These are the facts

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to dreighver's comment:

    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.




    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.

     




    nut job, they allowed scores on 3 of 4 possessions in the second half!  Some how you think that is good?  They stopped ONE drive in the second half and only took a half century to do it.  

    The Pats scoring on 3 drives is bad but the gints scoring on 3 drives in the second half is great D.  Ya, that makes perfect sense.  PERFECT!

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to dreighver's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to dreighver's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to dreighver's comment:

    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.




    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.

     



    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? 




    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?

     


    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.



    Here is the real reason why our O Line looks worse than it is against good Ds or good front 7s/why Brady took a Safety or threw that INT or ducks phantom sacks:

    Those teams are SMART and KNOW their only way to beat/slow the Pats down is to sell out on a pass rushing based scheme, by rushing 4 or 5, dropping the rest into coverage, not blitzing much at all, and playing man.

    The Texans will do this, the Broncos and if we do get to a SB, whoever they play, that D too, will also employ that gameplan.

    So, why on earth, who for the love of all things holy does Brady still want to pass so many times, imbalance the offense, and pass MOSTLY in the shotgun?

    PS, 34 passes to 19 runs isn't balanced especially considering way too many of those runs actually came from Danny Woodhead, a scatback, not to mention your lead back (BJGE) has never fumbled.

    So, we replaced a Safety and an INT with two possible runs from BJGE.

    Great.  Keep in mind, Brady has said on record he simply prefers the shotgun. 

     



    The safety occurred on the first offensive play of the game for New England. I highly doubt Brady personally called that play. Furthermore, run-pass balance had nothing to do with how the Giants approached that play, as it was, as mentioned before, the first offensive play of the game for New England. 

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    In response to dreighver's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to dreighver's comment:

    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.




    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.

     



    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? 



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




    It's an offensive QB league. Fact is, Eli Manning outplayed Brady and it's beyond painful to admit it, because Brady let that happen twice.

    How am I attacking Brady by acknowledging he got outplayed by the other QB?  We can give him a pass for SB 42 for odd circumstances and a helmet catch, but still, his offense was the single GREATEST statistical offense in NFL history and could barely lead the team to 14 points?

    Whether it's a miracle helmet catch against our D or our D out of gas in a dome after holding the Giants to 13 points for 57 minutes, why is MORE asked out of ANY D in this era than the offense if it's an offensive league?

    All the money on EVERY team, including the crappy Jets, is invested MOSTLY on offense.

    Fact.



    Case closed!  not only did he NOT answer the question, he did as predicted!  Sick

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    Oh, I answered it. QB League.  Offensive era.

    Oh, yes. The question was answered. When Brady retires I'lll say the same thing about whoever the next QB is.   An underperforming QB in a QB era is a losing QB.



    You didn't answer the question, but I didn't necessarily expect you to as a.) it was stated for rhetorical value, and b.) it flies in the face of your agenda.

    Again, I wasn't placing blame on the defense or removing blame from the offense when I asked the question. I was trying to make a point, which was that if the Giants hadn't scored on their final drive (again, not placing blame, simply presenting a scenario in a vacuum), then the Patriots would have won and Brady would have passed 34 times. 

    Would we be having this conversation had that occurred? I'd imagine that we wouldn't be. 

     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to dreighver's comment:

    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.




    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.

     




    nut job, they allowed scores on 3 of 4 possessions in the second half!  Some how you think that is good?  They stopped ONE drive in the second half and only took a half century to do it.  

    The Pats scoring on 3 drives is bad but the gints scoring on 3 drives in the second half is great D.  Ya, that makes perfect sense.  PERFECT!




    Yes, allowing 2 FGs while wating for our offense to just get 1 FG is good. Yes.  6 points allowed waiting for ours to not throw an INT and get 1 FG is not good? Are you really proud our offense's inability to not match the Giants 6 points on NE 4 drives after their TD drive out of halftime? I am not. I am mortified.

    Did you ever take math before you flunked out of elementary school?




