Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    So the answers are the 2004 Pats (best one, and that was going on a decade ago), last year's Ravens or the 2011 New York Giants who were LAST IN THE NFL in rushing, that's rich!

    Let's model our team on one that had the worst running attack and the 27th ranked defense, we'll call it "ball control" and see how we do. Good luck. If you were the GM with that plan, you'd want to be anonymous...

    So, last year's Ravens. They have a terrific back in Rice and a good backup in Pierce. Whatever "switch" they threw in the playoffs was effective, I guess? Interestingly though, the Pats rushed for almost 300 more yards in the RS than they did.

    So, what are we to do with that info? Should the Pats rush less in the RS and save it for the playoffs? Would that satisfy everyone's ball-control urges?

    Did you know that in the AFCCG, the Pats rushed for 108 yards and Baltimore for 121 and the Pats outgained them on a YPC basis?

    Sorry, not buying any of it. Baltimore won because of Flacco and his receivers, and some sorry play at the exact wrong time by the Denver DBs and the Pats offense. Not because they outrushed the Pats by 13 yards. Big whoop. BTW, they rushed for a grand total of 93 yards in the SB. Real dynamic stuff there.

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    The Pats last few play-off losses have come down to poor execution on merely a handful of plays by the key players involved on each play. BB is not one to over react to failure to execute with sweeping style changes on either side of the ball. If Tom throws the ball and it is dropped by the WR/TE/RB because of a poor throw or dropped ball, then its execution. Its not like we are seeing teams pick Tom off constantly or the line break down getting Tom sacked at an abnormal rate per pass play. DO YOUR JOB, and the PATS have a couple more rings already. NO NEED FOR ANY OVERHAULS. We have the talent base and the systems to win these games. The biggest differences between the glory years and today's lesser, but glory years still, is EXECUTION. Show me a TD ran back on an INT, or a ball that doesn't get caught on top of a guys head, or a ball that dosen't bounce off of the leading receiver in the league on multiple occasions, and we lose still and I say "CHANGE" is in order. All we have been seeing is a failure to execute. Tweak each side fo teh ball a bit, and do what the Patriots have been doing, for the most part...WINNING.

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    True, some folks can find statistics to support their viewpoint.  Others just make stuff up and claim it's "factual".  

    I think another poster said that it's not always the best nfl team that wins the sb...and I would agree with that. It really is hard for any team to get to the SB game.

    The current Patriots team has as good a chance to make it back. Even with all the inexperienced (new to the Patriots' playbook/system) WRs and somewhat depleted TE corp, and improving defense. I think they're in good position to take on some tougher defensive teams.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    Getting back to my theory about statistics, I find it interesting that nowhere in Muzwell's dismissal of what I thought were two very good responses to his challenge does he mention time of possession. Now, I'm not a "numbers guy" (and the numbers in these cases might not bear out my thesis, but I'm too lazy to look them up because, like I said, numbers can be deceiving), but it seems to me that "ball control" is about keeping the ball, not how many times you ran it or how far you got.

    I guess what's fun about forums like this is that you can believe whatever you want no matter what anybody else says.

     

    Now . . .  quick like a bunny . . .  run out and get me those time-of-possession numbers!

     

    (unless, of course, they don't bolster your argument, in which case you would be better off ignoring them)

    Wink

     

     

    Now you listen here! He's not the Messiah . . .   he's a very naughty boy!



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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

    True, some folks can find statistics to support their viewpoint.  Others just make stuff up and claim it's "factual".  

    I think another poster said that it's not always the best nfl team that wins the sb...and I would agree with that. It really is hard for any team to get to the SB game.

    The current Patriots team has as good a chance to make it back. Even with all the inexperienced (new to the Patriots' playbook/system) WRs and somewhat depleted TE corp, and improving defense. I think they're in good position to take on some tougher defensive teams.

