Sums Up The Defense

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:


    I'm so glad I wasn't the one wasting time explaining to prolate that coaches are important in developing young talent. Obviously a concept he refuses to embrace despite wozzy's efforts.


    I love how prolate uses his age old fall back reply of sensationalism.  "We've been told players don't matter, only coaches right".  Typical response for pro, and a weary tactic often used in debate by the losing side.

    [object HTMLDivElement]





    Dude, you never do anything but make little sarcastic statements.  And you never explain anything.  Just whine. Sure, show me where I said coaches don't make a difference.  What I said is coaching isn't a problem on this team.  


    It's you and Wozzy who whine endlessly about how bad the Patriots coaching is.  I mean really, not only are you complaining about Belichick's failure to use the running and passing games the way you think he should (if he were as smart as you), now you are saying he's unable to keep up with the changes to the passing game on defense and that he chose "outdated" (yeah, you said that) players. 


    Geez man.  Just stop trying to stick to your stupid premise that Belichick can't coach.  Admit Aquib Talib is better than Sterling Moore.  Talent makes a difference.


     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:


    I'm so glad I wasn't the one wasting time explaining to prolate that coaches are important in developing young talent. Obviously a concept he refuses to embrace despite wozzy's efforts.


    I love how prolate uses his age old fall back reply of sensationalism.  "We've been told players don't matter, only coaches right".  Typical response for pro, and a weary tactic often used in debate by the losing side.



    What's funny and very ironic is that in his last response to me he insists that the offense and special teams in no way have an effect on the defense...


    Yet if you ask him why the Patriot offense hardly scored points in the last Super Bowl, he'll be among the first to blame the defense.


    It's too funny, I don't even know what his point is anymore other than being argumentative?


    But I do love the notion that if we draft the right player we'll be instant Super Bowl winners, we just can't draft right.  What this really goes back to is the ridiculous idea we should have All Pro caliber players sitting at the very end of our bench or the GM is not doing his job correctly, typical spoiled fan syndrome.


    So which is it Pro, either the contrasting phases of the game don't effect each other, or the offense is wholly responsible for sucking, you can't have it both ways?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    Back in the day, when a game changing play was needed, they made it. Whether it was Tedy, Willie, Ty, Rodney or whoever, they stepped up to the challenge. What has been lacking in the biggest games lately is the best players making plays. Or was it the play calling?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    Back in the day when the offense needed a crucial third down, the offense made the play whether it was Kevin Faulk, Troy Brown, Daniel Graham or Patrick Pass.


    If not then explain to me how the offense could drive the length of the field and score a winning field goal in not one but two Super Bowls.


    Yes, it was play calling.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    Back in the day when the offense needed a crucial third down, the offense made the play whether it was Kevin Faulk, Troy Brown, Daniel Graham or Patrick Pass.

     

    If not then explain to me how the offense could drive the length of the field and score a winning field goal in not one but two Super Bowls.

     

    Yes, it was play calling.



    lol.....and a little bit of Lady Luck :)

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

     

    What's funny and very ironic is that in his last response to me he insists that the offense and special teams in no way have an effect on the defense...

     

    Yet if you ask him why the Patriot offense hardly scored points in the last Super Bowl, he'll be among the first to blame the defense.

    I know you and Champ have trouble with nuanced concepts, but I'll try again.  I said one unit's play doesn't influence another unit's play.  If the offense runs the ball more, like you claim it should, it won't make the defense play any better.  If one unit fails to execute, however, they may put other units in bad situational positions.  So if the offense turns the ball over and that results in the defense having to defend a drive that starts at its own 10 yard line, that puts the defense in a tough spot situationally. It doesn't mean the defense will play good or bad, however.  It just means they are in a bad situation. Similarly, if the defense allows the other team to control the ball for long stretches, it reduces the number of times the offense will get the ball. It doesn't mean the offense will play good or bad, it just means they will have fewer chances to try to score.  Now this may impact play calling.  A defense that gives up points, may require the offense to pass more to try to keep up.  And if the offense isn't good at passing it may take them away from their desired game plan and put them in tough spots.  But again, it's more that other units' play can force your unit into situations that may or may not be advantageous.  What you do in those situations, however, is up to your unit.  One unit's poor play doesn't make your unit play bad. 

