These are the facts

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

    Re: These are the facts

    i hope the defense and offense both play well in the postseason and they win the super bowl, so there will be no blame game.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to themightypatriots' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wozzy - points per drive - relevant or not relevant?

    [/QUOTE]


    Points for, points against, turnovers are really the only relevant stats, in that order of importance in football outside of wins.

    All other stats help tell the story, but saying the Pats didn't have the ball enough times in the last Super Bowl is complete horsesht. They had it four times in the 4th and did nothing with it except turn it over for the 2nd time that day.

    They still judge NFL games with points, as soon as they start giving victories for yards or time of possession let me know.

    [/QUOTE]


    4 times in the 4th, you sure about that?

    Try 2 times with one of them being 57seconds to end the game!!

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to Jets' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Spygate is meaningless to you? So you condone cheating in sports?You must if you are a pats fan?

    [/QUOTE]

    I am a Patriots fan. I think that "cheating" of this sort is a lot more prevalent than most fans realize or want to admit. More importantly, they did the crime the served the time, when Brady and Belichick are both in the Hall of Fame only a handful of Jets fans will remember that Spygate ever happened (or more importantly - care about it).

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

    Re: These are the facts

    he jets were found doing the same thing as the patriots: only different because the jets suck, so nobody cared.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 42AND46's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "I like this gem here the most.  You come out of nowhere at the same time rusty disappears with this F*ck Brady Shitstorm when ONLY the O.P. stated he was best all time, Not I and then proceed to blame BB while also blaming Brady for not developing guys!??!?!  Drink much old goozer!?    I will be the first to admit that Brady has done poorly developing new WRs but they havent brought in Squat but TEs who he made a lot of money. So is BB overated too for wasting the Brady years??  You are on a roll dont stop now. Tell us how you really feel. You surely must hate the Krafts too....lol  what a double crossing troll!"

     

    I see that Y chromosome is shining thru for you. Too bad you can't identify lousy QB play when yoiu see it without resorting to excusing said poor play from Brady by blaming others. Fact is, and yiu can readily check it out (at least I think and HOPE you can), he's not played like a HOF'er in his last two SB. Gee! Any coincidence with him playing Baby Daddy and gettinf involved with super models?  Just wondering. But, you go check it out. I'll even toss you another bone to chew on: the Pats haven't won a SB since the BB-Crennel-Weis breakup. Was it BB or his coordinators? Hmmmm..... Just like the Cowboys coordinators breaking up (Turner and Wanstadt). In that case, NO ONE ever won anything again.

     Again, as you failed to grasp the point, the Giants LIVED on their pass rush all season and in teh playoffs. The Pats couldn't handle it. Now, who's to blame on that? Think BB has anything to do with NOT game planning for that? Here's an absolutely FREE (no strings attached) history lesson: in SB 4 (Chiefs vs Vikings), Hank Stram game planned the Viking D (The Purple people Eaters, world beaters, etc) out of the ball game. No one who know defense will ever confuse that defense and the 2011 Giants defense. So, was it the players, INCLUDING Brady, or the game plan they had to follow? Think that maybe the coached had anything to do with it? After all, it was their game plan AND players they acquired.

    It's not Brady's job to "develop" WR's. He's got to click with them. But, taking your point for what it is, who gets the WR's in for Brady to "develop"? Doesn't matter who they bring in, as they game plan for the players they have on roster. Again, I don't see "GM" after Brady's name, so let's look at BB and his drafting.

    Are you seeing a trend here?  1) No SB wins since The breakup  2) No superior SB performace since 2005 for Brady since he got involved with his super models  3) No Bady "develpoment" of a WR since Moss left, because no good WR was drafted, traded for, or brought in as a FA  4) a failure to game plan for the Giants ultra top secret defense and pass rush that had never before been seen.

    Never said BB has wasted the Brady years. Brady's done enough of that all on his own when it mattered. Brady can only play with the players BB brings in. It's still good enough to average 11-13 wins a regular season, but that's not good enough when the goal needs to be SB wins, unless you live in Jacksonville, KC, Cleveland, Detroit, or Arizona, where having a .500 season is a monumental achievement.

    Moron, I love the Krafts. They saved the franchise from the morose created by the Sullivans (go get a history book on the NFL), and Kiam. He made them relevent and a team to be proud to follow. He brought respectability to the franchise, and made them the model of the NFL and other professional leagues. Bring in the right fcolks and then get the heck out of the way, letting them do their jobs. Please note the recent successes of the Cowboys, Redskins, Bills, and Raiders. Nuff said.

    So, consider yourself educated. Sit back and enjoy the chocolatey Ovaltine and Oreos. remember, lights go out at 9 PM.

