SB 46

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

    Re: SB 46

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

     

    "Ball was high and to the outside. It turned him to the outside." - Analyst, Scott Zolak

     

     



     

     



    ROFLMFAO!!!   STILL!!!!!

     

    Babe, this play was NOT in the end zone. Yet, you keep devining that IF he caught the ball they WOULD have scored a TD. Just admitt that teh GMen played teh entire 60 minutes BETTER than the Pats did, AGAIN. But, if this Welker "drop" issue is true, then we'll put blame on the SF loss right where it needs to be... Vern Davis. Do you recall the wide pass he dropped inside the 30 yd line? Most assuredly, THAT drive would have ended up as a TD and the ultimate game winner, lights out or not.  And, the timing of the play in regards to the game clock is inconsequential, could be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Qtr, or in the final minute of play. A drop is a drop, is a drop.....

    Just let it go...... 



    Well let's say he catches the thing - it's a first down around the 20? 30? I can't remember. Now let's say we get the ball at the 25 and drive down to the 5 before not getting in (could happen, I know), but what definetely would of happened at that point is we would of taken more time off the clock. The Giants ended up getting the ball back on their twelve yard line with 3:46 and one timeout. Now let's say they get the ball at the twenty yard line with 1:46 seconds and no timeouts...do they still beat us? With our defense the answer is probably, but I like our chances a little better with less time and less timeouts. And who's to say that we don't score when WE get into that redzone after Welker catches the ball (that he dropped)? 

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

    Re: SB 46

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

     

    defense did a remarkable job keeping the pats in the game....i remember thinking to myself during that game, "how many times do the defense have to hold the giants to field goals before the offense finally wakes up and helps out the cause". well it never happened and they lost because of it.

     




    Did you watch the game at Rusty's mom's house? Because I remember watching and thinking/screaming...holy crap!! Do something! Anything! Don't let them march right up the field over and over again. I remeber thinking...are we ever going to pressure Eli in this game? Is Eli ever going to feel the slightest bit of uncomfort and perhaps make a rushed throw or mistake? Are we going to make them punt from their side of the field, so we don't end up with the worst starting position in Super Bowl history? Are we going to stop them in this last drive - well honestly at that point I didn't give that thought, any thought - I knew we were cooked at that point. And I was right. 

     

     




    He watched it with his jets hat on. Like a good little troll should.

     

     




    Seriously, I know. What are these people watching? You want to complain about Brady's performance in that last game against the Ravens? Fine, but do go back a year in a Super Bowl in which our defense did nothing. Do blame that game on Brady - he had some of the longest scoring drives in Super Bowl history in that game - he was basically playing with one reciever and one tight end. Yet he still almost pulled it off - and if it weren't for that drop...he would of.

     

    I can't believe this stuff. I can't believe this thread. And I can't believe the author of it isn't banned for life (although it's kind of nice having him around to school him on football). 

     



    (Yawn.....)

     

    Sorry you missed SB LVI.... I recall the vaunted, lights out, Brady led, "has 'em shakin' and quiverin' in their boots", All Universe and INtergalactic offense scoring, let's see, ZERO (that's none, zippo, nada, goose egg, no measurable quotent) points after the 11:20 mark of teh 3rd Qtr. Seems to me that the offense decided to let the defense, they of the 31st overall ranking, win the game. Or, your arguement strongly suggests that. It's not, or remotely was a big secret (nay, HUGE secret) just how pourous the Pats D was coming into the game. In fact, to a fan, our reservations and apprehensions for the game were solidly placed on thje defense. Recall this board with majority postings claiming that teh defens ewasn't going to matter, as it was the Giants who HAD to keep up with Brady & Bunch, and good luck to them with that task.

    Let's wander back down Memory Lane just a few blocks, and recount teh commenst regarding Eli. You know, stuff like:" He's no Payton, He's done nothing, the prior SB win was a fluke, and the comments went on and on. But, I'm sure you got teh gist of them. Well, lookie lookie! SURPRISE! Game day happened, and it was the Pats who couldn't keep up scoring with the Giants late in the game! Imagine that! Hubris apparently set in. Think Brady, et al, finally worried about what they were reading about themselves wasn't true? The defense averaged over 25 PPG, yet gave up 19 (sorry, the safety isn't of their doing), including only 2 TD's. Brady & Co averaged well over 30 PPG, yet finished over 13 point short of their average. Yet, you blame the defense. Was it reasonable to expect the defense to dig in and NOT allow a late TD? Yes, but it sure wasn't a sure lock. It was more like a question of "When?", taher than "If".

    But, ah, the offense. Any takers on who felt that, legit, they would score at LEAST 4 TD's and 2 FG's? I want to talk to that person (sorry, Giants fans not included), as I'm sure that there is only 1 possible person out there. After all, this highy prized, vaunted, All Universe and Intergalactic offense was only facing the #28 defense. Wasn't going to be a fair fight!

    Then, reality hit.   




    Take your post to the O-line and Asante Sameul and get back to us with their answer.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: SB 46

    IF I get a time machine I will go back and tell Wes right before that play that the ball is going high and to the outside and he better catch it.

     

    Maybe I need to also go back farther and tell Assante Samual he needs to punch it off the helmet!

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: SB 46

    "Can you imagine the hell Brady was experiencing? He had to keep going out there with this collection of bumbling fools on offense all the while knowing he had to try and keep up with Flacco shredding the mickey mouse D. And people slam him for lacking competitive fire? LMAO"

    Thanks for the proof you know not what you're talking about, as well as the immature hypocrisy you slew around. This is funnier than a Hollywierd movie script for Three Stooges 2 !!