    It's too funny, I don't even know what his point is anymore other than being argumentative?

    Well all along my point has been that the coaching on this team is great and that any problems the team has had are generally attributable to the talent not being as deep or well-rounded as it needs to be.  The coaching, though, is the best in the league--maybe the best in the history of the league. Where the Pats have lost, it's usually because they didn't have the talent to match up, sometimes because of injury, sometimes because the team just lacked quality in certain positions through a season. The losses, in my opinion, are fully explained by talent, injury, and/or execution (which goes back to talent).  I don't agree with you and Champ that the offense has been poorly coached.  And I don't believe Champ's new theory that Belichick can't keep up with the evolution of the game.   

    But I do love the notion that if we draft the right player we'll be instant Super Bowl winners, we just can't draft right.  What this really goes back to is the ridiculous idea we should have All Pro caliber players sitting at the very end of our bench or the GM is not doing his job correctly, typical spoiled fan syndrome.

    That's not what anybody is claiming, though, is it?  All I'm saying is a secondary that starts Ihedigbo, Chung, Arrington, and McCourty, with Moore and Molden as primary rotational players just isn't as good as one that is starting Harrison, Wilson, Poole and Law, with Samuel coming off the bench.   Is it that hard to see that?

    So which is it Pro, either the contrasting phases of the game don't effect each other, or the offense is wholly responsible for sucking, you can't have it both ways?




    [object HTMLDivElement]

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:

    In response to digger0862's comment:

    Back in the day, when a game changing play was needed, they made it. Whether it was Tedy, Willie, Ty, Rodney or whoever, they stepped up to the challenge. What has been lacking in the biggest games lately is the best players making plays. Or was it the play calling?



    The game has changed...You can bank on this fact: If the Pats had the Seattle D and they were wearing the Flying Elvis on the helmet, Goodell would see to it to instruct the refs to call penalties for PI, holding, etc on those players.   Maybe some Unnecessary Roughness on the QB for good measure.

    It's appalling watching other teams' Ds no be flagged for obvious penalties, while ours has to walk on eggshells.

    We've seen this repeatedly against our D for years and years. Remember the roughing on Hightower on Schaub in the playoffs 2 years ago when he simply sacked him? What about the beautiful Mayo strip/tackle on FOster called a dead play? I could go on for days and days on how many times our D has been held to this irrational level of rule following, while other Ds are allowed to run amuck and play the old school way with Goodell nowhere to be seen hovering to alter the game.

    All those players you named above would be flagged for 5 penalties per game EACH if they played today.  Yep.

    I've seen enough. It's a major concern. Not only does Brady have to improve, we have to hope Goodell is in a coma in the postseason (or regular season - see Jets and Carolina games last year), for this team to get anything fair during the course of a game.

    Gee, I wonder if they'll ever call an opposing team's OL for holding vs our def front? LMAO

    People whine about Nink and Jones not getting postseason sacks...Go watch the tape. It's because they're held so egregiously so on most passing downs.

     




    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

     

    So to summarize, Champ and Wozzy think the players don't matter, but the coaching sucks.  Rusty thinks the only thing that matters is Brady, and he thinks Brady sucks.

     

    I think Brady is great.  I think the coaching is great.  I think the players are mostly very good.  However, I don't think the teams of the past few years have had quite enough horses to get them over the hump.  Just as one example, in the Broncos game I saw a defense that couldn't get pressure on Manning and couldn't disrupt his timing.  I saw mediocre pass coverage.  On offense, I saw a running game that was stuffed in large part because Denver was able to focus on the running game and use single coverage effectively against our receivers.  I guess I'm supposed to believe that this was all the fault of the coaches, miscalling the defensive and offensive plays.  What I thought I saw, though, was an offense missing it's best weapon (Gronkowski) and a defense missing guys like Mayo and Wilfork and Talib.  To me that's a talent issue.  Mind you, there's no blaming Bill Belichick's team-building here.  Most of the talent issues were caused by injury.  But the issue was still talent.  It wasn't play calling. 