    [/QUOTE]

    agree with all except the dum bass crap bout supermodels and his family-thats simpleton nonsense logic...that has absolutely nothing to do with brady's performance on the field-u can do those things and not go hollywood and ur using it is just silly

    also back off a bit on the tone-u sound like a punka**

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe you missed the "just wondering" I included. But, BTW, it IS very coincidental that his post season "shine" has dimmed since the 2005 SB win vs Philthydelphia. I never said it was a direct contributor to this demise. Again, "just sayin'".

    As for my "tone"..... let's just say when dealing with a juvenile delinquent who throws the "F" bomb around on a board, that I have little or no patience for sophmoric behavior. Sorry you sensitivities feel compelled to let me know, but not the delinquent. Interesting. Oh, just sayin'....

    [/QUOTE]


    Dude!

    Your tone over the years has been nothing but negative.  I have never heard you praise the Pats, in any capaticy, despite the dominance they have achieved throught the past decade +.

    If you are a Pats fan, you are one of those delusionals that think the Pats should win it all every year and nothing else matters.  That's just plain irrational.  All teams have faults, all teams lose and NO team ever plays to it's ability, game after game and year after year.

    Perhaps it's time to swith allegiance.  AZ would be a good place to start.  At least, then, all your criticism would be warranted.

    [/QUOTE]

    (YAWN!)

    Sorry, no bonus points due to lack of creativity.

    Perhaps you should read my posts a little closer and you'll understand that I will praise them for what they do as a Super Bowl contender. I will not try to excuse away games and efforts against teams that shouldn't be on the same field with them (Cardinals, anyone?). I cannot and will not try and find praise for gakking up 4th Qtr double digit leads, stealing defeat from teh jaws of vistory (Ravens, Seahawks, anyone?). Looking for "moral victories" in those games is what fans in Cleveland, KC, Oakland, and Jacksonville do. I said it for a long time: there is absolutely nothing about this team that strikes fear into any opponent, on either sixde of the ball. And yet, even when it's widely known what another team's strengths are, the Pats never quite seem to be able to overcome them. Then, we're all back here the next day..... some excusing, some blaming. Bottom line is they eren't good enough.

    Dominence in the last decade? Let's see.... We can count on the next year's schedule to contain at least 10 easy wins: 6 in division (unless you're going to try and tell us how any one of the AFC East will win a game), two more vs last place teams (one each from teh AFC and NFC conferences they will play), plus 2 vs 3rd place teams (from the same AFC and NFC conferences). For you mathmatically challenged hommies, that's 10 wins out of 16 games. Seeing that they are averaging 12 wins/season, that gives them a 2-4 record vs teams in first or second place. Do I REALLY need to tell you that this is NOT a very good record? (They win the games thet SHOULD, but find a way to lose the games against tougher opponents.) Not pure science, but go check it out. Their last SB win was 7 seasons ago. No "dynasty" has gone that long between wins. During that time we've seen them get bounced from the playoffs by teams that they should have beaten, including twice by the freaking JESTS!.  Nothing to brag about there, unless, of course, if you live in Detroit, St Louis, or San Diego.

    I do not delude myself in thinking that they WILL win it all every season. It's not a rational thought, even for you pink hatters. Reality says it can't and won't happen in ANY sport. Yet, they produce these 12-14 regular season win totals, and your homers trip all over yourself gushing about how "great" they are. When us guys who know a little about the game and aren't taken in by bells, whistles, and bright/shiny objects point out flaws, like me and Tex Pat, all you pink hatters get the G Strings in a knot and tell us to "move somewhere else". (More demerits to you for a more aggregious lack of originality.)

    Very sad to see you swallow the bait by claiming "NO team ever plays to it's ability" ..... Do you realize how sad this statement really is? It clearly states the biggest problem with society today: "That's OK, everyone does it (lose). You're OK. Here's your participation ribbon. No need to play up to your ability, because we all know how good and great you really are." Did I mention the Blame and Excuse The Loss Away Games? Do you go to work every day with this lack of working to your ability? What about every day life? Sad........

    Ah, but here's the rub..... we see the flaws and imperfections, and point them out. You pink hatters see numbers and stats and can't focus on what's real. Then, when it doesn't go your way, it's someone or something else's fault (the Colts rolled over to let the JESTS! into the playoffs), or the refs (Excuse The Loss Game), or "he should have caught that badly overthrown ball that was also behind him" (Blame Game). Funny how those flaws you mention never seem to appear whn they lose, eh? It's magic! They only appear when the Pats actually win a game! L:ike their "young and learning" defense. Thjey finally look to gel while playing teams from Our Sisters Of The Lame and Blind, yet get taken to the woodshed by the Niners, playing oike the JESTS! did on Thanksgiving Night. Yet, all we got was excuses for the loss. They had their behinds handed to them... badly. Sad you and your ilk can't recognize it.