    Need we remind you that the Pats offense , those dinizens of the no huddle and quick strike fame, were #1 in the NFL in 2012? And that was WITH Gronk, Hernandez, et all, having the injuries they did, and missing games. (Clearly makes my case for the Pats having a sure fire/automatic 10 wins per season via scheduling, dznt it? After all, keep putting up numbers on teh oies of the JESTS!, Bills, Fins, et al, right?) Of course not, as you made it pointedly clear that Brady & Co were All World, Universe, and Intergalactic; UNTOUCHABLES. The Elliot Ness's of the NFL! Only THEY could stop themselves. The Ravens defense? Why, per you and others, they were " old, aging, injury prone, past their prime, and hanging on". Thew early season loss to them? A fluke! Replacement refs were morons, and that FG attempt was good, because you DEEMED it to be good. (More of what you'd want to see happen rather than what actually happened.) No way they could compete in a shoot out with Tom Terrific. The only problem and the fly in your Ointment of Hubris was that Tom Terrific brought a rock (a pumice stone, no less) to a gun fight. He was in the game with the same cast of characters he used in racking up the #1 offensive stats in 2012. The reality hit... HARD. They got SHUT FREAKIN' OUT in the 2nd half, but this same aging, injury prone, on their last legs defense. Yet, you still managed to find excuses to "blame" for the loss.

    My theory of scheduling is biourne out in this past season. They played 6 eventual playoff teams (the only teams with winning records on their schedule, BTW), and went .500 (beat the Broncos, Colts, and Texans; lost to the Ravens, Seahawks, and Niners). With the exception of the Cardinals debacle at home, they swept the bottom feeders scheduled. Interesting, eh? They can't do better than .500 against their pees, which are winning teams. You need to realize and understand that teh NFL has past Brady & Co by a few years ago. There is no fire in their bellies, there is no passion on the sidelines, there is no emotional tide generated during games. Post games, it the same "Gotta's"... Gotta get better, play harder, concentrate, execute, eliminate mistakes, etc, etc, etc, all on a pure vanilla, unemotional monotone drone. It's like a canned post game conference, one that won't offend someone or an organization. every once in a while, Brady comes out with a "we stunk", but it's delivered in a matter of fact tone, which is saying nothing more than what we had just observed in teh game itself. Tell me something we DON'T know!

    I'll suggest you pull that thumb out of your face, get rid of the Brady jammies and bankie/woobie (or whatever you call yours), and pre-teen up to what's reality. This bunch of Pats are NOT a great team. They have not and cannot seal the deal. They have become a group of finess "stars" that either forgot or never knew the old way: us against the world, just go out and win the BIG games. You wouldn't find more than a few All Pros (mostly blue collar players) from those teams, and I'd much rather have it that way. It was soooo good when Brady's favorite receiver was "whoever's open". Now, it's if he had a bad game, it's ONLY because Welker, or Gronk wasn't playing. Sad.....

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

    Re: SB 46

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

     

    "Ball was high and to the outside. It turned him to the outside." - Analyst, Scott Zolak

     

     



     

     



    ROFLMFAO!!!   STILL!!!!!

     

    Babe, this play was NOT in the end zone. Yet, you keep devining that IF he caught the ball they WOULD have scored a TD. Just admitt that teh GMen played teh entire 60 minutes BETTER than the Pats did, AGAIN. But, if this Welker "drop" issue is true, then we'll put blame on the SF loss right where it needs to be... Vern Davis. Do you recall the wide pass he dropped inside the 30 yd line? Most assuredly, THAT drive would have ended up as a TD and the ultimate game winner, lights out or not.  And, the timing of the play in regards to the game clock is inconsequential, could be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Qtr, or in the final minute of play. A drop is a drop, is a drop.....

    Just let it go...... 

     



    Well let's say he catches the thing - it's a first down around the 20? 30? I can't remember. Now let's say we get the ball at the 25 and drive down to the 5 before not getting in (could happen, I know), but what definetely would of happened at that point is we would of taken more time off the clock. The Giants ended up getting the ball back on their twelve yard line with 3:46 and one timeout. Now let's say they get the ball at the twenty yard line with 1:46 seconds and no timeouts...do they still beat us? With our defense the answer is probably, but I like our chances a little better with less time and less timeouts. And who's to say that we don't score when WE get into that redzone after Welker catches the ball (that he dropped)? 

     



    Ah, if only wishes were fishes, we'd be up to our arses in haddock. Sorry, can't devine a "possibility" of what COULD have happened. Facts is before and after that drive, only twice did they score TD's on drives. Look at official stats. You'll find "points for" and "points against", but no "Gee, if this hadn't of happened..." category. Why stop with what you'd PROBABKY think the Pats would have done, and add if the Giants defense all got leg cramps withina  3 play sequence,a nd they ended up with their punter playing DB? Or, if a lineman, two LB's, and a safety blew out their knees on the same play? You know, as long as we're playing that Could Possibly Happen Game. Who's to say that Brady was NOT going to toss an INT on an ill conceived pass into strong coverage? or a tipped ball? or a pass the bounced off a receiver? What about a good catch, a step, and then a fumble by the receiver? Where does that figure into your dream like wish?  Naw! That would NEVER happen! Impossible! Couldn't! Right? 

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

    Re: SB 46

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

     

    defense did a remarkable job keeping the pats in the game....i remember thinking to myself during that game, "how many times do the defense have to hold the giants to field goals before the offense finally wakes up and helps out the cause". well it never happened and they lost because of it.

     




    Did you watch the game at Rusty's mom's house? Because I remember watching and thinking/screaming...holy crap!! Do something! Anything! Don't let them march right up the field over and over again. I remeber thinking...are we ever going to pressure Eli in this game? Is Eli ever going to feel the slightest bit of uncomfort and perhaps make a rushed throw or mistake? Are we going to make them punt from their side of the field, so we don't end up with the worst starting position in Super Bowl history? Are we going to stop them in this last drive - well honestly at that point I didn't give that thought, any thought - I knew we were cooked at that point. And I was right. 

