PFT Not Kind to Pats

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

    PFT Not Kind to Pats

    "Belichick says 'uncle' to his new daddy"

    Ouch.

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/11/30/belichick-says-uncle-to-his-new-daddy/
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsfaninsatx. Show patsfaninsatx's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    Florio is a idiot, but I was puzzled when he put all the back ups in.  It was pretty obvious that the Pats were mentally defeated after NE scored to make it 31-17. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    In Response to PFT Not Kind to Pats:
    [QUOTE]"Belichick says 'uncle' to his new daddy" Ouch. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/11/30/belichick-says-uncle-to-his-new-daddy/
    Posted by underdoggg[/QUOTE]

    I won't dignify that idiotic story with a comment. Did you not expect the Belichick haters to come out of the wood work. You don't strike me as a Sadist Dogg but I bet you have a little extra spring in your step today.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    I'd agree.  I believe that Belichick is a master at preparing his team mentally, physically, and emotionally. 

    Obviously, sometimes it does not work (like last night), and it can't work every time, but what is the signal for his decision? 

    Was he keeping his starters healthy?
    Was he saying they no longer deserved to play?  (motivation for the last 5 games)? 
    Was he simply wanting to give his 2nd and 3rd stringers an opportunity for experience against a very good team?
    Or something else?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    In Response to Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats:
    [QUOTE]In Response to PFT Not Kind to Pats : I won't dignify that idiotic story with a comment. Did you not expect the Belichick haters to come out of the wood work. You don't strike me as a Sadist Dogg but I bet you have a little extra spring in your step today.
    Posted by ewhite1065[/QUOTE]
    E - I'll give a few jabs here and there.  I've taken many more than I've given.  Its to be expected if I post on this site. 

    Belichick is not a favorite, no, but otherwise, I generally have no beef with the players.  

    a couple of thoughts: 
     
    1.  Brady really can just throw the ball deep and as long as Moss is around there's a good chance for a catch or at least an incompletion.  Last night there were 3 db's within about 5-10 feet of moss on a deep ball.  Brady after a strong pass rush just slung it and Moss came down with it.  Amazing.  I'll admit that I am jealous.  The colts have never had that kind of receiver or luxury. 

    2.  I still measure the colts by the pats and the pats are still in a position to earn a second seed, so there should be no panic. 

    3.  I can't remember the last time (not talking about a game possibly last year) where the pats were simply beaten so completely. 

    4.  What I saw reminded me (at least defensively) of how the pats used to beat the colts. 

    5.  Brady will quickly become just like Manning was when the pats used to beat the colts, trying to win games from the offensive side of the ball because he doesn't trust his defense, if they don't figure out their defense. 

    6.  Wilhite is a liability.

    7.  One other note, I saw Moss give up on a play when Brady threw an int because he was double covered.  He just stopped running.  This is one of the knocks against Moss, and it is very real.  That said, his positives substantially outweigh this negative, but it hurt the pats on that play.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    In Response to Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats:
    [QUOTE]I'd agree.  I believe that Belichick is a master at preparing his team mentally, physically, and emotionally.  Obviously, sometimes it does not work (like last night), and it can't work every time, but what is the signal for his decision?  Was he keeping his starters healthy? Was he saying they no longer deserved to play?  (motivation for the last 5 games)?  Was he simply wanting to give his 2nd and 3rd stringers an opportunity for experience against a very good team? Or something else?
    Posted by underdoggg[/QUOTE]

    We're pretty beat up physically and mentally by the end of the first half. You never know what's going on in Belichick's head. I was waiting for this game to tell me what I already suspected about our defense. All I know about last night is this. If we scored 37 points they would have scored 42. I have to think Belichick came to that same conclusion. I'm already mentally prepared for the draft. We make the playoffs this year but The SB is out of the question unless they find some divine light in the next 5 weeks.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    e - trust me.  If the pats play the next 3 games lights out this game will be forgotten like last season.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsfaninsatx. Show patsfaninsatx's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    In Response to Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats:
    [QUOTE]e - trust me.  If the pats play the next 3 games lights out this game will be forgotten like last season.
    Posted by underdoggg[/QUOTE]


    Its good to hear an honest opinion from a colts fan.  Even if they play lights out on their next 3 opponents, its still the same team.