    "Perhaps it's time to swith allegiance." ROFLMFAO!!!! TOTAL lack of any creativity, proving that you can't take or accept any criticism. May I suggest that you stick to your obsession of Anything Patriots, and stay away from exchanging such bold "ideas" with pragmatic posters? Your psyche and ego will thank you for it.

    [/QUOTE]


    Flaws and imperfections? Sorry that there are human beings on the Patriots. If only Brady and Belichik were as knowledgable as you all would be well and they would never lose. You should probably root for one of the perfect teams like the Colts which won 1 superbowl in the past 12 years. Or the Giants who missed the playoffs this year. Or the Packers who also lost to the Giants last year. Perhaps the Steelers who also missed the playoffs or the Ravens who somehow lost to the imperfect Pats in the AFC championship game last year. You really should root for someone else because the Pats are clearly incapable of being good enough for a serious and intelligent football fan like yourself.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to themightypatriots' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wozzy - points per drive - relevant or not relevant?

    [/QUOTE]


    Points for, points against, turnovers are really the only relevant stats, in that order of importance in football outside of wins.

    All other stats help tell the story, but saying the Pats didn't have the ball enough times in the last Super Bowl is complete horsesht. They had it four times in the 4th and did nothing with it except turn it over for the 2nd time that day.

    They still judge NFL games with points, as soon as they start giving victories for yards or time of possession let me know.

    [/QUOTE]


    4 times in the 4th, you sure about that?

    Try 2 times with one of them being 57seconds to end the game!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Technically the had the ball 3 times in the 4th quarter. The interception was the second play of the 4th quarter. The Giants ended up punting from the Patriots 43 yard-line at the 9:24 mark. The Patriots punted back to the Giants from the Giants 44 yard-line at the 3:46 remaining (that was after the the incomplete pass to Welker). Giants scored a TD with :57 left on the clock. The Patriots have the ball until the clock runs out.

    I count three possessions for the Patriots and two for the Giants in the fourth quarter.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Jets' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So when you are losing an argument you fall back on calling people names?very mature I must say

     If "If's" and "But's" were candy and nuts it would be Christmas every day. IF that ball was thrown correctly the pats win the SB. BUT it wasn't and the pats lost...learn to live with the facts!

     What abouit the interception and the throw to Branch. Do you have selective memory?Even pats fans don't 100% agree with you. I don't think anybody does.

    Shall we discuss the dark blemish of the pats organization now, called Spygate, or do you want to put your rose colored spin on it first?

    [/QUOTE]


    He  dropped  the  ball. Go find me some sources that deride the pass as uncatchable and we can talk. Until then, you are being a rube.

    Yeah, fire away on spygate. I'm always up for making a phoney look like a fool.

    [/QUOTE]

    I still do not get the obsessing on the Welker catch. Even if he holds on to the ball the Patriots need two more first downs after that or a TD to finish of the Giants. Even if the kick a FG they are only up by 6 and a Giants TD still wins the game...

    Let us also not forget that 80 yards, 57 seconds and a timeout remaining is not an unheard of situation to score a TD in the NFL (especially if you are in the running for "greatest QB of all time"). After the Bradshaw TD, Brady went 2 of 7 for 30 yards plus a sack. 

    Spygate to me is meaningless, who cares. They got caught they paid the fine and gave up the draft pick and moved on...

    [/QUOTE]

    What happened to you? You used to be one of the smart posters. Of the seven passes (2-7) in the final drive two were dropped , one was a hail mary and another one Brady spiked  to kill the clock.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to themightypatriots' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wozzy - points per drive - relevant or not relevant?

    [/QUOTE]


    Points for, points against, turnovers are really the only relevant stats, in that order of importance in football outside of wins.

    All other stats help tell the story, but saying the Pats didn't have the ball enough times in the last Super Bowl is complete horsesht. They had it four times in the 4th and did nothing with it except turn it over for the 2nd time that day.

    They still judge NFL games with points, as soon as they start giving victories for yards or time of possession let me know.

    [/QUOTE]


    4 times in the 4th, you sure about that?

    Try 2 times with one of them being 57seconds to end the game!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Technically the had the ball 3 times in the 4th quarter. The interception was the second play of the 4th quarter. The Giants ended up punting from the Patriots 43 yard-line at the 9:24 mark. The Patriots punted back to the Giants from the Giants 44 yard-line at the 3:46 remaining (that was after the the incomplete pass to Welker). Giants scored a TD with :57 left on the clock. The Patriots have the ball until the clock runs out.