     


    Exactly. The great thing about the Patriots is that they have built an amazingly strong foundation and culture for winning. Regardless of what happened with AH, they will remain focussed and continue to work at meeting perfect EXECUTION. Better D this year, better execution on O. We are at the top of the heap again where one or two plays are the difference in the trophy. ALL we as fans can hope for is that when they have the chance to execute on the critical plays this year, they do so and don't seemingly fall to the pressure of the moment and fail, as has been common recently. Sorry, but that is all that has happened lately. Its not style, its poor EXECUTION.

     

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    So the answers are the 2004 Pats (best one, and that was going on a decade ago), last year's Ravens or the 2011 New York Giants who were LAST IN THE NFL in rushing, that's rich!

    Let's model our team on one that had the worst running attack and the 27th ranked defense, we'll call it "ball control" and see how we do. Good luck. If you were the GM with that plan, you'd want to be anonymous...

    So, last year's Ravens. They have a terrific back in Rice and a good backup in Pierce. Whatever "switch" they threw in the playoffs was effective, I guess? Interestingly though, the Pats rushed for almost 300 more yards in the RS than they did.

    So, what are we to do with that info? Should the Pats rush less in the RS and save it for the playoffs? Would that satisfy everyone's ball-control urges?

    Did you know that in the AFCCG, the Pats rushed for 108 yards and Baltimore for 121 and the Pats outgained them on a YPC basis?

    Sorry, not buying any of it. Baltimore won because of Flacco and his receivers, and some sorry play at the exact wrong time by the Denver DBs and the Pats offense. Not because they outrushed the Pats by 13 yards. Big whoop. BTW, they rushed for a grand total of 93 yards in the SB. Real dynamic stuff there.



    how about better pass defense efficiency....

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

     

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Being able to play ball control when you have the lead is definitely something you want to be able to do.  But it does require a complementary defense.  If your defense is prone to giving up quick scores (like the last Giants drive in SB 46), you take a lot of risk trying to run the clock out in a close game because you can't be sure you can stop a quick scoring drive by your opponents.  Back in 2003 and 2004 when the Pats had great defenses, you'd often see BB run a lot in the second half to simply run out the clock.  But at the time, the defense was very reliable.  Since that time, the defense has slowly deteriorated making a ball control offensive strategy much more risky.  When you see your defense just self-destruct (for instance, like it did against Dan Orlovsky a few years ago) you just can't run the clock out.  You need to score and score a lot.  And that requires a more explosive offensive strategy than ground and pound. 

     

     

     

     

     

     




    WHo cares how quick NY scored on their last drive?  The D is gassed. The Giants D was gassed. Their QB hit his WRs, ours didn't. 

     

     

     

     

    The Pats D held all game to 13 points!   We had FOUR drives for our own offense wasted in order for it to "complement" what our good defense did in the second half in particular.

    1 TD and 2 FGs allowed????????????????????

    How was that not a perfect game for our offense to not use ball control ourselves? They crapped their pants, dude. Crapped em good.

    1 INT, two other short drives with punts and another punt because Welker and Brady choked on 2nd down.

    FAIL

    Defense>Offense in SB 46.

    Plain and simple.

     

     

     




    Did you just ask "who care how fast the D gave up the game LOSING drive", with the lead?

     

     

     

    Well I'm pretty sure your BF BB cares.

    I'm pretty sure Bob Kraft cares

    I'm pretty sure both the Pat's offense and defense and the whole team, cares.

    And I'm pretty sure EVERY FAN of the Pats cares.

    In fact, the only people in the world that didn't hold their breath and watch in horror as the D gave up the game losing drive with seconds left in the game (twice), were NON-FANS or were betting AGAINST the Pats.!

    Are you a NON-FAN?  Did you make money on their loss?  Has to be one of the two.

    Wait!  There is one more option.  It's called mental illness.

     

     




    Actually, I almost turned it off when Brady threw the INT to start the 4th on 1st down. Almost did it again when he threw high to his buddy, Welkie.

     

     

    THAT is the horror. 20+ million dollars or All Pro play playing like hacks in a Pop Warner game.