     

     




    He watched it with his jets hat on. Like a good little troll should.

     

     




    Seriously, I know. What are these people watching? You want to complain about Brady's performance in that last game against the Ravens? Fine, but do go back a year in a Super Bowl in which our defense did nothing. Do blame that game on Brady - he had some of the longest scoring drives in Super Bowl history in that game - he was basically playing with one reciever and one tight end. Yet he still almost pulled it off - and if it weren't for that drop...he would of.

     

    I can't believe this stuff. I can't believe this thread. And I can't believe the author of it isn't banned for life (although it's kind of nice having him around to school him on football). 

     



    (Yawn.....)

     

    Sorry you missed SB LVI.... I recall the vaunted, lights out, Brady led, "has 'em shakin' and quiverin' in their boots", All Universe and INtergalactic offense scoring, let's see, ZERO (that's none, zippo, nada, goose egg, no measurable quotent) points after the 11:20 mark of teh 3rd Qtr. Seems to me that the offense decided to let the defense, they of the 31st overall ranking, win the game. Or, your arguement strongly suggests that. It's not, or remotely was a big secret (nay, HUGE secret) just how pourous the Pats D was coming into the game. In fact, to a fan, our reservations and apprehensions for the game were solidly placed on thje defense. Recall this board with majority postings claiming that teh defens ewasn't going to matter, as it was the Giants who HAD to keep up with Brady & Bunch, and good luck to them with that task.

    Let's wander back down Memory Lane just a few blocks, and recount teh commenst regarding Eli. You know, stuff like:" He's no Payton, He's done nothing, the prior SB win was a fluke, and the comments went on and on. But, I'm sure you got teh gist of them. Well, lookie lookie! SURPRISE! Game day happened, and it was the Pats who couldn't keep up scoring with the Giants late in the game! Imagine that! Hubris apparently set in. Think Brady, et al, finally worried about what they were reading about themselves wasn't true? The defense averaged over 25 PPG, yet gave up 19 (sorry, the safety isn't of their doing), including only 2 TD's. Brady & Co averaged well over 30 PPG, yet finished over 13 point short of their average. Yet, you blame the defense. Was it reasonable to expect the defense to dig in and NOT allow a late TD? Yes, but it sure wasn't a sure lock. It was more like a question of "When?", taher than "If".

    But, ah, the offense. Any takers on who felt that, legit, they would score at LEAST 4 TD's and 2 FG's? I want to talk to that person (sorry, Giants fans not included), as I'm sure that there is only 1 possible person out there. After all, this highy prized, vaunted, All Universe and Intergalactic offense was only facing the #28 defense. Wasn't going to be a fair fight!

    Then, reality hit.   

     




    Take your post to the O-line and Asante Sameul and get back to us with their answer.

     



    Terrific response! Wouldn't expect anything else from you. Keep trying to sling unfounded manure around.

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

    Re: SB 46

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:

    IF I get a time machine I will go back and tell Wes right before that play that the ball is going high and to the outside and he better catch it.

     

    Maybe I need to also go back farther and tell Assante Samual he needs to punch it off the helmet!



    Or, hold onto the INT that hit him right in the numbers right before that play.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: SB 46

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    Just watched SB 46 highlights:

    To think this D allowed  1 TD in the first half and 2 FGs total in the 2nd half, with the offense not doing anything else after the Hernandez TD, it's stunning that some here still think what we saw yesterday in the SB was better from either D than our own.

    Wilfork just up and down the sideline "saying make em kick FGs, fellas".  Yep.

    NE had the momentum until the Brady INT, and finally the Welker drop.

    "How about a 7 minute drive and end it on out terms." - Tom Brady

    "Ball was high and to the outside. It turned him to the outside." - Analyst, Scott Zolak

     

     



    This is absolute BS Rusty, you may be right but it doesn't matter it's been too long ago for you to bring it up now. Put simply putting this up is the behaviour of a troll by definition. I can't believe you put this up over a year after the game. And Rusty what is the purpose of this thread....it's to prove you were right, this is why I think you take more joy in Brady underperforming than the Patriots winning because while everyone here wants them to win including yourself you don't get to say your piece unless they lose and Brady plays bad. See there you win it was all Brady's fault, is that what you want from the forum. Do you want Rusty ball washers?? Man you're so much a troll you don't even realise it anymore, you think you're an avid fan well i'll tell you something, avid fans don't bash the best player on the team at any oppourtunity and avid fans don't hope their team will lose so they can have fun on their forums 

     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: SB 46

    I said it before, and I'll say it again...... If the Pats are going to win another/more Super Bowls, they need to get that "edge" back. They have proved they can't win it all like they have been playing for the past 8 seasons. They may be swallowing all they "They are great!" stories week after week when crushing weak teams. But, when the rubber hits the road, they have been stumbling since the '05 SB. It's not like BB got dumb all of a sudden, in either play calling, player selection, FA signings, or coaching decisions (plays and hiring/firing of coaches).  

    Fact is in the early 2000's, they won SB's with a virtual casts of unknowns (outside of NE), castoffs, and low round draft players with high IQ's and intelligence, to go with skill. Scheming was the Way. Did he forget how to scheme? Is he failing sufficiently to miss drafting those low round players? What made those teams so good? I think it was that Egde. Us against the world, underdogs, no glitz, glimmer, or bright shiny objects. They just went out and got the job done. When they won or lost, it was mostly "ugly", where a play here or there made the difference. Just win, and we were all satisfied with the result.   

