In response to ATJ's comment:

     You homers are a scream...LOL!!!

In response to TexasPat's comment:

Actually, TP, those of us you characterize as 'homers' (and I'm not entirely sure that everyone who disagrees with you is automatically a 'homer') are not quite as entertaining as those of you who are armchair GMs and coaches.  

RESPONSE: Quite the contrary...dare to criticize the Pats, and you're called a troll, and get personally attacked. Frankly, I'm tired of it.

As I've said many times on this forum, BB is far from perfect but he's one he11 of a lot better at his craft than you are at criticizing his work IN MY OPINION.

RESPONSE: LOL!!! Yeah...how dare I criticize BB? How dare I criticize him after he's wasted tons of high draft choices on DBs who can't play. How dare I criticize him for refusing to pony up and pay to get, or retain, top assistant coaches. How many titles have the Pats won since Romeo Crennel and Charlie Weis left? Both could have been retained if the Pats had chosen to step up. How dare I criticize BB for letting the best closer in NFL history, PK Adam Vinatieri, escape to the hated Colts? Who would you feel more confident seeing attempt a 42 yard FG with a game on the line, Adam or Gostkowski?   

In response to ATJ's comment:

In response to TexasPat's comment:

Criticize away, TP.  I've absolutely zero problem with that.  If you read some of my posts in here following the Buffalo game you'll find criticism.  What I find rather curious is that you don't stop at criticism - you take it to the point of condemnation and then prescribe your formula, predicting impending doom if BB doesn't follow it.

RESPONSE: You find it "curious" that I'm suggesting that the Pats try something else, when what they are doing obviously hasn't been working??  

To be crystal clear, be as critical as you wish but, with all due respect, let's keep it in perspective.  You're a fan, TP, a very knowledgable one, but a fan nevertheless, as am I. And unless I miss my guess so is everyone else on this forum - of one team or another.

RESPONSE: Suggesting that Matt Patricia be scraped as DC is not just my idea. It's obvious that his players are either under-achieving, or that his schemes are working. Wouldn't you agree? Neither is suggesting that the Pats blitz more a radical idea, in view of how well that strategy worked in London, just a few weeks ago.  

In response to UD6's comment:
[QUOTE]

By the way gogo - great response.  If a loss is a loss, isn't a win a win?  Not in TP's world.  Then again, TP is a Super Bowl win or bust guy, or given that he's still around maybe he isn't and those are just empty words. 

RESPONSE: Gogo???? You're losing what's left of your warped mind. What the hell is a "gogo", goofball?? LOL!!! As for the rest of your babbling, "Then again, TP is a Super Bowl win or bust guy, or given that he's still around maybe he isn't and those are just empty words." What the hell are you talking about? Every time you try to sound witty and wise, you come across as the idiot you truly are...LOL!!!

     Hey Dog(ggggg), here's a free piece of advice:

     "Better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt".     

/QUOTE]

    

 

Do you really see this team winning a championship...playing defense the way they are? Again, the Pats are not the Miami Dolphins, or Indy Colts...where making the play-offs, or winning a divisional title is a big deal. It's SB or bust. As for the BS about 3 losses by 4 points...a loss is a loss, whether by one point or 10. The Pats' win over the Jets was in OT...and they barely beat the Bills last week. Those games could have gone either way, too.If the season ended today...odds are that the Pats would have to beat both Baltimore and Houston on the road to advance to the SB. With the "D" playing as it is, I don't see that happening. Do you?

I'm intentionally not going to repost the exchange to this point - makes the post too long.

TP - you're not suggesting, you're prescribing.  "If they don't blitz they're doomed" or words to that effect.  BB doesn't blitz much and, with the current secondary, I have to agree.  Blitzing leaves his corners in single man coverage.  You want this with who's out there now?  If you do, then I double down on my criticism of your post.

RESPONSE: Let's try this. True of False:

1.) The defensive schemes currently being used by the Pats are not working;

2.) Even though the Pats have chosen to "play it safe" by rushing only 3 or 4 men, their secondary is still being routinely torched.