     

     




    You probably should have turned it off then but then you would have missed the last bone crushing drive where TB left the field with the lead and the D lost the game.  (IN BOTH SB's)

     

    Did you enjoy that last drive?

    Like I said, NON-FAN, betting to lose or mental illness.  Which is it?

     




    DO this:

     

    Leave your piddly little lame suburban existance in Massachusetts for ONCE in your life and walk into a sports bar and interview NFL fans on their opinion of how Tom Brady has played in his last 2 SBs or even in his last 3 AFC title games.

    Hint: You'll be mocked and laughed out of the bar. Not sure how to break this to you, but Brady has become someoene to be MOCKED beyond belief outside of the NE area.

    And, as a Pats fan, there is nothing that can be said. He has crapped himself repeatedly in big games and it has NOTHING to do when our D gives up a TD drive. Brady needs to improve Brady.

    [/QUOTE]


    Ha.  I don't live in MA, I live in TEXAS where there is a great diversity among fans.  My wife is a Texan fan and she loves TB..  My Best friend is a Vikings fan and he loves TB (or respects).  My neighbors are cowboy's fans and they would trade anything for TB.

    Some of the guys I employ are Steeler, Saints and GB fans and they respect TB

    Even the middle eastern guy at the corner store yells "TOM BRADY"! " I love Tom BRADY," every single time I walk in.

    My horse trainer who is originally from NY and who knows Joe Namath, personally, respects TB.

    Even they guy I bought my last truck from, a Cowboy fan, raves about TB.

    The funny thing is NOT one respects our D.  Not one would trade for our D and all of them say, "W T F, I thought BB was a defensive genius"??

    What's even more funny is that I showed some of them, your posts.  

    You should have heard the laughter!

     

    '

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    What?  I didn't say it... well I have for the past four or five years, but now somebody else is saying it.

    http://www.weei.com//sports/boston/football/patriots/mike-salk/2013/07/01/new-look-patriots-should-consider-return-ball-c

     

     

    The great thing about the Patriots is that they have built an amazingly strong foundation and culture for winning. Regardless of what happened with AH, they will remain focussed and continue to work at meeting perfect EXECUTION. Better D this year, better execution on O. We are at the top of the heap again where one or two plays are the difference in the trophy. ALL we as fans can hope for is that when they have the chance to execute on the critical plays this year, they do so and don't seemingly fall to the pressure of the moment and fail, as has been common recently. Sorry, but that is all that has happened lately. Its not style, its been poor EXECUTION on a handful of pays.

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

     

     

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    It's not about statistics at all, though.  Pezz's analysis is simply about the mathematical relationship between drive time and number of possessions.  He's spot on in this analysis.  Only the math challenged think it's hocus pocus.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Yeah you guys can't add, the Patriot's offense scored less then the three previous Super Bowls and the defense held to the lowest of the three Super Bowl totals.  It doesn't take Albert Einstein...

     

     

     




    It doesn't take Einstein to figure out that in the previous SB's the Pats were NOT hampered by low possessions ( because of horrendous D's) and had plenty of them to try and score.  That also allowed for more diversity on offense because they had MORE TIME to operate.

     

     

     

    It also tells a tale that the 2011 offense was more efficient in scoring 17 points in 8 possessions than they were in scoring 17 points in 12 possessions.

    It also doesn't take a genius to figure out that lower possession games are most likely going to yield less points for the O & D.

    19 points in a 8 possession game does not = 19 points in a 12 possession game because the D would have to make 4 more STOPS to achieve the same score.  Since they barely made 4 stops in the entire game, I find that scenario highly unlikely.

     

     




    The 4th ranked NE D was a "horrendous D"?  That horrendous D bailed out Brady in the AFC title game!!

     

     

    As did the much maligned solid D in 2011 in January that year. When Spikes made that clutch INT, that should have changed the game for good. Your lusty boyfriend made sure that was not the case on the very next play.