    Fact: they allowed 2 fg's and a TOUCHDOWN in the half!   NOT GOOD ON 4 POSSESSIONS!!!

    Who allows 3 scores on 4 possessions?  Certainly not a good D!  Who allows a QB a 75% completion percentage?   Certainly not a good D.  Who stays on the field because they can't get a single 3 & out or a single 6 & out and allows a minimum of 9 play possessions throught a whole 60 minute game when they were on the field for 2/3rds of it?  Certainly not a good D.

    If you knew ANY THING at all about the game, you would know that a 38% scoring percentage is BETTER THAN AVERAGE but a 50% scoring completion % is a flatl out defensive beat down.

    The jints O BEAT DOWN the Pats D.  FACT!!!!


    No different than the Pats O beating up on the Texans D, while scoring on 50% of their drives.  Cept they didn't take 2/3rds of the game to do it and it was a normal possession game.

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to Philskiw1's comment:


    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 three times in the 4th and did nothing with it except turn it over for the 2nd time that day. 



    Truth in this. 



    Phil this is the only truth, everything else is just people talking. I even edited my mistake out and it's still the cold hard truth.

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to Philskiw1's comment:


    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 three times in the 4th and did nothing with it except turn it over for the 2nd time that day. 



    Truth in this. 



    Phil this is the only truth, everything else is just people talking. I even edited my mistake out and it's still the cold hard truth.

     

    Actually, turnovers are irrelevant unless they lead to points. If you turn the ball over, hold the other team to a 3-and-out, and then score on your ensuing possession all that was lost was time off the clock.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    Well, it looks like this thread has now come to an end on the heels of the last two posts, which entail the real crux of the problem.

    Offense wins championships in the Goodell era.




    disagree with the black and white nature of this assertion-and in actuality the pats-giants sb's prove just the opposite though u refuse to consider it that way

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    Well, it looks like this thread has now come to an end on the heels of the last two posts, which entail the real crux of the problem.

    Offense wins championships in the Goodell era.



    disagree with the black and white nature of this assertion-and in actuality the pats-giants sb's prove just the opposite though u refuse to consider it that way



    Actually in both Super Bowls, the Giants defense was lower rated than their offense.

    However, you are correct that offense does not win championship in the "Goodell Era". Since he took over (2006 season). Only one number offense in terms of points scored (the 2009 Saints) has won a Super Bowl. The Colts at number 2, are the only other offense higher than 9 to win it all. 

    In the same time, the Packers (2nd on defense and 10th on offense) and the Steelers (1st on defense and 20th on offense) have both also won Super Bowls. The Patriots have had the number scoring offense in the NFL twice (2007 and 2010) and came away empty handed both times.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to Philskiw1's comment:


    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 three times in the 4th and did nothing with it except turn it over for the 2nd time that day. 



    Truth in this. 



    Phil this is the only truth, everything else is just people talking. I even edited my mistake out and it's still the cold hard truth.

     



    On another thread, i quoted Belichick talking about what statistics are relevant.  But Wozzy thinks that thread exists just for "baiting" people.  Really, it exists because I think Belichick has interesting observations that are helpful to those who really want to understand football rather than just insist their own preconceptions about what works or doesn't work are ultimate truth. 

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    The whole reason why they blasted through the line on the 1st play is because that's what they do. They ignore our run game.  THat's how teams beat us in the shotgun base spread, Could be 2007 late in the year where our D let up 25+ points per game and Brady was getting sloppy or it could be in 2010 vs the Jets, or in SB 46.  It's the same exact script.  They should have run a running play or run at the edges. It's nothing new. RUn at the pass rushers.

     




    They blasted through the line because our seven blockers couldn't stop a four man rush.  A few points:

    • The Pats were going to pass a lot no matter what because that's what they are best at.  Not passing wasn't an option if you wanted a chance to win the game
    • For the passsing game to work well, the offensive line has to be able to block four rushers. The Giants didn't blitz all that much--they simply sent four guys on most plays.  And our line (with 5 to 7 blockers depending on the play) struggled to contain just those four rushers
    • The Giants linemen (and other defenders) also made lots of contact in the backfield on running plays. It's not as noticeable to the average fan, maybe, but the breakdowns in blocking occurred in the run game as well as the passing game. A large number of Benny's negative or minimal-gain runs were more the fault of the O line not being able to block the Giants' front effectively.  Running at the rushers isn't a sure way to have success, because often penetration into the backfield is good for both pass defense and run defense.  (You've heard of the concept "run blitz" I assume?)