    I count three possessions for the Patriots and two for the Giants in the fourth quarter.

    [/QUOTE]


    Really?  not sure you can count 2 plays when the possession actually started in the 3rd qtr as a 4th qtr possission  Either way, it wasn't 4 possessions.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jjmsphd43. Show jjmsphd43's posts

    Re: These are the facts

    Are Patriots fans really still stuck on the Welker drop?

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Jets' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So when you are losing an argument you fall back on calling people names?very mature I must say

     If "If's" and "But's" were candy and nuts it would be Christmas every day. IF that ball was thrown correctly the pats win the SB. BUT it wasn't and the pats lost...learn to live with the facts!

     What abouit the interception and the throw to Branch. Do you have selective memory?Even pats fans don't 100% agree with you. I don't think anybody does.

    Shall we discuss the dark blemish of the pats organization now, called Spygate, or do you want to put your rose colored spin on it first?

    [/QUOTE]


    He  dropped  the  ball. Go find me some sources that deride the pass as uncatchable and we can talk. Until then, you are being a rube.

    Yeah, fire away on spygate. I'm always up for making a phoney look like a fool.

    [/QUOTE]

    I still do not get the obsessing on the Welker catch. Even if he holds on to the ball the Patriots need two more first downs after that or a TD to finish of the Giants. Even if the kick a FG they are only up by 6 and a Giants TD still wins the game...

    Let us also not forget that 80 yards, 57 seconds and a timeout remaining is not an unheard of situation to score a TD in the NFL (especially if you are in the running for "greatest QB of all time"). After the Bradshaw TD, Brady went 2 of 7 for 30 yards plus a sack. 

    Spygate to me is meaningless, who cares. They got caught they paid the fine and gave up the draft pick and moved on...

    [/QUOTE]

    What happened to you? You used to be one of the smart posters. Of the seven passes (2-7) in the final drive two were dropped , one was a hail mary and another one Brady spiked  to kill the clock.

    [/QUOTE]

    My point is that the offense got the ball back with an opportunity to win the game. Wasn't that why the "let" Bradshaw score the TD.

    One of the things I hate from sports fans is the "if this one play was different the whole game would changed" argument. Even if Welker catches that ball. There are still four minutes on the clock, the Patriots are only up three points and the Giants have a time out left. The Patriots would have need at least two more first downs to run out the clock and a TD to put the game out of reach. 

    If Welker catches the ball, maybe three plays later the Patriots are kicking a FG just before the two minute warning, and the Giants still go down and score a TD to win. Maybe Welker catches the ball and Woodhead fumbles on the next play. No one knows what the outcome of the game would have been if he holds on to the game.

    There are very few plays that you can absolutely say changed the outcome of a game. Sterling Moore knocking the ball out of Lee Evans is one such play. The hail mary that ended  the Super Bowl is another.  Anything else is pure speculation about what might have happened next...

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to jjmsphd43's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Are Patriots fans really still stuck on the Welker drop?

    [/QUOTE]

    Some are... Just like Jets fans still come on here posting about Spygate.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Jets' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So when you are losing an argument you fall back on calling people names?very mature I must say

     If "If's" and "But's" were candy and nuts it would be Christmas every day. IF that ball was thrown correctly the pats win the SB. BUT it wasn't and the pats lost...learn to live with the facts!

     What abouit the interception and the throw to Branch. Do you have selective memory?Even pats fans don't 100% agree with you. I don't think anybody does.

    Shall we discuss the dark blemish of the pats organization now, called Spygate, or do you want to put your rose colored spin on it first?

    [/QUOTE]


    He  dropped  the  ball. Go find me some sources that deride the pass as uncatchable and we can talk. Until then, you are being a rube.

    Yeah, fire away on spygate. I'm always up for making a phoney look like a fool.

    [/QUOTE]

    I still do not get the obsessing on the Welker catch. Even if he holds on to the ball the Patriots need two more first downs after that or a TD to finish of the Giants. Even if the kick a FG they are only up by 6 and a Giants TD still wins the game...

    Let us also not forget that 80 yards, 57 seconds and a timeout remaining is not an unheard of situation to score a TD in the NFL (especially if you are in the running for "greatest QB of all time"). After the Bradshaw TD, Brady went 2 of 7 for 30 yards plus a sack. 

    Spygate to me is meaningless, who cares. They got caught they paid the fine and gave up the draft pick and moved on...

    [/QUOTE]

    What happened to you? You used to be one of the smart posters. Of the seven passes (2-7) in the final drive two were dropped , one was a hail mary and another one Brady spiked  to kill the clock.