    Back then, Manning was nothing more than a stat hore: all fluff and stats, NO chamoionships. Since our last SB win, is there any correlation to the fact that he's won one and Brady none? Is there any connection to Brady emerging as a "star" passer, statistically speaking, and no SB wins? Has the NFL gotten that much better, while the Pats have stood pat, or moved into a different direction on team make up (finess vs Edge)?  What purpose is there to have a stat machine if they can't close the deal on the Big Games? Somehow 9-1 or 10-0 on a cupcake yearly schedule isn't cutting it. It should be tougher getting up for those games while looking at the "iron" of the schedule. Now, they go 10-0 or 9-1, and split the rest and they have 12-14 wins, win their division, and usually get a 1st round bye. Then bupkis.

    Would of's, should of's, and could of's don't apply. Fact is they haven't gotten it done, despite the glitz, and glitter of a high octane offense. It's not working, folks. If the offense is that great, then there is no reason why they can't win in the playoffs, by meerly outscoring their opponent, leaky defense not coming into play. Now, no excuses about the opponent's defense, as they aren't given any possibility of performing well by Pats fans, before the game(s). But, when the last SB ends with NO scoring AFTER the 11:20 mark of the 3rd Qtr, and they get shut out in the entire 2nd half in this year's AFCCG, AT FREAKIN' HOME, it's time to re-examine the offense more closely. (Or, keeping in the excuse mode, was it lack of home field vocal support? Too much ot not enOugh beer sold? The hot chocolate wasn't hot enough, or was it too hot? It HAD to be the hot dogs! If they only served a better brand. Or was it the mustard? I know! Some yahoo, somewhere in the stadium actually put KETCHUP on his hot dog! THAT'S what did it!)  

    This offense is proving to be Paper Tigers with a glass jaw. World beaters, but can't beat the big boys when it counts.

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

    Re: SB 46

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

     

    "Ball was high and to the outside. It turned him to the outside." - Analyst, Scott Zolak

     

     



     

     



    ROFLMFAO!!!   STILL!!!!!

     

    Babe, this play was NOT in the end zone. Yet, you keep devining that IF he caught the ball they WOULD have scored a TD. Just admitt that teh GMen played teh entire 60 minutes BETTER than the Pats did, AGAIN. But, if this Welker "drop" issue is true, then we'll put blame on the SF loss right where it needs to be... Vern Davis. Do you recall the wide pass he dropped inside the 30 yd line? Most assuredly, THAT drive would have ended up as a TD and the ultimate game winner, lights out or not.  And, the timing of the play in regards to the game clock is inconsequential, could be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Qtr, or in the final minute of play. A drop is a drop, is a drop.....

    Just let it go...... 

     



    Well let's say he catches the thing - it's a first down around the 20? 30? I can't remember. Now let's say we get the ball at the 25 and drive down to the 5 before not getting in (could happen, I know), but what definetely would of happened at that point is we would of taken more time off the clock. The Giants ended up getting the ball back on their twelve yard line with 3:46 and one timeout. Now let's say they get the ball at the twenty yard line with 1:46 seconds and no timeouts...do they still beat us? With our defense the answer is probably, but I like our chances a little better with less time and less timeouts. And who's to say that we don't score when WE get into that redzone after Welker catches the ball (that he dropped)? 

     

     



    Ah, if only wishes were fishes, we'd be up to our arses in haddock. Sorry, can't devine a "possibility" of what COULD have happened. Facts is before and after that drive, only twice did they score TD's on drives. Look at official stats. You'll find "points for" and "points against", but no "Gee, if this hadn't of happened..." category. Why stop with what you'd PROBABKY think the Pats would have done, and add if the Giants defense all got leg cramps withina  3 play sequence,a nd they ended up with their punter playing DB? Or, if a lineman, two LB's, and a safety blew out their knees on the same play? You know, as long as we're playing that Could Possibly Happen Game. Who's to say that Brady was NOT going to toss an INT on an ill conceived pass into strong coverage? or a tipped ball? or a pass the bounced off a receiver? What about a good catch, a step, and then a fumble by the receiver? Where does that figure into your dream like wish?  Naw! That would NEVER happen! Impossible! Couldn't! Right? 

     




    So what you are saying is IF Welker caught that ball - despite it not being in the endzone - we still lose that game? I'm just trying to clarify, because that drop (at least to me) was along the lines of Bill Buckner, in terms of effect. This wasn't some meaningless dropped 2nd and ten throw in the first quarter, this is something that people are talking about two years later...and with good reason.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: SB 46

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

     

    "Ball was high and to the outside. It turned him to the outside." - Analyst, Scott Zolak

     

     



     

     



    ROFLMFAO!!!   STILL!!!!!

     

    Babe, this play was NOT in the end zone. Yet, you keep devining that IF he caught the ball they WOULD have scored a TD. Just admitt that teh GMen played teh entire 60 minutes BETTER than the Pats did, AGAIN. But, if this Welker "drop" issue is true, then we'll put blame on the SF loss right where it needs to be... Vern Davis. Do you recall the wide pass he dropped inside the 30 yd line? Most assuredly, THAT drive would have ended up as a TD and the ultimate game winner, lights out or not.  And, the timing of the play in regards to the game clock is inconsequential, could be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Qtr, or in the final minute of play. A drop is a drop, is a drop.....

    Just let it go...... 

     



    Well let's say he catches the thing - it's a first down around the 20? 30? I can't remember. Now let's say we get the ball at the 25 and drive down to the 5 before not getting in (could happen, I know), but what definetely would of happened at that point is we would of taken more time off the clock. The Giants ended up getting the ball back on their twelve yard line with 3:46 and one timeout. Now let's say they get the ball at the twenty yard line with 1:46 seconds and no timeouts...do they still beat us? With our defense the answer is probably, but I like our chances a little better with less time and less timeouts. And who's to say that we don't score when WE get into that redzone after Welker catches the ball (that he dropped)? 

