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.