     




    The 4th ranked D (mostly ranked that way because the O was so dominate that they always played with a big lead), failed on ToP, was also instrumental in an 8 possession game (10 minutes on the first drive, pfft), also couldn't stop the final drive and a miracle catch  from occurring,  right  fter TB got the leading score and also contributed zero turn overs to the game.

    Did you enjoy that last defensive drive too?

    Fail

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    ^What a maroon. The guy applies an over-analyzed statistical analysis that adds up to absolutely NOTHING.

    If your 20 mil per QB and best WR are choking it down over and over, none of what you just posted, matters.

    Apparently, you do need a secret decoder ring.

     

     



    It's not about statistics at all, though.  Pezz's analysis is simply about the mathematical relationship between drive time and number of possessions.  He's spot on in this analysis.  Only the math challenged think it's hocus pocus.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Umm, that's like GM saying how well there doing from 1990-2008 until the economic collapse.  That's laughable. Anyone can concoct a formula to be tailored to their agenda.

     

    Data only shows you so much, especially with anything tied to the human element.  It's my same counter to the QBR argument.  It doesn't take into account bad plays or decisions by the QB. 

    Meanwhile, Toyota, Honda, Nissan penetrated the market, GM lost market share, but they kept telling us they were doing better and better to spike the stock market position.  Hmm, odd seeing more and more Japanese cars on the road through the years, but somewhow GM was dominating. Hmm.

    Whoops.

    Sure seems lke that is what you and your ilk try to do here. Whip out a bunch of pointless forumlas that only tell half the picture, as a way to deflect from reality.

    The truth is, the American carmaker took their customers for granted, making cheaper cars for the same prices as the compeition. Thus, they lost market share and they went bankrupt in the process.

    Our shogtun spread by choice is General Motors. Everyone else (we've lost to like NYGs, Balt, etc) that realizes that you need a rushing attack, smart decisions with the ball, etc, has been Toyota, Nissan and Honda.

    How's that for a real analysis that is accurate? lmao

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Those pointless formulas that only paint half the picture depict the way the NFL has played for 50+ years.  12, 5 minute possessions, not 8, 7.5 minute possessions.!  Anything else is an anomaly and needs to be addressed.  BB needs to address it! 

    I'm just pointing out the oddity of it.

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to p-mike's comment:

    Getting back to my theory about statistics, I find it interesting that nowhere in Muzwell's dismissal of what I thought were two very good responses to his challenge does he mention time of possession. Now, I'm not a "numbers guy" (and the numbers in these cases might not bear out my thesis, but I'm too lazy to look them up because, like I said, numbers can be deceiving), but it seems to me that "ball control" is about keeping the ball, not how many times you ran it or how far you got.

    I guess what's fun about forums like this is that you can believe whatever you want no matter what anybody else says.

     

    Now . . .  quick like a bunny . . .  run out and get me those time-of-possession numbers!

     

    (unless, of course, they don't bolster your argument, in which case you would be better off ignoring them)

    Wink

     

     

    Now you listen here! He's not the Messiah . . .   he's a very naughty boy!





    Yes, ball control might certainly mean keeping the ball. Hopefully, that is the result of moving the chains.  Running the ball - may or may not help with ball control/controlling the clock/moving the sticks.  With respect to clock management - running the ball keeps the clock ticking (assuming that the team is successful in moving the chains). Completed passes keep the clock moving, incomplete passes stop the clock - and may "shorten" time of possession.

    In addition, I think some folks confuse "balanced" offense meaning that run vs. pass plays have to be about 50% each.  I am from the camp that u use whatever works to move the chains to score as many points as possible - the theory being that mixed, unpredictable play calling will make it easier to keep the ball and keep the chains moving, putting the team in the position that increases the chances that they will come away with points.

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

     

     

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    It's not about statistics at all, though.  Pezz's analysis is simply about the mathematical relationship between drive time and number of possessions.  He's spot on in this analysis.  Only the math challenged think it's hocus pocus.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Yeah you guys can't add, the Patriot's offense scored less then the three previous Super Bowls and the defense held to the lowest of the three Super Bowl totals.  It doesn't take Albert Einstein...