    Simply put, execution on the basics matters.  If you think you could have "tricked" the Giants into playing poorly you're sadly mistaken.  You win Super Bowls primarily by executing well, not by X's and O's.  Bill Belichick said the very same thing about execution being more important than X's and O's on his WEEI interview Monday.  Choose to ingnore it if you prefer, but some of us are striving for a higher standard of understanding than willful ignorance. 

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to Philskiw1's comment:


    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 three times in the 4th and did nothing with it except turn it over for the 2nd time that day. 



    Truth in this. 



    Phil this is the only truth, everything else is just people talking. I even edited my mistake out and it's still the cold hard truth.

     

    Actually, turnovers are irrelevant unless they lead to points. If you turn the ball over, hold the other team to a 3-and-out, and then score on your ensuing possession all that was lost was time off the clock.



    Anytime a drive ends without a score (punt, turnover, turnover on downs) it's not ideal. A turnover is often the worst way to end a drive mostly because it often results in field position advantages for your opponents, which increase their chance of scoring on the possession they gain via the turnover.  But you're right, if the turnover doesn't create a field position advantage for the opponent it's effect is not much different than a turnover through a punt. If the opponent doesn't score on the ensuing possession, then the turnover is not much more damaging than a punt would be. 

    Still, ending drives without scoring is not good, and turnovers end drives without scoring. The real downside is whether, in the absence of the turnover, the drive would have resulted in a score rather than a punt.  You never know the answer to that, but certainly the turnover ends the chance of scoring faster than a punt would unless the turnover occurs on fourth down. 

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to themightypatriots' comment:

    Wozzy - points per drive - relevant or not relevant?


    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.



    Yes, as a measure of team performance, points for and against is all that matters (they don't give points for turnovers).  But if you want to compare offensive and defensive performance, you need to factor in the number of possessions.  Which even you admit, since you start talking about how many times they had the ball in the 4th.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to dreighver's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to dreighver's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to dreighver's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to dreighver's comment:

    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.




    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.

     



    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? 




    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?

     


    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.



    Here is the real reason why our O Line looks worse than it is against good Ds or good front 7s/why Brady took a Safety or threw that INT or ducks phantom sacks:

    Those teams are SMART and KNOW their only way to beat/slow the Pats down is to sell out on a pass rushing based scheme, by rushing 4 or 5, dropping the rest into coverage, not blitzing much at all, and playing man.

    The Texans will do this, the Broncos and if we do get to a SB, whoever they play, that D too, will also employ that gameplan.

    So, why on earth, who for the love of all things holy does Brady still want to pass so many times, imbalance the offense, and pass MOSTLY in the shotgun?

    PS, 34 passes to 19 runs isn't balanced especially considering way too many of those runs actually came from Danny Woodhead, a scatback, not to mention your lead back (BJGE) has never fumbled.

    So, we replaced a Safety and an INT with two possible runs from BJGE.

    Great.  Keep in mind, Brady has said on record he simply prefers the shotgun. 

     



    The safety occurred on the first offensive play of the game for New England. I highly doubt Brady personally called that play. Furthermore, run-pass balance had nothing to do with how the Giants approached that play, as it was, as mentioned before, the first offensive play of the game for New England. 

     




    Right, but he still took the safety for being lazy. He made that decision to launch that ball well in advance, where he could have stepped into the throw and just thrown low over the middle at someone's feet.

    Watch the replay.  He took a risk with having the officials not buy what he was doing and it cost us TOP, BB to make adjustments on the GIants first drive with their scheme, and momentum, obviously.

    It was careless.   Also, it ABSOLUTELY does. The Giants and other teams NEVER Play the run against us unless we sub the backs in and out.