     

     



    Ah, if only wishes were fishes, we'd be up to our arses in haddock. Sorry, can't devine a "possibility" of what COULD have happened. Facts is before and after that drive, only twice did they score TD's on drives. Look at official stats. You'll find "points for" and "points against", but no "Gee, if this hadn't of happened..." category. Why stop with what you'd PROBABKY think the Pats would have done, and add if the Giants defense all got leg cramps withina  3 play sequence,a nd they ended up with their punter playing DB? Or, if a lineman, two LB's, and a safety blew out their knees on the same play? You know, as long as we're playing that Could Possibly Happen Game. Who's to say that Brady was NOT going to toss an INT on an ill conceived pass into strong coverage? or a tipped ball? or a pass the bounced off a receiver? What about a good catch, a step, and then a fumble by the receiver? Where does that figure into your dream like wish?  Naw! That would NEVER happen! Impossible! Couldn't! Right? 

     

     




    So what you are saying is IF Welker caught that ball - despite it not being in the endzone - we still lose that game? I'm just trying to clarify, because that drop (at least to me) was along the lines of Bill Buckner, in terms of effect. This wasn't some meaningless dropped 2nd and ten throw in the first quarter, this is something that people are talking about two years later...and with good reason.

     



    Not saying the play wasn't pivotal, but there is no possible way to assure that a TD would have been scored. There are 60 minutes in a game, and you've got to make every play count, especially in a SB. They way they were playing, a turnover was possible, or another FG, or a turn over on downs. The offense up to that point was not on automatic mode. And, yes, as the game turned out, if that play happened in the 1st Qtr, it would have been just as brutally mentioned and blamed for a 3 point loss, because it eliminated the POSSIBILTY of scoring points of any kind.

    Interesting to note that, after that play, Brady tossed one into Branch's ankles when he had at least 10 open yards in front of him. Yet, no discussion on that play. Or his severely underthrown ball to Gronk that was an INT. Seems to me if you run the play for your TE, AND he draws a LB in coverage, AND he's got him beat by 5 steps, you put the ball where only 1 player can possibly made the catch, not making him come back to defend the pass thrown to him. Before getting all huffy, you DON'T call that play with a TE on a bad wheel unless you think the play will work, so save the injury excuse. Gronk flat out had the LB beat like a cheap rug. Severely underthrowing the ball isn't a good thing. Yet, crickets on both throws....

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

    Re: SB 46

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    Offseason changes:

    1. Let Welker go.

    2. Sign Hartline or a quality (3.5-4 mil per), veteran good route running perimeter receiver to go with Lloyd.

    3. Resign Edelman.

    4. Seek out a legit pass catching/blocking FB in FA or in the draft. Be aggressive with this move with the idea you let Woodhead walk and the FB/RB player is the new Woodhead and Woodhead money.

    Ballard and Demps will be in camp to compete at TE and RB, but this team needs more I Formations and Brady back more under center.

    Dust off the Weis plays and start running more of those than you have been.

    Thank you.

    Starting lineup:

    Lloyd      Hernandez/Edelman                     Gronk/Ballard      Hartline

     

                                          Bolden/Ridley (Bolden promoted, RIdley more as a change of pace like Faulk was)

    Use Vereen as a scatback and in 2:00 minute or hurry ups only.

    When Hernandez or Edelman come off the field, use your FB in I Formations.

     

     

     



    Well, a couple of problems with this. First off if you do let Welker walk you had better replace him with something. Hartline has had one good season an has had some injuries - besides, why go for the same thing? I know he's bigger and maybe faster, but is he going to be anything than mediocre outside and good in the slot...plus he won't be cheap.

    Second, this whole resign Edelman and expect him to do something is a huge leap in faith. They has proven nothing as a reciever except that he WILL...absolutely will get hurt. It's only a matter of when, not if. I've seen him play live three times - he got hurt and couldn't finish the game twice. He also faught the ball on anything over ten yards.

    Third, you're going to have Bolden be the starter and have Ridley come in as a change of pace? Well that means that you don't really think Ridley is suited to be a starter (and you may be right), but what the hell has Bolden showed? He hardly played and got busted for performance enhancing drugs, when he came back they still didn't use him.

    Four, if they let Woodhead walk (and it has to happen to justify the second round selection of Vareen), we will be placing a lot of hope and reps into a player that has one good game in his two year career. I understand that he may be more talented - I think he is - but let's not forget that this kid loves the ice/hot tub/trainer's room/injury list.

    And why the heck are we going to sig a legit pass blocking/pass catching fullback in free agency? Who would that be exactly? Most of them are gone - the position has moved on to a h-back roll. We just spent 45 million on one (hernandez), why doesn't he play it? Christ, we have Gronk and Ballard coming in, can't Hernandez play that spot if needed? He already has. 

    Demps may ease the blow of the possibility of Woodhead leaving and Vareen getting hurt, sure. And I'm sure there will be somebody brought in too...so I can see this happening...although Demps may be a shot in the dark...boom/bust type.

    So I can agree with letting Welker go - if the money is spent on defense. I can't put any faith in Edelman. And I'd rather them get a real threat for outside and perhaps develop a slot guy - I've got to think a slot guy could be drafted in the middle rounds. We already have Gronk and Hernandez available to play the center of the field if needed provided they can actually stay on the field. Really if they both can stay healthy, the offense will go anyway..it will move chains and put up points, but that's a big if.

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

    Re: SB 46

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to danemcmenamin's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    Just watched SB 46 highlights:

    To think this D allowed  1 TD in the first half and 2 FGs total in the 2nd half, with the offense not doing anything else after the Hernandez TD, it's stunning that some here still think what we saw yesterday in the SB was better from either D than our own.

    Wilfork just up and down the sideline "saying make em kick FGs, fellas".  Yep.

    NE had the momentum until the Brady INT, and finally the Welker drop.