3.) Opposing QBs are getting far too much time to throw, putting an even greater burden on a mediocre at best secondary.

     If all of the above are true, is the solution to soldier on, using schemes that aren't working, and accepting a coach who, for whatever reason, is not getting the most out of his players? Or...is it time to try something else, in hopes of making things better?

     Like you ATJ, I too am a huge Patriots fan. I'm tired of the status quo. It isn't working. Something needs to be done to change it. This is not a problem that's existed for a few weeks. It has been an ongoing problem for several years...and has cost the team at least two championships.

And I totally disagree with you on Patricia.  You want to sack the DC in mid-season?  If you do then you must see him as the problem.  I don't.  From what I've seen this year he's done a pretty reasonable job with an extremenly young defensive secondary.  I'll say it again because it bears repeating - avg age 24 and they've not played together much as a group.

RESPONSE: First of all, Patricia is the DC, not merely the coach of the DBs. Secondly, where's your proof showing that he's done a "reasonable job" with an extremely young secondary? The secondary has been horrible for the past several years...all under his watch, first as DBs coach, and now as DC. The Pats' secondary is one of the worst in the game...despite having spent a multitude of high draft choices to shore up the position.  

Simply because his game plans don't produce a shut down defense doesn't mean he's the problem.

RESPONSE: LOL!! Okay...what does it mean?   

No, TP, I don't agree with you.  If that makes me a homer, a fool or whatever other label you wish to bandy about so be it.

RESPONSE: You're a homer, in that you are a perpetual optimist regarding the Pats, seeing all things through rose-colored glasses. Let me ask you this...if the NY Jets were having the similar problems with their secondary over the past few years as the Patriots have had, and are currently having, what would be your opinion of their coaching staff? Would you defend their DC with the same vigor, as you are defending Patricia?    

Tex I still think you are giving way too much credit to Wade Phillips for the improvement in Houston's D.  In 2010 when they brought him in they also brought in Jonathan Joseph, JJ Watt and Brooks Reed.  Plus they had Connor Barwin return after missing almost all of 2010 to injury.  Joseph and Watt are two of the top defensive players in the league and Reed and Barwin are no slouches either.  Not saying Wade had no impact, but they upgraded the talent level on their D tremendously as well.  I don't think hiring a new coordinator is going to make this D light years better than it is now.  You certainly aren't going to see the kind of improvement Houston had imo.

When was BB crowned a defensive genius and why? Does this go back to his days as the giants dc? If so, that was a long time ago with a set of players similar to what the pats had in 2001-04.

The mark of a true genius is being able to ring blood from a stone. Getting the most out of these kids and getting them to work together. This hasn't happened. 

I think one of the least talked about reasons why this d stinks it up and one I believe to be a larger contributing factor than swinging and missing in the draft, is his consistent swings and misses in FA for this defense. The old BB always relied on a few savvy vets to play key roles. What we have is a young d. I think the talent is there to be better, and I think they would be better if he swung and hit on some key defensive fa's. Imagine if fanene played and played well..or if fat Albert panned out, or bodden stayed on the rostethine would have some key spots being filled. Y savvy vets, who would compliment perfectly a young team. This is a key missing eleMent.

Back to the coaching thing. Scheme, players, both? It is known that BB plays a complex defense . I think he has dumbed it down for the young guys, and he and fat Matt are being ultra conservative because he knows these young guys are prone to make mistakes. It's part of the learning process. 

Fat mat is a young, inexperienced coach. I have nothing against him, but he is not the type of guy, one with a very limited resume that you want leading a very young d where player development is so critical.

In response to UD6's comment:
[QUOTE]

By the way gogo - great response.  If a loss is a loss, isn't a win a win?  Not in TP's world.  Then again, TP is a Super Bowl win or bust guy, or given that he's still around maybe he isn't and those are just empty words. 