     

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


     


    So to summarize, Champ and Wozzy think the players don't matter, but the coaching sucks.  Rusty thinks the only thing that matters is Brady, and he thinks Brady sucks.


     


    I think Brady is great.  I think the coaching is great.  I think the players are mostly very good.  However, I don't think the teams of the past few years have had quite enough horses to get them over the hump.  Just as one example, in the Broncos game I saw a defense that couldn't get pressure on Manning and couldn't disrupt his timing.  I saw mediocre pass coverage.  On offense, I saw a running game that was stuffed in large part because Denver was able to focus on the running game and use single coverage effectively against our receivers.  I guess I'm supposed to believe that this was all the fault of the coaches, miscalling the defensive and offensive plays.  What I thought I saw, though, was an offense missing it's best weapon (Gronkowski) and a defense missing guys like Mayo and Wilfork and Talib.  To me that's a talent issue.  Mind you, there's no blaming Bill Belichick's team-building here.  Most of the talent issues were caused by injury.  But the issue was still talent.  It wasn't play calling. 


     




    Way to really tell it like it isn't, after all the dancing you've done above you should be exhausted.  


    Play calling is a talent, creating mismatches is a talent.  


    We acknowledge the defense was entirely average and lacked "talent" whereas you would have us think the offense was great and only didn't score points because it was the defenses fault.  


    The defense did it's job, it gave us a chance to win, the offense blew it by not scoring.  You couldn't have asked an average collection of defensive talent to do anymore, the onus was on the amazing offense to win the game and they couldn't.


    A maxim gets thrown around all too often that defense wins championships and while it's true, there have been offenses that won Super Bowls that were the most dominant side of the ball in the past, Mark Rypien's Redskins come to mind.


    i call them like I see them, I don't judge an offense based on what they did in the past or the regular season.


    You can't explain how the 49ers went from worst to first with entirely the same collection of talent, that's why this conversation is over.   Coaching matters, play calling is most definitely a talent, The proof is three rings, all three of which were won with situational, high stress offensive execution, something that has obviously missing of late.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    2008-2013:   Not enough "Jimmys and Joes".

    2014:  Return to Excellence (fingers crossed)

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    So to summarize, Champ and Wozzy think the players don't matter, but the coaching sucks.  Rusty thinks the only thing that matters is Brady, and he thinks Brady sucks.

     

    I think Brady is great.  I think the coaching is great.  I think the players are mostly very good.  However, I don't think the teams of the past few years have had quite enough horses to get them over the hump.  Just as one example, in the Broncos game I saw a defense that couldn't get pressure on Manning and couldn't disrupt his timing.  I saw mediocre pass coverage.  On offense, I saw a running game that was stuffed in large part because Denver was able to focus on the running game and use single coverage effectively against our receivers.  I guess I'm supposed to believe that this was all the fault of the coaches, miscalling the defensive and offensive plays.  What I thought I saw, though, was an offense missing it's best weapon (Gronkowski) and a defense missing guys like Mayo and Wilfork and Talib.  To me that's a talent issue.  Mind you, there's no blaming Bill Belichick's team-building here.  Most of the talent issues were caused by injury.  But the issue was still talent.  It wasn't play calling. 

     




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Like I said. Sensationalism, and exaggeration. A typical tactic used when losing your footing in a discussion.  Now Wozzy and I are saying "the players don't matter and the coaching sucks". Yeah buddy that's really what were saying. 

    Why can't you acknowledge that losing almost an entire coaching staff can have a negative impact? There is a learning curve with new coaches. It doesn't mean the new coaches "suck" it means they are new!  It can hinder player development,  unless you think BB is the only guy coaching?  You should just drop it. It's a little embarrassing at this point.

     
  • This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    Yet if you ask him why the Patriot offense hardly scored points in the last Super Bowl, he'll be among the first to blame the defense.


     


    This is why you blame the Defense.  It's really very simple if you think about it.


    During the course of the season{s} the Pats needed  approx 70 drives and 30 minutes on the field, with an average of 12 possessions, to score an average of 34 points.


    That equates to approx. 1/2 point per drive and approx 24 seconds on average to execute those plays needed to score 34 points.


    So, here's what happens when you are on the field for 1/3rd less minutes, because the D cannot get off the field.