    "How about a 7 minute drive and end it on out terms." - Tom Brady

    "Ball was high and to the outside. It turned him to the outside." - Analyst, Scott Zolak

     

     

     



    This is absolute BS Rusty, you may be right but it doesn't matter it's been too long ago for you to bring it up now. Put simply putting this up is the behaviour of a troll by definition. I can't believe you put this up over a year after the game. And Rusty what is the purpose of this thread....it's to prove you were right, this is why I think you take more joy in Brady underperforming than the Patriots winning because while everyone here wants them to win including yourself you don't get to say your piece unless they lose and Brady plays bad. See there you win it was all Brady's fault, is that what you want from the forum. Do you want Rusty ball washers?? Man you're so much a troll you don't even realise it anymore, you think you're an avid fan well i'll tell you something, avid fans don't bash the best player on the team at any oppourtunity and avid fans don't hope their team will lose so they can have fun on their forums 

     

     




    I'm a realist. I knew why we wouldn't win a SB as soon as Week 3 in Buffalo last year. And yes, I was right. I am still right.

     

    Me admitting what needs to happen is nothing more than me seeing something you can't see for yourself or don't want to admit.

    Is it possible that you're a little immature, a little too googly eyed over Brady, and don't want to admit that he's actually a huge part of the problem these last 2-3 years in the postseason?

    How many more AFC title games do you need to see?  1? 2?

    Only Brady can make Tom Brady play better in the postseason.

     



    Rusty...I opened the post with you may be right as in my admittance to you being right, I don't want to lose another as I said last week i wouldn't care if Brady was told what to do on every play of every series for the rest of career as long as we win. It doesn't change the fact that you're trolling this board coming out with nonsense like this a full calender year later and taking the exact same pleasure in bringing up. Look Rusty if you're an intelligent man ( I don't know you however you constantly commend yourself on your intelligence i've noticed)  then you would have realised long ago that your attempts to change everyones opinions to yours is futile and yet you've continued to do it for 3-4 years. That's called being a troll Rusty, do some reading as you would say and you'd realise what you really are on this forum

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

    Re: SB 46

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

     

    "Ball was high and to the outside. It turned him to the outside." - Analyst, Scott Zolak

     

     



     

     



    ROFLMFAO!!!   STILL!!!!!

     

    Babe, this play was NOT in the end zone. Yet, you keep devining that IF he caught the ball they WOULD have scored a TD. Just admitt that teh GMen played teh entire 60 minutes BETTER than the Pats did, AGAIN. But, if this Welker "drop" issue is true, then we'll put blame on the SF loss right where it needs to be... Vern Davis. Do you recall the wide pass he dropped inside the 30 yd line? Most assuredly, THAT drive would have ended up as a TD and the ultimate game winner, lights out or not.  And, the timing of the play in regards to the game clock is inconsequential, could be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Qtr, or in the final minute of play. A drop is a drop, is a drop.....

    Just let it go...... 

     



    Well let's say he catches the thing - it's a first down around the 20? 30? I can't remember. Now let's say we get the ball at the 25 and drive down to the 5 before not getting in (could happen, I know), but what definetely would of happened at that point is we would of taken more time off the clock. The Giants ended up getting the ball back on their twelve yard line with 3:46 and one timeout. Now let's say they get the ball at the twenty yard line with 1:46 seconds and no timeouts...do they still beat us? With our defense the answer is probably, but I like our chances a little better with less time and less timeouts. And who's to say that we don't score when WE get into that redzone after Welker catches the ball (that he dropped)? 

     

     



    Ah, if only wishes were fishes, we'd be up to our arses in haddock. Sorry, can't devine a "possibility" of what COULD have happened. Facts is before and after that drive, only twice did they score TD's on drives. Look at official stats. You'll find "points for" and "points against", but no "Gee, if this hadn't of happened..." category. Why stop with what you'd PROBABKY think the Pats would have done, and add if the Giants defense all got leg cramps withina  3 play sequence,a nd they ended up with their punter playing DB? Or, if a lineman, two LB's, and a safety blew out their knees on the same play? You know, as long as we're playing that Could Possibly Happen Game. Who's to say that Brady was NOT going to toss an INT on an ill conceived pass into strong coverage? or a tipped ball? or a pass the bounced off a receiver? What about a good catch, a step, and then a fumble by the receiver? Where does that figure into your dream like wish?  Naw! That would NEVER happen! Impossible! Couldn't! Right? 

     

     




    So what you are saying is IF Welker caught that ball - despite it not being in the endzone - we still lose that game? I'm just trying to clarify, because that drop (at least to me) was along the lines of Bill Buckner, in terms of effect. This wasn't some meaningless dropped 2nd and ten throw in the first quarter, this is something that people are talking about two years later...and with good reason.

     

     



    Not saying the play wasn't pivotal, but there is no possible way to assure that a TD would have been scored. There are 60 minutes in a game, and you've got to make every play count, especially in a SB. They way they were playing, a turnover was possible, or another FG, or a turn over on downs. The offense up to that point was not on automatic mode. And, yes, as the game turned out, if that play happened in the 1st Qtr, it would have been just as brutally mentioned and blamed for a 3 point loss, because it eliminated the POSSIBILTY of scoring points of any kind.

     

    Interesting to note that, after that play, Brady tossed one into Branch's ankles when he had at least 10 open yards in front of him. Yet, no discussion on that play. Or his severely underthrown ball to Gronk that was an INT. Seems to me if you run the play for your TE, AND he draws a LB in coverage, AND he's got him beat by 5 steps, you put the ball where only 1 player can possibly made the catch, not making him come back to defend the pass thrown to him. Before getting all huffy, you DON'T call that play with a TE on a bad wheel unless you think the play will work, so save the injury excuse. Gronk flat out had the LB beat like a cheap rug. Severely underthrowing the ball isn't a good thing. Yet, crickets on both throws....