     

     

     




    It doesn't take Einstein to figure out that in the previous SB's the Pats were NOT hampered by low possessions ( because of horrendous D's) and had plenty of them to try and score.  That also allowed for more diversity on offense because they had MORE TIME to operate.

     

     

     

    It also tells a tale that the 2011 offense was more efficient in scoring 17 points in 8 possessions than they were in scoring 17 points in 12 possessions.

    It also doesn't take a genius to figure out that lower possession games are most likely going to yield less points for the O & D.

    19 points in a 8 possession game does not = 19 points in a 12 possession game because the D would have to make 4 more STOPS to achieve the same score.  Since they barely made 4 stops in the entire game, I find that scenario highly unlikely.

     

     




    The 4th ranked NE D was a "horrendous D"?  That horrendous D bailed out Brady in the AFC title game!!

     

     

    As did the much maligned solid D in 2011 in January that year. When Spikes made that clutch INT, that should have changed the game for good. Your lusty boyfriend made sure that was not the case on the very next play.

     




    The 4th ranked D (mostly ranked that way because the O was so dominate that they always played with a big lead), failed on ToP, was also instrumental in an 8 possession game (10 minutes on the first drive, pfft), also couldn't stop the final drive and a miracle catch  from occurring,  right  fter TB got the leading score and also contributed zero turn overs to the game.

    Did you enjoy that last defensive drive too?

    Fail

     




    Umm, our all world offense scored 7 points through 58 minutes.  7 points untl a late TD. 14 points.

     

    That's enbarrassing. Utterly embarrassing. FOr the Tyree catch to even occur on a holding play, was because Brady and the offense sucked for over 50 minutes of play.

    That's your loss. If you don't play 60 minutes, you lose. Our D played 60 minutes, the offense just didn't do anything for 50.  Ouch.

    10 minutes of decent offensive play won't win you a SB.  Leave it you to praise the greatest offense ever to play like crap barely eeking out 14 points in the biggest game of the year.

    MAJOR FAIL

    The entire country knows it to be Brady and his cockiness falling on its face. Please leave NE and go into a sports bar and ask any NFL fan if they think Brady choked in SB 42. The answer will be a resounding yes.

    Leave home for once. Get culture. You can do it, Pezzy!

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes, crusty.  Whatever you say.  Just let it be known that there are people all over Texas, with no particular horse in the race, that are LTAO@U.

    You should be proud.

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    More fun with stats (because this stuff never gets old...):

    Team A rushed 524 times for 2,134 yards (4.1 ypc)

    Team B rushed 523 times for 2,184 yards (4.2 ypc)

    Team C rushed 444 times for 1,901 yards (4.3 ypc)

    Team D rushed 411 times for 1,427 yards (3.5 ypc)

    A, C and D were the teams cited as "ball control" teams, they are the 2004 Pats (A), 2012 Ravens (C) and Team D is the 2011 NYG, Super Bowl champs all.

    Team B is, of course, your 2012 New England Patriots. Rushed the same number of times for more yards than the Corey Dillon-led '04 edition. 

     

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    More fun with stats (because this stuff never gets old...):

    Team A rushed 524 times for 2,134 yards (4.1 ypc)

    Team B rushed 523 times for 2,184 yards (4.2 ypc)

    Team C rushed 444 times for 1,901 yards (4.3 ypc)

    Team D rushed 411 times for 1,427 yards (3.5 ypc)

    A, C and D were the teams cited as "ball control" teams, they are the 2004 Pats (A), 2012 Ravens (C) and Team D is the 2011 NYG, Super Bowl champs all.

    Team B is, of course, your 2012 New England Patriots. Rushed the same number of times for more yards than the Corey Dillon-led '04 edition. 

     

    Muz, haven't you heard?  Stats are for losers.  Winners rely on tinfoil hats . . .