    Miami, Carolina, Buffalo....those are not playoff teams.

    They dont have trouble beating Ok and bad teams.  They have trouble beating good teams.  Playoff teams.

    You are correct.  This team looks like the old colts team.  All offense and no defense.  Until that changes I dont see anything changing.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    In Response to Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats:
    [QUOTE]e - trust me.  If the pats play the next 3 games lights out this game will be forgotten like last season.
    Posted by underdoggg[/QUOTE]

    I think a lot of the people will forget it but in all honesty I probably won't. I said all year I would judge the Pats by the games against the Colts and the Saints. That puts us 0-2. The jury was still out after the Colts but the verdict came in last night. I don't llive and die by wins and losses, I enjoy football too much but I'm a realist and not a yahoo. We'll probably win out from here and I would imagine we will be favored to but inside I know that when push comes to shove we can't stop a playoff caliber team from scoring a game winning TD. We have work to do in the offseason player personnel wise and from a coaching standpoint. Not a big deal to me, I'm going to enjoy what is left of a dwindling season and look forward to college championship and bowl games. Go Huskers too!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    In Response to Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats:
    [QUOTE]I'd agree.  I believe that Belichick is a master at preparing his team mentally, physically, and emotionally.  Obviously, sometimes it does not work (like last night), and it can't work every time, but what is the signal for his decision?  Was he keeping his starters healthy? Was he saying they no longer deserved to play?  (motivation for the last 5 games)?  Was he simply wanting to give his 2nd and 3rd stringers an opportunity for experience against a very good team? Or something else?
    Posted by underdoggg[/QUOTE]

    Why would he risk injury to Brady and Moss when the game was lost?

    And why not, with the game out of reach, get the backups some quality experience? - although I'll qualify this by saying that this is why I think there's been such turnover in the starting lineups this year, so more guys get playing time...
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    patsfan - I don't agree about the competition.  this is the NFL. 

    More reality - If I recall correctly, a couple of weeks ago, the Saints beat the Rams by 3. 

    Winning at Miami (even without Miami having Ronnie Brown) is still a good win.  Carolina is not as bad as their record-a trap game.  You should beat Buffalo. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Trink5. Show Trink5's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    In Response to Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats:
    [QUOTE]patsfan - I don't agree about the competition.  this is the NFL.  More reality - If I recall correctly, a couple of weeks ago, the Saints beat the Rams by 3.  Winning at Miami (even without Miami having Ronnie Brown) is still a good win.  Carolina is not as bad as their record-a trap game.  You should beat Buffalo. 
    Posted by underdoggg[/QUOTE]

    dogg: If I were you, I'd be a bit nervous. IMO, Colts win AFC. But, from what I saw last night, Saints win SB. Easily. They are the real deal and will likely put a beatdown on the Colts. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    In Response to Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats : I think a lot of the people will forget it but in all honesty I probably won't. I said all year I would judge the Pats by the games against the Colts and the Saints. That puts us 0-2. The jury was still out after the Colts but the verdict came in last night. I don't llive and die by wins and losses, I enjoy football too much but I'm a realist and not a yahoo. We'll probably win out from here and I would imagine we will be favored to but inside I know that when push comes to shove we can't stop a playoff caliber team from scoring a game winning TD. We have work to do in the offseason player personnel wise and from a coaching standpoint. Not a big deal to me, I'm going to enjoy what is left of a dwindling season and look forward to college championship and bowl games. Go Huskers too!
    Posted by ewhite1065[/QUOTE]

    There's no doubt the pats are as good as the colts.  But the question I would have if I was a pats fan is the team's second half play. 

    As for personnel, pats fans won't like this, but I have said it many times before.  Belichick is a master at stockpiling picks, but sometimes you have to pay the player.  If Seymour was dogging it, ok, but wouldn't you guys like to have Samuel right now? 

