Super Bowl XXXVIII

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

    Super Bowl XXXVIII

    Against the Panthers... first four offensive drives result in a missed FG and 3 punts. Passing more than running, missed throws, blown-up plays, etc. Just overall awful offensive play.

    How did we manage to stay in the game and win?

    All one must do is look at the other side of the ball. We had an incredible defense. We really need to address that this offseason. We need another DL or two (especially if we go back to a 3-4). We need an additional LB, preferably fast and athletic... someone who can cover (this is lower priority). We desperately need CB depth. Dennard looks very promising, and Arrington is serviceable in the slot (if he returns). Re-signing Talib would reduce this need, but regardless, we need quality CB depth. I love McCourty at FS... I think he can develop into one of the better FS in the NFL, but we need a SS to go next to him. 

    We certainly have talent in place, but we need to plug some holes and add some depth to take the next step.

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

    Re: Super Bowl XXXVIII

    And anyone who thinks that the offense was better built back then to win is kidding themselves. We're exponentially more talented now; better OL, equal or better HB, better TE, Brady is better now than he was then. I'd argue that our WR aren't as explosive and talented now as then, but that's the only position in which I see dropoff from then to now. 

    It has nothing to do with some perceived lack of toughness, or a lack of running. It simply comes down to the fact that the offense the past few seasons hasn't executed in the clutch (dropped passes, poor pass-protection, etc), while the offense back then executed better.

    An exponentially better defense (like the one they had 10 years ago) helps a lot too. 

    This defense was better built back then to win not because of anything special... they were simply more talented. They were better at covering, better at rushing the passer and they had a physical edge to them. No magic potion... just talent. We need to address the needs I mentioned in my OP to build this defense into a top-notch unit.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Super Bowl XXXVIII

    Another thing of note... as related to the defense -- Seymour required a double-team, which freed up guys like Vrabel and McGinist to win on the outside in 1-on-1 matchups. 

    Big-Vince requires a double-team, but no one else (with the exception of Jones when he was healthy) demands that kind of attention. Here's hoping that Armstead can live up to his pontential and have a Seymour type of impact on the defense, where he commands multiple blockers and allows Jones, Ninkovich and co. to get after the QB with less resistance. Or, if you don't double Armstead he himself can attack the QB. 

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

    Re: Super Bowl XXXVIII

    Brady was much faster back then. Not much of a surprise, but the dude actually had an impressive burst and managed to pick up 8-10 yards on a 3rd & 6. It totally caught me off guard as I'm re-watching the game. 

    Maybe he should do some speed-training this offseason. Couldn't hurt, so long as he is still able to get in his more important workouts that pertain to throwing the ball. 

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

    Re: Super Bowl XXXVIII

    In response to dreighver's comment:

    Brady was much faster back then. Not much of a surprise, but the dude actually had an impressive burst and managed to pick up 8-10 yards on a 3rd & 6. It totally caught me off guard as I'm re-watching the game. 

    Maybe he should do some speed-training this offseason. Couldn't hurt, so long as he is still able to get in his more important workouts that pertain to throwing the ball. 



    he probably lost his burst after that chump Pollard wrecked TB's knee

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: Super Bowl XXXVIII

    In response to dreighver's comment:

     

    Against the Panthers... first four offensive drives result in a missed FG and 3 punts. Passing more than running, missed throws, blown-up plays, etc. Just overall awful offensive play.

    How did we manage to stay in the game and win?

    All one must do is look at the other side of the ball. We had an incredible defense. We really need to address that this offseason. We need another DL or two (especially if we go back to a 3-4). We need an additional LB, preferably fast and athletic... someone who can cover (this is lower priority). We desperately need CB depth. Dennard looks very promising, and Arrington is serviceable in the slot (if he returns). Re-signing Talib would reduce this need, but regardless, we need quality CB depth. I love McCourty at FS... I think he can develop into one of the better FS in the NFL, but we need a SS to go next to him. 

    We certainly have talent in place, but we need to plug some holes and add some depth to take the next step.

     




    that kind of play is EXACTLY why they havent won a super bowl since 2004.

     

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

    Re: Super Bowl XXXVIII

    Was that the same defense that gave up three 4th quarter TDs to Jake Delhomme? Yes Jake Delhomme, whose game bore a strong resemblance to the current QB of the NYJ. I agree with you re the need for secondary depth, but let's not romanticize ye olde defense too much.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: Super Bowl XXXVIII

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    Was that the same defense that gave up three 4th quarter TDs to Jake Delhomme? Yes Jake Delhomme, whose game bore a strong resemblance to the current QB of the NYJ. I agree with you re the need for secondary depth, but let's not romanticize ye olde defense too much.




    exactly, people act as if our defense back then was like the 85 bears....its ridiculous. we had a similar defense as we do now, bend but dont break/opportunistic defense. they relied on turnovers similar to how they do now......flacco and the ravens didnt turn the ball over once....the pats turned it over three times...theres your ballgame.