    [/QUOTE]

    My point is that the offense got the ball back with an opportunity to win the game. Wasn't that why the "let" Bradshaw score the TD.

    One of the things I hate from sports fans is the "if this one play was different the whole game would changed" argument. Even if Welker catches that ball. There are still four minutes on the clock, the Patriots are only up three points and the Giants have a time out left. The Patriots would have need at least two more first downs to run out the clock and a TD to put the game out of reach. 

    If Welker catches the ball, maybe three plays later the Patriots are kicking a FG just before the two minute warning, and the Giants still go down and score a TD to win. Maybe Welker catches the ball and Woodhead fumbles on the next play. No one knows what the outcome of the game would have been if he holds on to the game.

    There are very few plays that you can absolutely say changed the outcome of a game. Sterling Moore knocking the ball out of Lee Evans is one such play. The hail mary that ended  the Super Bowl is another.  Anything else is pure speculation about what might have happened next...

    [/QUOTE]

    Who is saying Welker lost the game? Brady could have fumbled it on the next play for goodness
    sakes. You say Brady did bad because he was 2-7 on the final drive and he therefore underperformed. He was probably the only one who played well on the final drive. Two dropped passes a sack and then a huge 4th and 16 conversion. Then he completed one to Hernandez. Then the intentional spike (which counts as an incomplete and hurts the QBR also). Then a 12 men on the field penalty for the Giants followed by an incomplete and the hail mary. Brady was 25-34 going into the final drive for 246 yards. The two drops and the sack killed the Pats. It was Brady's clutch play that even allowed a legitimate hail mary oppurtunity on the final play.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to themightypatriots' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wozzy - points per drive - relevant or not relevant?

    [/QUOTE]


    Points for, points against, turnovers are really the only relevant stats, in that order of importance in football outside of wins.

    All other stats help tell the story, but saying the Pats didn't have the ball enough times in the last Super Bowl is complete horsesht. They had it four times in the 4th and did nothing with it except turn it over for the 2nd time that day.

    They still judge NFL games with points, as soon as they start giving victories for yards or time of possession let me know.

    [/QUOTE]


    4 times in the 4th, you sure about that?

    Try 2 times with one of them being 57seconds to end the game!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Technically the had the ball 3 times in the 4th quarter. The interception was the second play of the 4th quarter. The Giants ended up punting from the Patriots 43 yard-line at the 9:24 mark. The Patriots punted back to the Giants from the Giants 44 yard-line at the 3:46 remaining (that was after the the incomplete pass to Welker). Giants scored a TD with :57 left on the clock. The Patriots have the ball until the clock runs out.

    I count three possessions for the Patriots and two for the Giants in the fourth quarter.

    [/QUOTE]

    You're correct, I'm sorry but I have a hard time reconciling with our defense forcing 4 punts that somehow the O didn't have enough chances.  They started the 2nd possession of the 4th on their own 43 yard line and couldn't move, cmon, this double standard for the offense and defense is a joke.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Jets' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So when you are losing an argument you fall back on calling people names?very mature I must say

     If "If's" and "But's" were candy and nuts it would be Christmas every day. IF that ball was thrown correctly the pats win the SB. BUT it wasn't and the pats lost...learn to live with the facts!

     What abouit the interception and the throw to Branch. Do you have selective memory?Even pats fans don't 100% agree with you. I don't think anybody does.

    Shall we discuss the dark blemish of the pats organization now, called Spygate, or do you want to put your rose colored spin on it first?

    [/QUOTE]


    He  dropped  the  ball. Go find me some sources that deride the pass as uncatchable and we can talk. Until then, you are being a rube.

    Yeah, fire away on spygate. I'm always up for making a phoney look like a fool.

    [/QUOTE]

    I still do not get the obsessing on the Welker catch. Even if he holds on to the ball the Patriots need two more first downs after that or a TD to finish of the Giants. Even if the kick a FG they are only up by 6 and a Giants TD still wins the game...

    Let us also not forget that 80 yards, 57 seconds and a timeout remaining is not an unheard of situation to score a TD in the NFL (especially if you are in the running for "greatest QB of all time"). After the Bradshaw TD, Brady went 2 of 7 for 30 yards plus a sack. 

    Spygate to me is meaningless, who cares. They got caught they paid the fine and gave up the draft pick and moved on...

    [/QUOTE]

    What happened to you? You used to be one of the smart posters. Of the seven passes (2-7) in the final drive two were dropped , one was a hail mary and another one Brady spiked  to kill the clock.

    [/QUOTE]

    My point is that the offense got the ball back with an opportunity to win the game. Wasn't that why the "let" Bradshaw score the TD.