RESPONSE: Gogo???? You're losing what's left of your warped mind. What the hell is a "gogo", goofball?? LOL!!! As for the rest of your babbling, "Then again, TP is a Super Bowl win or bust guy, or given that he's still around maybe he isn't and those are just empty words." What the hell are you talking about? Every time you try to sound witty and wise, you come across as the idiot you truly are...LOL!!!

     Hey Dog(ggggg), here's a free piece of advice:

     "Better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt".     

/QUOTE]

    

 

Tex I still think you are giving way too much credit to Wade Phillips for the improvement in Houston's D.  In 2010 when they brought him in they also brought in Jonathan Joseph, JJ Watt and Brooks Reed.  Plus they had Connor Barwin return after missing almost all of 2010 to injury.  Joseph and Watt are two of the top defensive players in the league and Reed and Barwin are no slouches either.  Not saying Wade had no impact, but they upgraded the talent level on their D tremendously as well.  I don't think hiring a new coordinator is going to make this D light years better than it is now.  You certainly aren't going to see the kind of improvement Houston had imo.

In response to TexasPat's comment:

Happy to explain.  gogo is short for gogogopats (a board poster) who correctly pointed out on the previous page that if a loss is a loss (your phrase) then a win is a win.  I was agreeing with him.  I shortened his moniker to gogo like I shorten yours to Tex or IDIOT.

RESPONSE: Whatever you say, Pinocchio. 

If I may explain gogo's (shortened- got it?) statement, he is suggesting that you are "matter of fact", "black or white", about losses, but you refuse to apply the same thinking to wins.  If I am correct, he's suggesting you are hypocritical.  He's right.  And because you didn't get this because you are too lost in your own mind, I aptly shorten your name to IDIOT.  It applies.

RESPONSE: Once again, your ignorance comes shining through. It is not I who am poo-pooing the 3 Patriots loses because they were by 4 points. Whether by 4 or 40, what difference does it make? Let me go reaaaal slooooow, just for your sake, plow-boy. If someone is going to poo-poo 3 tough losses, than, isn't...it...fair...to...poo-poo two ...very...shaky...wins...at home, against inferior teams?   

characterize me however you like TP, because that's all you've got (obama tactics), distractions and deflections. your perspective here is a loser. You said your mentality is superbowl or bust and didn't include superbowl losses.

RESPONSE: I don't recall saying that, Pinocchio. But, I'm used to your misrepresentations and lies by now. Hey, I'll take a trip to the SB and a shot at winning the title any year. Wouldn't you? That makes me a loser???  

Well the pats haven't won a superbowl in decades, so I wonder why you are still around.

RESPONSE: So..."the Pats haven't won a SB in decades"??? Well, I guess that 2002, 2004, and 2005 were fifty years ago...LOL!!! Or, perhaps you're calculating using dog years, or the Chinese calendar?? LOL!!!  Dog(ggggg), as I tried to warn you you above, it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than comment and remove all doubt.

  You should have busted long ago.  It would be best for you to bandwagon with the current winner.  I'll officially call you a giants fan until another team wins the superbowl.  superbowl or bust, right idiot?

RESPONSE: Talk about being a front runner, are you now back aboard the Colts bandwagon, after abandoning them last year, and fleeing from this forum?? No, not yet? Waiting to see how the game Sunday turns out, before taking a stance?? I'm sure that if the Colts lose, you can always run home to Big Momma Peyton in Denver...LOL!  

As for your advice, I suggest first making sure your quote doesn't apply to you.  In this case it obviously does.  if not, keep on keeping on TP, ignorance is bliss.

RESPONSE: "Ignorance is bliss". Who am I to argue with you on this? After all, you are an expert on the subject...LOL!!!   

TP, again I won't repost - too long.

What you seem to have done, TP, is either overlooked or chosen not to respond to my point about the Pats secondary's youth and lack of time together as a unit.  I consider this the prime driver of their secondary deficiencies.

RESPONSE: Actually, it is you who have refused to answer my three T or F questions. But, I'll be happy to respond to your point above. I'm not buying it. The deficiencies in the secondary are not just a two-six week thing. It's been going on now for several years. Arrington, McCourty, and Chung have played the past two years together. Sorry, but they still can't cover. It's either poor talent, poor coaching, or bad defensive schemes.    

