be expected a little bit. Both times he was missing his best player on offense. I've said it before and I'll say it again...he would of been the MVP of Super Bowl 46 if we had won that game. He made two poor decisions in that entire game under some of the best pass rushing you'll see and he did that with his best target far less than 100%. If we win that game he gets the MVP trophy...hands down...no question...money.
People forget that this is a team game...that we are not the team we were when we were winning championships....you tell people that everyday (that we are not and can't be expected to be the talented team we were). In those years Brady made mistakes....big ones, yet they weren't nearly as costly (the interception in the 4th against Carolina comes to mind, so does the drive killing pick against the Eagles). Yet those defenses held their opponents, this one can't. To think a quarterback can just carry his team through three playoff games by himself is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. When he gets help things will change, until that happens we will not win another thing...you can bank on that. This team is not built good enough anymore, it hasn't been for a long time.
Ok, at least you're being somewhat civil for once.
While I agree he would have been SB 46's MVP and SB 42's, do you see the common denominator is Brady, 45+ passes from either from 2007 or 2011? He wasn't because he and the offense played poorly over hugh chunks of game, costing us in the end.
Our 2007 team "wasn't built well"?
What on earth? What are you talking about?
Even if I excuse Brady and the offense for disappearing completely in terms of sustaining drives in the 2006 AFC title game and Caldwell wasn't a #1, Dillon or Maroney couldn't have carried the ball a bit more in that second half, to milk the clock a bit more? Really? We choose to throw 45+ times with the lead?????
That was a better team than that Colts team, but our offense faded away again in the second half allowing the Colts to come from down by 15 at the half.
This problem, which is a lot deeper than BB needing to rebuild through the draft almost exclusvely into the 2011 lockout, has been festering all the way back to when we fielded a balanced offense and had guys who owned 3 SB rings as the base of our defense.
This problem has NOTHING to do with how well our team has been built, because a loaded offense can't even function in the postseason.
Also, if you use the Gronk excuse, I get to use the Andre Carter excuse or the CHandler Jones and Talib excuse from January.
Your comments still fail to attack what the problem is. It's either BB, Brady, the OC, or a combination of 2 or all 3. I feel it's BB deferring to what Brady feels comfortable doing. I say that's going to be scaled bick a bit now.
1. No one can stomach another poor performance from Brady at home in the title game again.
2. Scaling it back a bit will help Brady be better than he has been, even if the stats are less.
How our defense plays has nothing to do with how we can approach a good ball control strategy on offense.
You can have the no Chandler Jones or Carter excuse, it all factors into those games. I do agree we pass too much. I have no problem saying that...I have no problem admitting we are a finesse football team, because we are. I do have a problem pointing the finger on who's fault that is, because you think its Brady's fault and its the guy who built the roster. I think someone has leaned on Brady's arm a little too much do to the personnel of this team as it is constructed, until that changes you'll continue to see a finesse club that gets punched in the face at home during playoff games. I'm tired of it quite frankly. I don't think it's Brady's fault.
I can guarantee that if Belichick had another back like Dillon he would run his legs off...just like he throws Brady's arm off...does he have that now? I don't think that's on the roster right now. Blount has some talent - despite what the media says about him - he's young enough still and if he's motivated you can run him right between the tackles. The thing is none of our backs are very dynamic, and backs that aren't dynamic get stopped...usually in playoff games against good defenses.
I don't really care about the blame at this point. I am not chaning my gut feelings on the matter, you won't change yours. That doesn't matter at this point. I am very comfortable in my premise. The press hates BB, so they blame him to the point it's become ridiculous overkill and some Pats fans are completely in the dark with how Brady has underperformed.
That shouldn't even matter anymore at this point. What's done is done. All I ask is for is a fair assessment with what has happened and to stop this subtle, but obvious premise that somehow this all falls into BB's lap. It flat out does not.
It's come to the point we have threads about BB being a subar GM. That's how ridiculous the trol work has become on this board.
He can't control the decisions Brady makes on the field. It's so ridiculous to make that claim.
The players need to held responsible for not executing. And, sometimes the other team just makes more of the better plays, which is fine. I have no issues losing because a team played great and we only played pretty good or bad. No issues there.
However, this "problem" on offense is so deep rooted, it goes back to the days when some of our favorite defenders still played here. THEY were affected by it in 2005.. 2006. And of course, in 2007.