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

    Re: Super Bowl XXXVIII

    The defense also dominated the first half in that game.  It also gave up less than 20 points a game that season.  It was way better than recent defenses and anybody with half a grain of football knowledge knows that. 

    But then, we've got a few fans who also think Brady is a bad QB . . . 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: Super Bowl XXXVIII

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    The defense also dominated the first half in that game.  It also gave up less than 20 points a game that season.  It was way better than recent defenses and anybody with half a grain of football knowledge knows that. 

    But then, we've got a few fans who also think Brady is a bad QB . . . 



    noone is saying brady is a bad qb, doesnt surprise me that you are trying to spin in that way though.....he has underperformed in big playoff games since 2007, its as simple as that. still a great regular season qb, but if he wants that elusive 4th ring, he needs to play better in the playoffs.

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

    Re: Super Bowl XXXVIII

    Brady could have played better in some of the playoff games, but blaming everything on Brady is absurd.  He's performed well enough in most of the playoff games.  The rest of the team needs to step up too.  Please, no excuses for a defense that allows Eli to have a 75% completion percentage or an O line that misses blocks or receivers who can't get open or drop balls.  All of those things were important to the loss as well. 

     

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

    Re: Super Bowl XXXVIII

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    The defense also dominated the first half in that game.  It also gave up less than 20 points a game that season.  It was way better than recent defenses and anybody with half a grain of football knowledge knows that. 

    But then, we've got a few fans who also think Brady is a bad QB . . . 

     



    The defense domnated the Ravens in the first half too. Big deal, no trophies are awarded for first half domination that I'm aware of.  

    We've been over this before, but the defense in those days had the same affliction this one does, i.e., second half (mostly 4th quarter) collapses in big games.  They fell apart big time in that SB game and were saved by the offense. Same story against the Rams in '01, and but for sheer incompetence on the part of the QB and head coach of the Eagles, they may well have lost that one.

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

    Re: Super Bowl XXXVIII

    I don't know.  I sat in the stadium all through 2003 and 2004 and watched the defense close up.  It could control the pace of a game like no defense we've seen in Foxboro since.  Sure, it sometimes gave up third down plays (that was always its weakness) and sometimes had bad games, but it was nothing like the recent defenses when it comes to regularly giving up big passing plays.  The statistics bear that out.  The 2003 and 2004 defenses both averaged signficantly fewer than 20 points per game given up.  Recent defenses are averaging well above that amount.  The yards-per-game story isn't much different. 

    The defense did play well in the Ravens game -- when Talib was in.  Once Talib came out, though, the defense really fell apart.  I don't think, however, their performance in the first half comes close to the first-half performances of the 2001 and 2003 defenses in those Super Bowls.  In 2001, the defense pretty much shut down the greatest show on turf . . . and even scored a TD itself.  In 2003, the D just humiliated the Panthers until the last drive of the first half.  After that, it did struggle with a few big pass plays (and was hurt by Brady's interception). In 2004, the defense only gave up three TDs, which was enough to protect the offense in a lower scoring game against a team that had to win with offense.  I just don't see last year's defense as anything close to those early 2000s defenses.  

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Super Bowl XXXVIII

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Brady could have played better in some of the playoff games, but blaming everything on Brady is absurd.  He's performed well enough in most of the playoff games.  The rest of the team needs to step up too.  Please, no excuses for a defense that allows Eli to have a 75% completion percentage or an O line that misses blocks or receivers who can't get open or drop balls.  All of those things were important to the loss as well. 

     

    Stop this finesse GARBAGE on offense for the love of god.

    I really don't see an offense that was particularly more 'power' oriented back then, especially compared to this year. We use the shotgun more now, sure. But that doesn't mean we're any softer.

    Again, I don't see a big, physically imposing offense that existed back then. I was actually rather surprised at a lot of the recurring formations and concepts that I saw that have carried over to now.

    More shotgun doesn't equate to a softer offense.

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

    Re: Super Bowl XXXVIII

    Just saw Bruschi screaming out signals prior to a play, seemed to be audibling, and then proceeded to fly up the middle, hit  McNabb (onto SB XXXIX now) and sack him.

    Mayo has much more physical talent than Bruschi. I do wonder though, does he have the brains and/or guts to make a play like that, where he sees something at the L.O.S., and makes a big play?

    I think the answer is yes, but he needs to show it. 

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Super Bowl XXXVIII

    SB XXXIX:

    First two offensive series stalled and resulted in punts.

    First two defensive series resulted in 3-and-outs. 

     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Super Bowl XXXVIII

    OMG! They just went 5-wide, shotgun for the second time! How did they possibly win this game?!

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share