    One of the things I hate from sports fans is the "if this one play was different the whole game would changed" argument. Even if Welker catches that ball. There are still four minutes on the clock, the Patriots are only up three points and the Giants have a time out left. The Patriots would have need at least two more first downs to run out the clock and a TD to put the game out of reach. 

    If Welker catches the ball, maybe three plays later the Patriots are kicking a FG just before the two minute warning, and the Giants still go down and score a TD to win. Maybe Welker catches the ball and Woodhead fumbles on the next play. No one knows what the outcome of the game would have been if he holds on to the game.

    There are very few plays that you can absolutely say changed the outcome of a game. Sterling Moore knocking the ball out of Lee Evans is one such play. The hail mary that ended  the Super Bowl is another.  Anything else is pure speculation about what might have happened next...

    [/QUOTE]

    Who is saying Welker lost the game? Brady could have fumbled it on the next play for goodness
    sakes. You say Brady did bad because he was 2-7 on the final drive and he therefore underperformed. He was probably the only one who played well on the final drive. Two dropped passes a sack and then a huge 4th and 16 conversion. Then he completed one to Hernandez. Then the intentional spike (which counts as an incomplete and hurts the QBR also). Then a 12 men on the field penalty for the Giants followed by an incomplete and the hail mary. Brady was 25-34 going into the final drive for 246 yards. The two drops and the sack killed the Pats. It was Brady's clutch play that even allowed a legitimate hail mary oppurtunity on the final play.

    [/QUOTE]

    My main point in this thread was not that Brady played "bad" or "cost the Patriots the game" it is that for him to be considered the greatest QB ever (which is how the thread started) he would have had to played better in the last two Super Bowls. 

    I do not think Brady is even a slight problem with this team. I just still think that the two Super Bowl losses (and subpar performances by Brady in them by his standards) keep him from passing Joe Montana as the greatest QB of all time. 

    Even at 25-34 for 246 with 2 TDs and 1 INT, that was a below average performance for Brady last season (he sets a high standard for himself). My argument for Montana still being the greatest of all time is that his Super Bowl performances were never down from his regular season numbers.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    Prior to the final drive for New England (which obviously had to be all passes, many of which were low percentage due to the nature of the situation), Brady had passed 34 times. Had the defense gotten a stop on the Giants previous drive, the game would've been over, the Pats win, and our friends here would've told us how keeping Brady under 40 passes saved the day.

    As we all know, the defense didn't get a stop, and the offense/Brady went on to have to throw the ball 7 times in an attempt to win the game. Via some simple math, we can determine that this put Brady over 40 passes... 

    You have to look at circumstance, not simply statistics in a vacuum. Critical thinking is a useful skill.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Jets' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So when you are losing an argument you fall back on calling people names?very mature I must say

     If "If's" and "But's" were candy and nuts it would be Christmas every day. IF that ball was thrown correctly the pats win the SB. BUT it wasn't and the pats lost...learn to live with the facts!

     What abouit the interception and the throw to Branch. Do you have selective memory?Even pats fans don't 100% agree with you. I don't think anybody does.

    Shall we discuss the dark blemish of the pats organization now, called Spygate, or do you want to put your rose colored spin on it first?

    [/QUOTE]


    He  dropped  the  ball. Go find me some sources that deride the pass as uncatchable and we can talk. Until then, you are being a rube.

    Yeah, fire away on spygate. I'm always up for making a phoney look like a fool.

    [/QUOTE]

    I still do not get the obsessing on the Welker catch. Even if he holds on to the ball the Patriots need two more first downs after that or a TD to finish of the Giants. Even if the kick a FG they are only up by 6 and a Giants TD still wins the game...

    Let us also not forget that 80 yards, 57 seconds and a timeout remaining is not an unheard of situation to score a TD in the NFL (especially if you are in the running for "greatest QB of all time"). After the Bradshaw TD, Brady went 2 of 7 for 30 yards plus a sack. 

    Spygate to me is meaningless, who cares. They got caught they paid the fine and gave up the draft pick and moved on...

    [/QUOTE]

    What happened to you? You used to be one of the smart posters. Of the seven passes (2-7) in the final drive two were dropped , one was a hail mary and another one Brady spiked  to kill the clock.

    [/QUOTE]

    My point is that the offense got the ball back with an opportunity to win the game. Wasn't that why the "let" Bradshaw score the TD.

    One of the things I hate from sports fans is the "if this one play was different the whole game would changed" argument. Even if Welker catches that ball. There are still four minutes on the clock, the Patriots are only up three points and the Giants have a time out left. The Patriots would have need at least two more first downs to run out the clock and a TD to put the game out of reach. 