I note your other responses and believe that the approach that you have taken is to draw your own conclusions first and then arrange the facts to support your conclusion.  I say that because I see the very same things you see but draw the conclusions that I have drawn.

RESPONSE: Huh?? Hey, look...I wish you were right about needing time to gell. But, this secondary problem has been with us for years now.

I fully expected you to label me and you didn't disappoint.  I will make yet another correction to the conclusion you have drawn about me.  You say that I view things through rose colored glasses and am an optimist about the Patriots.  Of course, I'm an optimist about the Patriots but I certainly don't view anything through rose colored glasses.  With respect to their secondary I consider myself to be a realist which is what I am in real life both personally and professionally.  Please note that in paragraph 2 of this post that I use the term 'secondary deficiencies.'  Where is the rose color in that description?

RESPONSE: Again, you are choosing to ignore that problems with the secondary has been a nagging issue for the Pats over the past several years...and the coaches responsible for the development of the players selected to play in the secondary are still in place. It's time for a new direction...a new DC, new CBs coach, and/or a new defensive philosophy. Why not!! The status quo is not working!   

I consider the views that you have expressed to be alarmist and extreme and I totally disagree that defensive deficiencies cost the Patriots victory in their last two SB appearances.  Was their defense flawless in both?  Of course not.  But in both cases there were deficiencies in every phase of the game.  Both were team losses.

RESPONSE: Now you're starting to sound like "The Dog(ggggg)." I don't blame the "D" for the SB 42 loss. That, in my view, fell on the shoulders of the OL, and the coaches. But, pretty much ever since Asante Samuel left, the secondary has been a problem. Do you deny this? 

They lead the division.

As someone said their 3 losses came by a total of 4 points.

2 of those losses were on the road.

If that means big changes are needed, what's up with the rest of the league?

Re: Pats Need BIG Changes

posted at 11/14/2012 09:57:06 EST

• 
• TexasPat
• Posts: 1329
• First: 01/15/2012
• Last: 11/15/2012

In response to stillgridlocked's comment:

     Do you really see this team winning a championship...playing defense the way they are? Again, the Pats are not the Miami Dolphins, or Indy Colts...where making the play-offs, or winning a divisional title is a big deal. It's SB or bust. As for the BS about 3 losses by 4 points...a loss is a loss, whether by one point or 10. The Pats' win over the Jets was in OT...and they barely beat the Bills last week. Those games could have gone either way, too.

     If the season ended today...odds are that the Pats would have to beat both Baltimore and Houston on the road to advance to the SB. With the "D" playing as it is, I don't see that happening. Do you?

 

There you go TP - SB or bust.  Maybe you meant Super Bra.

Really Dog(ggggg)...utter desperation...LOL!!! Hey, is it really true that the Patriots having won a SB in decades?? LOL!!!

The secondary has needed (and still needs) help for several years.  No one denies that.

Now the T/F game:

1) Not answerable via true false.  Is it the scheme or is it the lack of experience and cohesiveness of the secondary?

2) Sometimes true, sometimes not.  I've seen the D make big stops when needed either from good secondary work or pass rush or both.  I've also seen times when that was not the case.

3) Also sometimes true, sometimes not.  See 2) above.

TP, simply putting together black and white true/false scenarios doesn't prove your point.  You're trying to make simple and straightforward a complex situation.  

However, for argument's sake let's take your approach and:

1) Fire Patricia

2) Blitz 50% of the time.

3) Sign an ineffective pass rusher cut by another team (don't run from this, TP, you advocated it).

And now what have you got?  You've got BB handling the D as well as H/C, the secondary being toasted 75% of the time instead of 50% of the time and a less effective pass rush.

I'd rethink the marketing plan you put together for that snake oil you're trying to sell.

In response to UD6's comment:

In response to TexasPat's comment:

deflect deflect deflect - You should have been on Obama's team in Texas.  He might have won their too.