    Provided you maintain  the 24 seconds per drive, you just lost 23 plays and 12 points, because the D ate that time..  You now have 47 instead of 70 in the same 60 minute game.  Remember:  you need 70 drives and 30 minutes to maintain a 34 point average.


    This is not debatable as it's been what they needed to score those points, on average. PERIOD!


    The ONLY way to begin to counter the loss of 23 drives is to shorten the time it takes to execute those drives.


    The only way to shorten the average time to execute plays is to reduce the the time it takes to run those plays or you must succumb to the reduction by eliminating some of the dink and dunk and rushing plays.


    Remember:  The amount of plays is reduced so to compensate, you have to work within those limits.


    IE, instead of 2 run plays for a total of 9 yards and a pass of 11 yards (3 plays and 72 seconds off the clock), you opt for a 20 yard pass. (one play and 24 seconds taken off the clock)  Your TIME and Plays are Reduced.


    Why would you go for the 20 yrd pass INSTEAD of the 3 plays to advance the same 20 yards?  (like when you actually have 30 minutes)? 


    Because there are only so many plays you can execute in your 10 minute half.  Why would you take 3 plays to go 20 yards when you can do it in one?  You HAVE to advance the ball quickly and as efficiently as possible.


    As in big chunks!


    Now weigh the advantage.  Sure there's a possibility that 20 yard pass would fail but there's also a very good chance one or more of the 3 plays you just wasted to go the same 20 yards, would also.  You wasted time and further decreased the amount of plays you can run in 10 minutes.


    This is why the run game disappears in the second half.  The coaches didn't forget.  It has nothing to do with padding stats.  It's because they have been forced to move the ball quickly and efficiently and in big chunks.


    And the real clinker is, while your time and plays and consequently, balance is reduced, the other offense has MORE Time and MORE plays and the ability to be MORE balanced than they normally would if the pathetic D could just get off the field in 30 minutes a game.  LIKE NORMAL D'S DO!!!



    "The worse New England has gotten on defense, the better Brady has been forced to become -- with 109 touchdowns, 20 interceptions and a 39-9 record the past three seasons. "


    CLARK JUDGE______7/13/13_____________________________________
                                  

                             

     
  • This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    So to summarize, Champ and Wozzy think the players don't matter, but the coaching sucks.  Rusty thinks the only thing that matters is Brady, and he thinks Brady sucks.

     

    I think Brady is great.  I think the coaching is great.  I think the players are mostly very good.  However, I don't think the teams of the past few years have had quite enough horses to get them over the hump.  Just as one example, in the Broncos game I saw a defense that couldn't get pressure on Manning and couldn't disrupt his timing.  I saw mediocre pass coverage.  On offense, I saw a running game that was stuffed in large part because Denver was able to focus on the running game and use single coverage effectively against our receivers.  I guess I'm supposed to believe that this was all the fault of the coaches, miscalling the defensive and offensive plays.  What I thought I saw, though, was an offense missing it's best weapon (Gronkowski) and a defense missing guys like Mayo and Wilfork and Talib.  To me that's a talent issue.  Mind you, there's no blaming Bill Belichick's team-building here.  Most of the talent issues were caused by injury.  But the issue was still talent.  It wasn't play calling. 

     




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Like I said. Sensationalism, and exaggeration. A typical tactic used when losing your footing in a discussion.  Now Wozzy and I are saying "the players don't matter and the coaching sucks". Yeah buddy that's really what were saying. 

    Why can't you acknowledge that losing almost an entire coaching staff can have a negative impact? There is a learning curve with new coaches. It doesn't mean the new coaches "suck" it means they are new!  It can hinder player development,  unless you think BB is the only guy coaching?  You should just drop it. It's a little embarrassing at this point.



    They don't get that team continuity is vital in the greatest team sport on the planet. It's why I can tell which teams who swap out coaches or players in large numbers, will feel it in the upcoming season.

    The fans here that drool over teams signing a ton of FAs all at once, simply don't get it. They just want to follow the dumb media and run into to update their Madden video game rosters, while sitting here mocking BB.  You want to use FA to infuse the roster with quality additions at weak spots or bolster a spot that needs some additional improvement.