    If Welker catches the ball, maybe three plays later the Patriots are kicking a FG just before the two minute warning, and the Giants still go down and score a TD to win. Maybe Welker catches the ball and Woodhead fumbles on the next play. No one knows what the outcome of the game would have been if he holds on to the game.

    There are very few plays that you can absolutely say changed the outcome of a game. Sterling Moore knocking the ball out of Lee Evans is one such play. The hail mary that ended  the Super Bowl is another.  Anything else is pure speculation about what might have happened next...

    [/QUOTE]

    Who is saying Welker lost the game? Brady could have fumbled it on the next play for goodness
    sakes. You say Brady did bad because he was 2-7 on the final drive and he therefore underperformed. He was probably the only one who played well on the final drive. Two dropped passes a sack and then a huge 4th and 16 conversion. Then he completed one to Hernandez. Then the intentional spike (which counts as an incomplete and hurts the QBR also). Then a 12 men on the field penalty for the Giants followed by an incomplete and the hail mary. Brady was 25-34 going into the final drive for 246 yards. The two drops and the sack killed the Pats. It was Brady's clutch play that even allowed a legitimate hail mary oppurtunity on the final play.

    [/QUOTE]

    My main point in this thread was not that Brady played "bad" or "cost the Patriots the game" it is that for him to be considered the greatest QB ever (which is how the thread started) he would have had to played better in the last two Super Bowls. 

    I do not think Brady is even a slight problem with this team. I just still think that the two Super Bowl losses (and subpar performances by Brady in them by his standards) keep him from passing Joe Montana as the greatest QB of all time. 

    Even at 25-34 for 246 with 2 TDs and 1 INT, that was a below average performance for Brady last season (he sets a high standard for himself). My argument for Montana still being the greatest of all time is that his Super Bowl performances were never down from his regular season numbers.

    [/QUOTE]

    Brady played good in the super bowl but not great. He was still their best player in the game and without him it probably would have been a blowout. The Giants defense was not great during the regular season but it was undeniably great for most of the post season. Brady outperformed Rodgers and Ryan (as well as Alex Smith) against the Giants. Against that defense those are good numbers (not great) and they should have been enough to win.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Prior to the final drive for New England (which obviously had to be all passes, many of which were low percentage due to the nature of the situation), Brady had passed 34 times. Had the defense gotten a stop on the Giants previous drive, the game would've been over, the Pats win, and our friends here would've told us how keeping Brady under 40 passes saved the day.

    As we all know, the defense didn't get a stop, and the offense/Brady went on to have to throw the ball 7 times in an attempt to win the game. Via some simple math, we can determine that this put Brady over 40 passes... 

    You have to look at circumstance, not simply statistics in a vacuum. Critical thinking is a useful skill.

    [/QUOTE]

    Run-pass balance is typically determined primarily by the situations that occur late in the game. Generally, if you're behind, you pass more and if you're ahead you run more.  Your logic (and math) is impeccable, but you'll never get Rusty to admit that fact.

     

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    Brady played good in the super bowl but not great. He was still their best player in the game and without him it probably would have been a blowout. The Giants defense was not great during the regular season but it was undeniably great for most of the post season. Brady outperformed Rodgers and Ryan (as well as Alex Smith) against the Giants. Against that defense those are good numbers (not great) and they should have been enough to win.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, look at the lengths of the drives the run-heavy 49ers had against the Giants the week before.  They had even more trouble than the pass-heavy Patriots trying to establish long drives and control TOP.  

    2:58 

    0:13 

    1:42 

    5:47 

    1:15 

    0:02

    3:53 

    1:30 

    1:20 

    3:16 

    2:55 

    1:03

    0:29 

    0:19

    1:36 

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Prior to the final drive for New England (which obviously had to be all passes, many of which were low percentage due to the nature of the situation), Brady had passed 34 times. Had the defense gotten a stop on the Giants previous drive, the game would've been over, the Pats win, and our friends here would've told us how keeping Brady under 40 passes saved the day.

    As we all know, the defense didn't get a stop, and the offense/Brady went on to have to throw the ball 7 times in an attempt to win the game. Via some simple math, we can determine that this put Brady over 40 passes... 

    You have to look at circumstance, not simply statistics in a vacuum. Critical thinking is a useful skill.

    [/QUOTE]


    Actually the D DID get a stop, prior to the Welker drop drive.  In fact, they had many stops all 2nd half.  2 FGs aren't stops to you in this bloated offensive era? Really? What color is the sky in your world?

    There are other parts to the game other than the last drive and what happened prior to that.  Good god.