    What good is a team with picks and no players?  And don't get me wrong, I am not saying that is the case with the pats.  They have some players and they will always be good.  But they used to be better than everyone else.  Now they are only as good as everyone else.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    In Response to Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats : Why would he risk injury to Brady and Moss when the game was lost? And why not, with the game out of reach, get the backups some quality experience? - although I'll qualify this by saying that this is why I think there's been such turnover in the starting lineups this year, so more guys get playing time...
    Posted by NickC1188[/QUOTE]

    The point of the article was that the colts were down 21 in tampa with 4 minutes to play and won that game.  With 5:30 left, Belichick pulled his starters thus throwing in the towel. 

    Many on this site have criticized the colts for resting players in the past.  Per your comment, isn't this almost the same thing?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    In Response to Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats : dogg: If I were you, I'd be a bit nervous. IMO, Colts win AFC. But, from what I saw last night, Saints win SB. Easily. They are the real deal and will likely put a beatdown on the Colts. 
    Posted by Trink5[/QUOTE]

    Trink of the little bit I saw, I don't disagree.  But then I can look back at their schedule and see they beat the Rams by only 3 points. 

    There are still 5 games left and things can change. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    In Response to Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats : The point of the article was that the colts were down 21 in tampa with 4 minutes to play and won that game.  With 5:30 left, Belichick pulled his starters thus throwing in the towel.  Many on this site have criticized the colts for resting players in the past.  Per your comment, isn't this almost the same thing?
    Posted by underdoggg[/QUOTE]

    I only criticized the Colts resting players to the extent that I thought it took away their edge and sharpness heading into the playoffs.  They'd lock up a high seed and rest the final week.  They'd then look flat and play below their talent level.

    I don't think this is the same.  At the rate the Pats were playing, Brady, Moss, Welker, or Faulk was liable to have their head taken off (and, based on sideline shots I saw of Faulk hunched over after a big hit was put on him, I think he did suffer a concussion).

    I understand that the Colts pulled off a couple last minute comebacks, and that you wanted an opportunity to feel good about those wins, but that's not how these Patriots have ever won games throughout the Belichick era.  They did so by playing smart football and dictating the pace and style of game.

    Clearly they had no chance to pull that off in 5:21.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    In Response to Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats : There's no doubt the pats are as good as the colts.  But the question I would have if I was a pats fan is the team's second half play.  As for personnel, pats fans won't like this, but I have said it many times before.  Belichick is a master at stockpiling picks, but sometimes you have to pay the player.  If Seymour was dogging it, ok, but wouldn't you guys like to have Samuel right now?  What good is a team with picks and no players?  And don't get me wrong, I am not saying that is the case with the pats.  They have some players and they will always be good.  But they used to be better than everyone else.  Now they are only as good as everyone else.
    Posted by underdoggg[/QUOTE]

    My hope truly is that he uses some of these compiled draft picks the way he did to aquire Randy Moss...Everybody in Boston would have like to have seen Samuel retained but when he's not there isn't much you can do about. I could secong guess Belichick into the grave but it doesn't do much good and it's tough to second guess the record and rings he's compiled. I think the guy is awesome and is smart enough to change what we need changed. As we all know..It aint easy.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    Nick - fair enough.  good points.

    E - fair enough.  But then I think this should be said.  The pats had a really special defense for about 5 years from 01 thru 05.  After seeing Peyton do amazing things only to have them demolished by a special defense like the pats had, I learned that defense wins championships.  

    With the turnover the pats have had now on the defensive side of the ball, I think Belichick was hoping that the O could carry him.  Unfortunately, the defense is not as good as it was in 07 and the offense while still tops in the league is missing the swagger that made everyone scared of them.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    That game was completely different.  They were down by 14 points when an INT put TB up 21.  The ensuing kickoff return of 90 yards put the Colts 12 yards from the endzone with 5:09 left to play.  They had done well stopping TB's offense up to that point.  IND then scored immediately and got the onsides kick to come within 7 with 2:30 left to play with a timeout. 

    The pats were on the 73 yards away with 5 minutes left and had not shown an ability to slow the Saints offense the whole game.  Maybe if they were close to the endzone they would have tried to mount a comeback.  PFT is the enquirer of sports news.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    Shenanigan - good points, except the last. 