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    More fun with stats (because this stuff never gets old...):

    Team A rushed 524 times for 2,134 yards (4.1 ypc)

    Team B rushed 523 times for 2,184 yards (4.2 ypc)

    Team C rushed 444 times for 1,901 yards (4.3 ypc)

    Team D rushed 411 times for 1,427 yards (3.5 ypc)

    A, C and D were the teams cited as "ball control" teams, they are the 2004 Pats (A), 2012 Ravens (C) and Team D is the 2011 NYG, Super Bowl champs all.

    Team B is, of course, your 2012 New England Patriots. Rushed the same number of times for more yards than the Corey Dillon-led '04 edition. 

     

     

     

    Muz, haven't you heard?  Stats are for losers.  Winners rely on tinfoil hats . . .

    [/QUOTE]

    and don't forget, stats like passing defense efficiency is meaningless and too complex vs. "simple" stats like points against......especially for those who allegedly have high IQs.  

    Did you get your decoder rings in the cracker Jacks box? I did.

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

    It proves there are more people out there like this/who are now seeing the light. We saw it and wanted it years ago, but many here didn't understand why it was necessary.

     

     

    Many games handed away later, and now we know it's needed.

     

     



    Why hasn't the head coach realized this and made the changes you suggest?  Is it because he's not very good at his job, or because you're wrong?

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Bill Belichik built this offense. Why would he change what he built?

     

    His two greatest influences have been Chip Kelly and Urban Meyer. 

    My guess is if NE is to go "ball control" (they are ball control now, just a blend of running and ball control passing) then it's going to involve BB leaving. 

    [/QUOTE]


    I knew this would infuriate Rusty. He insists Brady is a rogue faction in the system doing his own thing and cannot be stopped, even by the agency director.

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    Umm, our all world offense scored 7 points through 58 minutes.  7 points untl a late TD. 14 points.

     



    What exactly were you expecting when Brady got hit 20+ times dumbkoff, 45 points or so? LMAO@U

    Or maybe you were expecting Maroney's 2 ypc to run up the score. Tears!

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Umm, our all world offense scored 7 points through 58 minutes.  7 points untl a late TD. 14 points.

     

     



    What exactly were you expecting when Brady got hit 20+ times dumbkoff, 45 points or so? LMAO@U

     

    Or maybe you were expecting Maroney's 2 ypc to run up the score. Tears!

    [/QUOTE]


    Rusty still can't dodge the fact that the offense put the team in the lead to win the game in the final minutes of both SB's and it was the D who allowed a 83 yard final drive to lose the game and an 88 yard final drive to lose the game.  Pathetic!

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     


    It would be nice to have a ball controlled offense, but you need a couple of things to make that happen...1. Drive blocking line 2. runners that will get the job done (hopefully we have that) 3. A defense that will keep opposing teams from controlling the clock and scoring (we don't have that as far as I know).

    I think people that just say..."we have to pound the ball and control the clock", don't have a clue. It takes time to build your team like this, you have to draft linemen that can move a pile...you can't just sit there and hope pass blocking linemen can pound it straight ahead on third and three's. If you're a running team you will have to hand it off on third and three's...not just the second and five's (after Brady hit Welker for 5). You will have to run it on first down, and not for two yards either. You better be ready to except (and be prepared for an offense that won't be putting up 35 points a game). You better be ready for drive killing holding calls. And you had better be ready for the fact that you are not always going to win the time of possesion or field position game either, because as soon as your running game has a bad week (and it will) you'll be punting...a lot. And your defense will be playing with the wonderful feeling of knowing our offense will not be putting up points and pressuring the hell out of the other team's defense - they may on some weeks, but there will be no more no huddle, quick points, three touchdowns in a quarter football. This will be a grind, a fight.

    Hey, I'd love to see it. I just don't think we are built for it and I don't think they have tried to build something like that either, and how could we? We've spent the last 5 years trying to find corners and safeties - our resources have gone into the never ending attempt to make our defense at least average - it's taken a long time...it's taken a lot of money...and it still may not be done. It's like the Big Dig. 