    If you had told me our D had allowed 6 points with 3 minutes to go in the second half, I'd have guessed we won the game without even looking at what we scored as an offense in the first half/or knowing what we scored in the second half.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's really a moot point. Forget what happened prior to the final two drives. All I'm saying is that prior to the Giants final drive (when the Pats were up 17-15), Brady had passed the ball 34 times. Had the defense managed to get a stop (and please don't take this as me putting full blame on the defense... it's simply an observation) then the game would have ended, New England wins, and Brady would have passed under 40 times. 

    Riddle me this... would this have been the reason that the Pats won? 

     
  23. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Prior to the final drive for New England (which obviously had to be all passes, many of which were low percentage due to the nature of the situation), Brady had passed 34 times. Had the defense gotten a stop on the Giants previous drive, the game would've been over, the Pats win, and our friends here would've told us how keeping Brady under 40 passes saved the day.

    As we all know, the defense didn't get a stop, and the offense/Brady went on to have to throw the ball 7 times in an attempt to win the game. Via some simple math, we can determine that this put Brady over 40 passes... 

    You have to look at circumstance, not simply statistics in a vacuum. Critical thinking is a useful skill.

    [/QUOTE]


    Actually the D DID get a stop, prior to the Welker drop drive.  In fact, they had many stops all 2nd half.  2 FGs aren't stops to you in this bloated offensive era? Really? What color is the sky in your world?

    There are other parts to the game other than the last drive and what happened prior to that.  Good god.

    If you had told me our D had allowed 6 points with 3 minutes to go in the second half, I'd have guessed we won the game without even looking at what we scored as an offense in the first half/or knowing what we scored in the second half.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's really a moot point. Forget what happened prior to the final two drives. All I'm saying is that prior to the Giants final drive (when the Pats were up 17-15), Brady had passed the ball 34 times. Had the defense managed to get a stop (and please don't take this as me putting full blame on the defense... it's simply an observation) then the game would have ended, New England wins, and Brady would have passed under 40 times. 

    Riddle me this... would this have been the reason that the Pats won? 

    [/QUOTE]

    You realize that he will never actually answer this question without attacking Brady. 

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Prior to the final drive for New England (which obviously had to be all passes, many of which were low percentage due to the nature of the situation), Brady had passed 34 times. Had the defense gotten a stop on the Giants previous drive, the game would've been over, the Pats win, and our friends here would've told us how keeping Brady under 40 passes saved the day.

    As we all know, the defense didn't get a stop, and the offense/Brady went on to have to throw the ball 7 times in an attempt to win the game. Via some simple math, we can determine that this put Brady over 40 passes... 

    You have to look at circumstance, not simply statistics in a vacuum. Critical thinking is a useful skill.

    [/QUOTE]


    Actually the D DID get a stop, prior to the Welker drop drive.  In fact, they had many stops all 2nd half.  2 FGs aren't stops to you in this bloated offensive era? Really? What color is the sky in your world?

    There are other parts to the game other than the last drive and what happened prior to that.  Good god.

    If you had told me our D had allowed 6 points with 3 minutes to go in the second half, I'd have guessed we won the game without even looking at what we scored as an offense in the first half/or knowing what we scored in the second half.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's really a moot point. Forget what happened prior to the final two drives. All I'm saying is that prior to the Giants final drive (when the Pats were up 17-15), Brady had passed the ball 34 times. Had the defense managed to get a stop (and please don't take this as me putting full blame on the defense... it's simply an observation) then the game would have ended, New England wins, and Brady would have passed under 40 times. 

    Riddle me this... would this have been the reason that the Pats won? 

    [/QUOTE]


    What is the pass/run ratio at that point of the game?

    Riddle me that.    Why do you think Brady took a Safety or threw a pick after escaping a sack?

     [/QUOTE]


    34 passes to 19 runs. 

    Why did Brady take a safety? All the receivers were covered, the 7-man protection caved in, and instead of taking a sack or forcing a throw, Brady threw it away. If that play goes that way 100 times over, it's never called a safety. Really not sure what Brady could have done in that situation. Considering the circumstances, I think he made the best decision. He could have taken a sack (would have resulted in a safety) or forced a throw (potential INT), but he took the low-risk play. 

    As for the deep throw to Gronk that was intercepted, Brady saw it a bit late. Gronk had a step or two but the linebacker had time to recover by the time Brady threw it. It was also underthrown a bit. That said, it was a big-reward play. Had Gronk been healthy, he probably catches that pass. Was it a horrible play? I'd say no. Again, it was a big-reward type of play, with some risk attached. Would he have been able to throw the ball elsewhere? Possibly. Could he have scrambled for a few yards? Probably. But if he connects on that pass we're ecstatic. 

    I'm not as bent out of shape about either of those plays as some are, especially the safety.

     

Share