If Samuel doesn't pick a gimpy Rivers twice in the 2007 AFC title, I am not sure we get to that SB. Also, LT didn't even play.
As much as the Denver playoff loss in 2005 was just a bad day in the second half with a slew of turnovers (5, total, I believe), we didn't score in the first half. Dillon was on one foot, so we used Faulk as the lead back and we ran mostly shotguns.
That right there is a great example of why this finesse thing used as the bulk of what we do on offense is a failure. Even plopping Moss and Welker into it wasn't good enough. It can't sustain. It's GREAT to have when you need it, but it can't be the basis of your offense. It can't. It's been proven as such.
There are a dozen examples of this since 2005. It's actually more rare to see the D play BAD where the offense played great. It is. If the D bailed out this offense in 2/3 of the last AFC title games at home, how is the D more to blame? It can't be.
Even in the 2006 AFC title game, two of those TDs, points of our 31 or whatever it was were either a Def TD and essentially the 80 yard kick off return by Hobbs. So, if you take away 14 points from what the offense generated by itself, they only really scored 17 points with their own doing.
17 points is what our finesse shotgun spread scored in SB 46. That is not going to cut it in this era. In 1971 it might, but not now.
SB 23 was the only SB I can think of in the last 30-40 years minus the Cowboys/Colts SB in the early 70s where 17 points (16 by SF vs Cincy in January of 1989), was enough.
I think Brady prefers the shotgun spread to this level because he got injured in 2008 and feels more comfortable seeing who is coming at him. Makes sense for him, but it's actually hurt our team over the game. Why is this opinion so offensive?
So, without our D getting a pick 6 or our kick returner setting up a golden opp, or our D creating 2 turnovers automatically, this offense really only puts out around 17 points per game against good Ds.
Outside of the Giants and their luck Tyree catch situation, there is not one SB winning team that wins by scoring just 17 points.
The 14 and 13 in recent games is obviously worse.
Again, it's a team game. You want to talk about offenses putting up more than 17 points against good teams in Super Bowls, you'll also have to talk about those very same teams having better defenses. Because that's what it boils down to...one of those teams got an assist from that defense to get a ball back...get a scoring opportunity. This is good football and its what we haven't had to win it all. I look at the Ravens team recently - they got it from both sides - both the offense and the defense won that thing throughout those playoffs and ultimately the Super Bowl. They ran it when they had to and were able to check it down to their backs when the receivers were covered. They got huge plays from those receivers...I mean at times they just could not be stopped, it didn't matter the coverage or situation, they were coming down with the ball. And that defense didn't make many mistakes...they executed...it was a total team win.
I agree our offense has not done enough at times, but they will never single handily be able to carry a team through three playoff teams on the way to hoisting a Lombardi trophy...you can't do it that way. You had better have your defense create a turnover, sack a QB, get off the field on a third down, intimidate someone. We used to do all that...all that. We never even sacked Sanchez once a few years ago, we made the worst quarterback in the NFL look like Joe Montana. Christ we made Eli Manning look like a Hall of Famer twice! Eli got absolutely pounded on the way to that second Super Bowl and we never even touched him?? How does that happen? The guy nearly dies playing against the 49ers two weeks before the Super Bowl and when he faces us he never hits the turf?
I don't blame belichick's coaching one bit, not one. When he talks about us needing to coach better after loses he's just taking the heat off an offense or defense that didn't execute a game plan that probably was more than good enough for us to win. It's the players (both sides). It's us facing some of the best teams in the league in the playoffs (to be expected).
We had 4.5 sacks in SB 46 and our D held to 13 points for the whole game until it became too much and they ran out gas. You also act like the 2 fumbles they caused in the SB were not really created by humans on NEs D.
Even with those facts, if you are up in the 4th qtr and your D is holding over and over and your offense fades, who was more to blame?
Again, 3 is not 4.5. And how does a team get a half a sack anyway. Who gets the other 1/2 sack? LMAO
Did you just ask who gets credit for a half sack when they are in on the sack? LOL!
You're an easy pink helmet.
Umm, I am pretty sure those are OUTSTANDING box score stats which should show a losing team.
Just think, if Brady didn't take a Safety, toss a horrendous INT or throw high to Welker, we win with ease.