     




    2010 was not 5 years ago. It was 3.  The 2008 and 2009 drafts were also not strong talent pools, especially 2008. BB wasn't building a team through those drafts. But, he did trade into the 2010 draft after trading away Seymour and Vrabel in 2009.

     

    It took Ted Thompson 5 long years in GB and the difference is, his QB wasn't crappy in title games or SBs.

    lmao

    [/QUOTE]

    Um, you can spin this anyway you've wanted to for the last five years, but the fact remains that even in 07 this defensive "rebuilding" project was underway. Between a Tedy Bruschi that couldn't run anymore and a injury waiting to happen Rodney Harrison, that defense was running on fumes when they sputtered into Arizona. It was no wonder our four foot corners couldn't stop anyone on that last drive...a trend that continues five years later.

    Here we are still drafting corner after corner, safety after safety...trading for thug cornerbacks because we just can't seem to draft the right guys to run around out there with NFL receivers. It's a shame really...to waste year, after year of a hall of fame quarterback's career. It's also been embarrassing to watch us bring in these loser defensive linemen (Ellis, Haynesworth, and Fenene) to replace Seymore. How much did we spend on those duds? How many Taco Bell employees did we have to sign off the street in November to play defensive tackle because these dopes were long gone and there just wasn't anybody left? Hey, remember that Super Bowl a couple years back? Remember how many coach potatoes we were rolling in and off the roster because that fat tub of goo second round pick from BC played like he was on rollar skates (can't even remember that bust's name...there were so many I get confused).

    You just keep on blaming Brady....that a boy!! LOL.

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    It's a shame really...to waste year, after year of a hall of fame quarterback's career.



    The party is over. Brady doesn't have enough time left for BB to correct his GMing FUs. All we can hope for now is to get lucky in the next couple of years. After that, the minions here will pay dearly for their blasphemous sins against Brady.

     

     

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    It's a shame really...to waste year, after year of a hall of fame quarterback's career.

     



    The party is over. Brady doesn't have enough time left for BB to correct his GMing FUs. All we can hope for now is to get lucky in the next couple of years. After that, the minions here will pay dearly for their blasphemous sins against Brady.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'd like to think they have one more year left, but the odds are stacked against them. The guy keeps himself in really good shape, but Father Time catches up to everyone - of course losing just about every guy he threw to last year won't help. Hopefully the defense is finally "rebuilt".

     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to TFB12's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

    Umm, our all world offense scored 7 points through 58 minutes.  7 points untl a late TD. 14 points.

     

     

     



    What exactly were you expecting when Brady got hit 20+ times dumbkoff, 45 points or so? LMAO@U

     

     

    Or maybe you were expecting Maroney's 2 ypc to run up the score. Tears!




    Rusty still can't dodge the fact that the offense put the team in the lead to win the game in the final minutes of both SB's and it was the D who allowed a 83 yard final drive to lose the game and an 88 yard final drive to lose the game.  Pathetic!

     



    I've learned that what rusty does is eliminate certain pieces of games to favor his argument - for a while he had me believing that we only let up 13 points in Super Bowl 46. I kept thinking...I watched the game, I sat there and witnessed that defense get marched all over...lose time of possesion...not create a single turn over...sack...put our offense in god awful starting field position, until finally absolutely crapping their pants in miserable fashion on that last drive (a drive that was a as pathetic, futile, Seguin like as I've ever ever seen).

    He just eliminated that drive and points like it never happened.

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    Oh man, the handwringers are at it again.  Brady could play 4 or 5 more years if he wants to. Manning's career was over, now he's back to being America's quarterback. Brady is younger and in better shape, and a better player.

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    I'd like to think they have one more year left, but the odds are stacked against them. The guy keeps himself in really good shape, but Father Time catches up to everyone - of course losing just about every guy he threw to last year won't help. Hopefully the defense is finally "rebuilt".

    I think there are 2-3 years left, but the Patriots need to help in all 3 phases of the game; especially pass rush/pass coverage. If we can keep games close or be able to rely on the D for timely stops....then the Patriots' chances are as good as any other team

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share