    Same deal with the coaching staff situation or key coaches who leave.  Obviously, losing Scarnecchia could be a big thing here this season. We shall see.

    Denver is all in there this year and I am not sure they are better built than NE is. THe Ward, Ware and Talib moves completely overshadow the idea that's a lot of new bodies on defense all at once who will be counted on as being the base of a D that is supposed to be better than ours, which clearly is not the the case on paper.

     

     




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    By continuity do you mean the 80+ different receivers Brady has thrown balls to over his 11 years of playing (mostly garbage in, garbage out) or the revolving doors in the backfield and on the line since 2005?

     
  • This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:

    If Brady does not throw high, throw the INT on first down in the 4th or take that Safety, NE's D allows 13 points, the best in a SB since the 2000 Ravens D allowing only 7.

    BB  is praised for working wonders with a thin and injured D, and the rest is history.

    PLain and simple fact.  All 3 tragic displays and lack of focus by Brady are examples as to why they lost. If just ONE of those did not occur, all VERY STRANGE plays to see happen from Brady, the Pats are SB champs.

    You can never change what happened.   No one would be caring about how many 3 and outs a Defense had. No one cares. No one looks at  box score after a team wins a SB.  I never have after NE won their 3 SBs. Ever.

    I only recently have when studying this little Elephant in the Room problem we've seen from Brady and this offense under McDaniels/O'Brien since Brady's postseasons started to falter in 2005.

    The proof remains in the pudding and if our D holds to 14 points or less this year in the title game this year, with Brady playing poorly yet again, you and your buddies will go running away from here with your little tails between your legs again, only to show up in March whining about which FAs BB signed or didn't sign to make you sleep better at night on your ESPN, Inc. embroidered pillows.

    lmao




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    19 points.  And the D used to win 19 point play-off games.  What Happened?

    And if the D just got one 3 and out where most D's get at least 3.   Or one turn over where they averaged 2.6 a game or one stop before the 50, which normally happens more often than not, where the gints had to punt, instead of scoring or didn't commit a ridiculous penalty to negate there only would-be turn over............  Or allowed the O more than 8 chances to score............

    Or didn't give up the lead with 38 or 57 seconds left in the game..................FOR ONCE!

    We would have won!!!

     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

     

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    So to summarize, Champ and Wozzy think the players don't matter, but the coaching sucks.  Rusty thinks the only thing that matters is Brady, and he thinks Brady sucks.

     

     

     

    I think Brady is great.  I think the coaching is great.  I think the players are mostly very good.  However, I don't think the teams of the past few years have had quite enough horses to get them over the hump.  Just as one example, in the Broncos game I saw a defense that couldn't get pressure on Manning and couldn't disrupt his timing.  I saw mediocre pass coverage.  On offense, I saw a running game that was stuffed in large part because Denver was able to focus on the running game and use single coverage effectively against our receivers.  I guess I'm supposed to believe that this was all the fault of the coaches, miscalling the defensive and offensive plays.  What I thought I saw, though, was an offense missing it's best weapon (Gronkowski) and a defense missing guys like Mayo and Wilfork and Talib.  To me that's a talent issue.  Mind you, there's no blaming Bill Belichick's team-building here.  Most of the talent issues were caused by injury.  But the issue was still talent.  It wasn't play calling. 

     

     

     

     




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

    Like I said. Sensationalism, and exaggeration. A typical tactic used when losing your footing in a discussion.  Now Wozzy and I are saying "the players don't matter and the coaching sucks". Yeah buddy that's really what were saying. 

     

    Why can't you acknowledge that losing almost an entire coaching staff can have a negative impact? There is a learning curve with new coaches. It doesn't mean the new coaches "suck" it means they are new!  It can hinder player development,  unless you think BB is the only guy coaching?  You should just drop it. It's a little embarrassing at this point.

     



    They don't get that team continuity is vital in the greatest team sport on the planet. It's why I can tell which teams who swap out coaches or players in large numbers, will feel it in the upcoming season.

     

    The fans here that drool over teams signing a ton of FAs all at once, simply don't get it. They just want to follow the dumb media and run into to update their Madden video game rosters, while sitting here mocking BB.  You want to use FA to infuse the roster with quality additions at weak spots or bolster a spot that needs some additional improvement.