    Well not crickets, in fact both have been discussed. The throw to Gronk was a broken play - hard to believe they thought it was going to work or drew it up that way. Brady avoided an inside rush - he spun left and then curled back around to the right, where he would be flushed out of the pocket in that direction and upfield a bit. The large debate was weather he should of just continued running, and maybe he should of - I can't see him getting more than a few yards, but hey at least it wouldn't of been picked. Truth is he should of been sacked and lost 7 yards on the play, instead he was spinning around like a top and at the last second probably saw Gronk break free and ended up not getting his feet set well enough to heave the throw over the defender's head. Essentially it had the effect of a punt, but we wasted precious minutes and an oppurtunity to score some sort of points.

    The pass to Branch should of been caught, if it's the one I'm thinking of. Don't get me wrong, the throw could of been better, but it hit him in the hands. Don't recievers have to make those catches? I just watched Flacco's recievers make catches with defenders draped all over them. I watched them catch balls that were under thrown, over thrown and thrown a million miles an hour from three feet away...yet they still caught them...all of them.

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

    Re: SB 46

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    Offseason changes:

    1. Let Welker go.

    2. Sign Hartline or a quality (3.5-4 mil per), veteran good route running perimeter receiver to go with Lloyd.

    3. Resign Edelman.

    4. Seek out a legit pass catching/blocking FB in FA or in the draft. Be aggressive with this move with the idea you let Woodhead walk and the FB/RB player is the new Woodhead and Woodhead money.

    Ballard and Demps will be in camp to compete at TE and RB, but this team needs more I Formations and Brady back more under center.

    Dust off the Weis plays and start running more of those than you have been.

    Thank you.

    Starting lineup:

    Lloyd      Hernandez/Edelman                     Gronk/Ballard      Hartline

     

                                          Bolden/Ridley (Bolden promoted, RIdley more as a change of pace like Faulk was)

    Use Vereen as a scatback and in 2:00 minute or hurry ups only.

    When Hernandez or Edelman come off the field, use your FB in I Formations.

     

     

     

     



    Well, a couple of problems with this. First off if you do let Welker walk you had better replace him with something. Hartline has had one good season an has had some injuries - besides, why go for the same thing? I know he's bigger and maybe faster, but is he going to be anything than mediocre outside and good in the slot...plus he won't be cheap.

     

    Second, this whole resign Edelman and expect him to do something is a huge leap in faith. They has proven nothing as a reciever except that he WILL...absolutely will get hurt. It's only a matter of when, not if. I've seen him play live three times - he got hurt and couldn't finish the game twice. He also faught the ball on anything over ten yards.

    Third, you're going to have Bolden be the starter and have Ridley come in as a change of pace? Well that means that you don't really think Ridley is suited to be a starter (and you may be right), but what the hell has Bolden showed? He hardly played and got busted for performance enhancing drugs, when he came back they still didn't use him.

    Four, if they let Woodhead walk (and it has to happen to justify the second round selection of Vareen), we will be placing a lot of hope and reps into a player that has one good game in his two year career. I understand that he may be more talented - I think he is - but let's not forget that this kid loves the ice/hot tub/trainer's room/injury list.

    And why the heck are we going to sig a legit pass blocking/pass catching fullback in free agency? Who would that be exactly? Most of them are gone - the position has moved on to a h-back roll. We just spent 45 million on one (hernandez), why doesn't he play it? Christ, we have Gronk and Ballard coming in, can't Hernandez play that spot if needed? He already has. 

    Demps may ease the blow of the possibility of Woodhead leaving and Vareen getting hurt, sure. And I'm sure there will be somebody brought in too...so I can see this happening...although Demps may be a shot in the dark...boom/bust type.

    So I can agree with letting Welker go - if the money is spent on defense. I can't put any faith in Edelman. And I'd rather them get a real threat for outside and perhaps develop a slot guy - I've got to think a slot guy could be drafted in the middle rounds. We already have Gronk and Hernandez available to play the center of the field if needed provided they can actually stay on the field. Really if they both can stay healthy, the offense will go anyway..it will move chains and put up points, but that's a big if.




    the guy didnt even mention one defensive upgrade. Delusion..

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

    Re: SB 46

    As well as that point Rusty if you thought that they were done in week 3 why ever did you write "The Time Has Come" following week 17(lying to emphasise your point, very trollish if you ask me), if you don't remember yourself here's your post:

    The Time Has Come

    posted at 12/30/2012 8:13 PM EST

    • RockScully
    • Posts: 3467
    • First: 12/4/2012
    • Last: 2/5/2013

    I am not sure if the Washers will ever step forward at a time like this, but this was a Week 17 2004 feel for me.

    Brady was under center, they ran their plays, everyone was involved. the D while not at its full roster, made plays and looked GREAT up front in particular, so it was a throwback feel.

    So refreshing to see them more methodical with the offense. RIdley, 20 carries, but with a not so great YPC, the clock was managed, field was controlled, no turnovers. Yep.  It's "old time" Patriot football.

    It appears they may draw Houston and I like it.  They still won't match up well. I just hope Nink's hip is only a hip pointer and can be ok by the AFC Title game, which will could possibly be in New England if Baltimore holds at home and then goes out to Denver and surprises.   We'll see.

    If not, I welcome a run into Denver to expose their middle of the field with Gronk, a nice Run D and a really nice ascneding D.

    How nice was it to see Francis, Deaderick (Great game), a healthier Love and Scott play like that?

    NE gets Dennard and Talib back and the back ups all look like they know what they're doing. Thanks, BB.

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

    Re: SB 46

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

     

    "Ball was high and to the outside. It turned him to the outside." - Analyst, Scott Zolak

     

     



     

     



    ROFLMFAO!!!   STILL!!!!!