    No one likes the enquirer's brand of journalism, but when they get a story right (because they will pursue things others won't - a la Tiger Woods), its hard to discount their validity.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from crono420. Show crono420's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    In Response to PFT Not Kind to Pats:
    [QUOTE]"Belichick says 'uncle' to his new daddy" Ouch. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/11/30/belichick-says-uncle-to-his-new-daddy/
    Posted by underdoggg[/QUOTE]

    Oh look, the cockroach came out to eat some crumbs today. Just so you know, everbody hates you. You must like abuse so you come to this board
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from bradleyBliss. Show bradleyBliss's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    Hey Dogg!  IF YOU GET BY the Chargers, look out in the Super Bowl! The SAINTS will eat HorseFace ALIVE!!!! Commercials and all!
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from JulesWinfield. Show JulesWinfield's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    It's possible that this is the game the Saints turned the corner, and they'll play ten times better than any other team for the rest of the season.  However, I think we're going a little overboard on the acclamation.  If NO is in another class, why did they have so much trouble with STL?  Now, I think NO is definitely the best team in the NFL, but most opponents have been blowing out the Rams (including the Colts, who won by 36 points).  The Saints have obviously won consistently, but they have their bad games and they're beatable.  It's just hard to remember that after witnessing one of their better games of the year...

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

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    In Response to Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats : E - I'll give a few jabs here and there.  I've taken many more than I've given.  Its to be expected if I post on this site.  Belichick is not a favorite, no, but otherwise, I generally have no beef with the players.   a couple of thoughts:    1.  Brady really can just throw the ball deep and as long as Moss is around there's a good chance for a catch or at least an incompletion.  Last night there were 3 db's within about 5-10 feet of moss on a deep ball.  Brady after a strong pass rush just slung it and Moss came down with it.  Amazing.  I'll admit that I am jealous.  The colts have never had that kind of receiver or luxury.  2.  I still measure the colts by the pats and the pats are still in a position to earn a second seed, so there should be no panic.  3.  I can't remember the last time (not talking about a game possibly last year) where the pats were simply beaten so completely.  4.  What I saw reminded me (at least defensively) of how the pats used to beat the colts.  5.  Brady will quickly become just like Manning was when the pats used to beat the colts, trying to win games from the offensive side of the ball because he doesn't trust his defense, if they don't figure out their defense.  6.  Wilhite is a liability. 7.  One other note, I saw Moss give up on a play when Brady threw an int because he was double covered.  He just stopped running.  This is one of the knocks against Moss, and it is very real.  That said, his positives substantially outweigh this negative, but it hurt the pats on that play.
    Posted by underdoggg[/QUOTE]

    I agree with everything you said, except #1 and 7.

    #1. No QB can just heave the ball downfield into double or triple coverage and expect even a 6'4" HOFer to come up with every jump ball. Sure he will sometimes but the alternative is an INT. This has happened a couple of times recently when brady did exactly that.

    The colts have never had that type of receiver? Does the name marvin harrison mean anything to you?

    #7 This business of Moss "giving up" on plays is ridiculous. He's double covered on every play. Any NFL receiver will appear to "give up" on a play once it's underway
    and he knows the ball is going to the other side.

    Maybe Moss did dog it with the raiders, I don't know because I never saw him play there. I really couldn't blame him if he did, but I've never seen him take plays off here.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: PFT Not Kind to Pats

    ALF -

    Re my #1 - By saying the colts did not have a receiver like Moss, I mean 6'4", long arms, and can "get" balls.  this is absolutely no disrespect to Harrison who imo may be the second best receiver ever primarily because of his size.  (Welker is challenging, so is Moss). 

    Some here have said Moss is game changing and he is.  It's not just his size.  Size alone does not cut it.  He also has skill to go with it.  Even if Moss is in traffic, he can simply go above the rest to get a ball.  That's his size.  His skill actually makes the catch.  

    Marvin was not tall or big enough to win jump balls.  

    Re #7 - It was simply a play I saw in which Brady threw an int (maybe his last).  Moss wa double covered, and it is my opinion that he should have still been working as the ball had yet to be thrown.  I understand that it must be frustrating for Moss to be doubled like that, but that is no reason to stop working on the play. 
     

Share