     

    Same deal with the coaching staff situation or key coaches who leave.  Obviously, losing Scarnecchia could be a big thing here this season. We shall see.

     

    Denver is all in there this year and I am not sure they are better built than NE is. THe Ward, Ware and Talib moves completely overshadow the idea that's a lot of new bodies on defense all at once who will be counted on as being the base of a D that is supposed to be better than ours, which clearly is not the the case on paper.

     

     

     

     

     




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    By continuity do you mean the 80+ different receivers Brady has thrown balls to over his 11 years of playing (mostly garbage in, garbage out) or the revolving doors in the backfield and on the line since 2005?

     



    He had a lot of WRs in the SB years, too.  Branch and GIvens were rookies in 2002 and an unknown going into 2003. It's not like Fred Coleman, Dedric Ward or even David Patten were gamechanging Pro Bowl WRs.

     

    They were not considered "garbage" back then, were they? Or, are you a newer fan? LOL

     

    Dobson and Thompkins both played better than Branch and Givens combined as rookies in 2002.  

     

    The only real argument for garbage was in 2006 or 2009. Every other year, Brady has either had good or great receiving options, some of them Hall of Famers or Hall of Fame caliber options to throw to.

     

    I'll take your weak retort above as a sign you've been bludgeoned by facts, knowing you have nowhere to go. 

     

    LMAO

     

     




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Well, no.  You've been bludgeoned by facts.  He played with mostly the same group during the SB years.

    Brown, Givins Faulk, Pass Patten and a year later Branch, were the core.   Most of the receivers including backs and TE's, since those years were garbage and replaced regularly as broken parts usually are.

    Who has been the core since 2007?  Moss and Welker and Welker and what ever TE was healthy and now Edelman 3 rookies and what ever tight end was healthy or what ever RB didn't fumble that day.  AWESOME!

    Hence, the huge turn-over.  More than any other team.

    Even Peyton, who played 2 more years and even changed teams resulting in a whole new set of receivers, doesn't come close.  Sad, really.

    Most of the D has been garbage since then. GARBAGE!.  Hence the huge turn-over and their bottom feeder D.

    Thank God for TB!!!!!!!  Long live TB!!!!!!!!

     

     
  • This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    So to summarize, Champ and Wozzy think the players don't matter, but the coaching sucks.  Rusty thinks the only thing that matters is Brady, and he thinks Brady sucks.

     

    I think Brady is great.  I think the coaching is great.  I think the players are mostly very good.  However, I don't think the teams of the past few years have had quite enough horses to get them over the hump.  Just as one example, in the Broncos game I saw a defense that couldn't get pressure on Manning and couldn't disrupt his timing.  I saw mediocre pass coverage.  On offense, I saw a running game that was stuffed in large part because Denver was able to focus on the running game and use single coverage effectively against our receivers.  I guess I'm supposed to believe that this was all the fault of the coaches, miscalling the defensive and offensive plays.  What I thought I saw, though, was an offense missing it's best weapon (Gronkowski) and a defense missing guys like Mayo and Wilfork and Talib.  To me that's a talent issue.  Mind you, there's no blaming Bill Belichick's team-building here.  Most of the talent issues were caused by injury.  But the issue was still talent.  It wasn't play calling. 

     




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Like I said. Sensationalism, and exaggeration. A typical tactic used when losing your footing in a discussion.  Now Wozzy and I are saying "the players don't matter and the coaching sucks". Yeah buddy that's really what were saying. 

    Why can't you acknowledge that losing almost an entire coaching staff can have a negative impact? There is a learning curve with new coaches. It doesn't mean the new coaches "suck" it means they are new!  It can hinder player development,  unless you think BB is the only guy coaching?  You should just drop it. It's a little embarrassing at this point.




    They lost Weis and Crennel ten years ago.  Sure in 2005 and 2006, maybe had an impact.  In 2011, it's no excuse. McDaniels has been on the staff since 2002, with a three year hiatus from 2009-2011 (though he was back for the playoffs in 2011).  He's not new.  If you think he sucks, fine.  But he has one heck of a learning curve if that's the problem. 

     

     

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share