     

    Babe, this play was NOT in the end zone. Yet, you keep devining that IF he caught the ball they WOULD have scored a TD. Just admitt that teh GMen played teh entire 60 minutes BETTER than the Pats did, AGAIN. But, if this Welker "drop" issue is true, then we'll put blame on the SF loss right where it needs to be... Vern Davis. Do you recall the wide pass he dropped inside the 30 yd line? Most assuredly, THAT drive would have ended up as a TD and the ultimate game winner, lights out or not.  And, the timing of the play in regards to the game clock is inconsequential, could be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Qtr, or in the final minute of play. A drop is a drop, is a drop.....

    Just let it go...... 

     



    Well let's say he catches the thing - it's a first down around the 20? 30? I can't remember. Now let's say we get the ball at the 25 and drive down to the 5 before not getting in (could happen, I know), but what definetely would of happened at that point is we would of taken more time off the clock. The Giants ended up getting the ball back on their twelve yard line with 3:46 and one timeout. Now let's say they get the ball at the twenty yard line with 1:46 seconds and no timeouts...do they still beat us? With our defense the answer is probably, but I like our chances a little better with less time and less timeouts. And who's to say that we don't score when WE get into that redzone after Welker catches the ball (that he dropped)? 

     

     



    Ah, if only wishes were fishes, we'd be up to our arses in haddock. Sorry, can't devine a "possibility" of what COULD have happened. Facts is before and after that drive, only twice did they score TD's on drives. Look at official stats. You'll find "points for" and "points against", but no "Gee, if this hadn't of happened..." category. Why stop with what you'd PROBABKY think the Pats would have done, and add if the Giants defense all got leg cramps withina  3 play sequence,a nd they ended up with their punter playing DB? Or, if a lineman, two LB's, and a safety blew out their knees on the same play? You know, as long as we're playing that Could Possibly Happen Game. Who's to say that Brady was NOT going to toss an INT on an ill conceived pass into strong coverage? or a tipped ball? or a pass the bounced off a receiver? What about a good catch, a step, and then a fumble by the receiver? Where does that figure into your dream like wish?  Naw! That would NEVER happen! Impossible! Couldn't! Right? 

     

     




    So what you are saying is IF Welker caught that ball - despite it not being in the endzone - we still lose that game? I'm just trying to clarify, because that drop (at least to me) was along the lines of Bill Buckner, in terms of effect. This wasn't some meaningless dropped 2nd and ten throw in the first quarter, this is something that people are talking about two years later...and with good reason.

     

     



    Not saying the play wasn't pivotal, but there is no possible way to assure that a TD would have been scored. There are 60 minutes in a game, and you've got to make every play count, especially in a SB. They way they were playing, a turnover was possible, or another FG, or a turn over on downs. The offense up to that point was not on automatic mode. And, yes, as the game turned out, if that play happened in the 1st Qtr, it would have been just as brutally mentioned and blamed for a 3 point loss, because it eliminated the POSSIBILTY of scoring points of any kind.

     

    Interesting to note that, after that play, Brady tossed one into Branch's ankles when he had at least 10 open yards in front of him. Yet, no discussion on that play. Or his severely underthrown ball to Gronk that was an INT. Seems to me if you run the play for your TE, AND he draws a LB in coverage, AND he's got him beat by 5 steps, you put the ball where only 1 player can possibly made the catch, not making him come back to defend the pass thrown to him. Before getting all huffy, you DON'T call that play with a TE on a bad wheel unless you think the play will work, so save the injury excuse. Gronk flat out had the LB beat like a cheap rug. Severely underthrowing the ball isn't a good thing. Yet, crickets on both throws....

     




    Well not crickets, in fact both have been discussed. The throw to Gronk was a broken play - hard to believe they thought it was going to work or drew it up that way. Brady avoided an inside rush - he spun left and then curled back around to the right, where he would be flushed out of the pocket in that direction and upfield a bit. The large debate was weather he should of just continued running, and maybe he should of - I can't see him getting more than a few yards, but hey at least it wouldn't of been picked. Truth is he should of been sacked and lost 7 yards on the play, instead he was spinning around like a top and at the last second probably saw Gronk break free and ended up not getting his feet set well enough to heave the throw over the defender's head. Essentially it had the effect of a punt, but we wasted precious minutes and an oppurtunity to score some sort of points.

     

    The pass to Branch should of been caught, if it's the one I'm thinking of. Don't get me wrong, the throw could of been better, but it hit him in the hands. Don't recievers have to make those catches? I just watched Flacco's recievers make catches with defenders draped all over them. I watched them catch balls that were under thrown, over thrown and thrown a million miles an hour from three feet away...yet they still caught them...all of them.



    First off, there is ABSOLUTELY no way that play to Gronk was a broken play. Your TE with a bad wheel is NOT the guy to run down field with a LB on a broken play. If you think that, then you have no grasp on the game. Receivers run to an open spot, or come back to help their QB under duress. Yet, here's Gronk running down the middle of the field, with a LB in single coverage. He was on his way downfield while Brady was doing a Houdini, as there is absolutely no way Gronk, on a short route, was going to get 50+ yards downfield as Brady avoided a rush, on a bad wheel. That's what your WR's are for. Sorry, the Giants put a big rush on Brady and he had to escape it before that throw. It was a play that worked, except for the rush and poor throw. Caught the Giants completely by surprise. 

    Loved the "throw could have been better" excuse. Brach was a yard off the line, entirely by himself, on the strong side of the field, perfect WR screen set up, and the throw "could" have been better? My! How magnaminous of you! Button up that shirt before the old ticker falls out! Would you say that same thing ("could have been better") if the ball was on the 10 yd line? Don't answer that, I think you would. And I'd take all the Ravens WR's over the Pats WR's. They are bigger, faster, more physical, and, as you point out, have better hands. Now, careful! Gronk is a TE. I'd still take Gronk. So, don't try and put the Pats WR corps in the same category as the Ravens' WR's. You're not making any point for the Pats WR's when yiou make this comparrison.  

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: SB 46

    Those have always been my thoughts exactly.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share