    The whole reason why they blasted through the line on the 1st play is because that's what they do. They ignore our run game.  THat's how teams beat us in the shotgun base spread, Could be 2007 late in the year where our D let up 25+ points per game and Brady was getting sloppy or it could be in 2010 vs the Jets, or in SB 46.  It's the same exact script.  They should have run a running play or run at the edges. It's nothing new. RUn at the pass rushers.

     




     

    Try playing QB in the NFl buddy before making ridiculous comments like this. You do know Brady is a human being and not the guy on Madden right?

     

    Its real easy for you to armchair the game a year later from your couch and say Brady should have done a spiderman move, ducked under Tuck, stepped into the pocket , look for somone over the middle that wasnt there and aim the ball at their feet all while trying to avoid being sacked in the endzone....lmao!  Learn the game JR! (in my Babe Voice)

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    Try playing QB in the NFl buddy before making ridiculous comments like this. You do know Brady is a human being and not the guy on Madden right?

     Its real easy for you to armchair the game a year later from your couch and say Brady should have done a spiderman move, ducked under Tuck, stepped into the pocket , look for somone over the middle that wasnt there and aim the ball at their feet all while trying to avoid being sacked in the endzone....lmao!  Learn the game JR! (in my Babe Voice)




    Post of the year

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

    Re: These are the facts

    "What is so funny about you switching allegiance?  Obviously the Pats make you miserable with their ineptitude and lack of dominance over the years, (with the exception of 3) 

    You just confirmed that.

    Just answer this question.

    Which NFL team has the most wins, most division titles, most conference titles, most SB appearances and most SB wins over the past 11 years?

    If the Pat's are a bumbling collection of ineptitude as you suggest, what does that say about the rest of the NFL?

    Try appreciating what you have for once and stop ragging on people who do.

    Must really suck to go through life like that."

     

    My, oh, my. I see reading for comprehension is another one of those curses you have to bear in life. I never said that the Pats are inept. Inept = JESTS!, Cardinals (unless they play the Pats in NE), Jags, Chiefs, and Raid-uhs. You don't win 12-14 games year in and year out by being "inept". Let's talk about the IMPORTANT games. But first, make your statement here: what is more important to you? Winning 12-14 games/season, or winning the SB? 

    Perhaps you didn't understand my comment that the Pats play a just about guarandamnteed 10 wins EVERY season. Go check it out, starting with 6 games in division. Then there are two last place teams added every season (one from each conference's division they will play), bringing this total to..... how many now?.... EIGHT. Then, for good measure they will also play the 3rd place team from each of those same conference divisions, which gives us a grand total of.... OK, you can use your thumbs if you like, 10 certifiable, take it to the bank wins. Guess what? The Pats have just about done that year in and year out. Yet, sometimes, we have homies actually come on board and whine about how "tough" their schedule is. AMAZING!!!!! You'd never survice in KC, or Jacksonville, where you'd be hard pressed to identify at least 4 wins per season, and that's with last place schedules!

    Sitcking with MATH (sorry, mAth, not mEth), 10 from 13 (splitting the difference between 12 and 14; or, as they say in the hood "the number in between 12 and 14"), that leaves 3 wins and 3 losses from the rest of their games. That's half, or, .500. They lose just as many games to "good" teams as they do to "bad" teams. This bears out since the 2005 SB, as they have yet to win another one, and the playoffs will have GOOD teams. Inept? (Come on, Sparky! You can do better than that lame accusation!) No, cuz they still have to get there. It does, however, speak volumes as to why they play .500 ball against good/playoff contending teams, and how that equates to post 2005 SB entries.

    Answers to question #1: Why limit this to the past 11 years? Why not go back to include the 80's or 70's? As I pointed out, and perhaps you MAY have missed it again, they have at least 10 cupcake games to play every season. Double digit regular season wins aren't an issue. The Pats have become the NFL's version of the 1990's Atlanta Braves, and the 60's/early 70's Dallas Cowboys: Can't win the Big One. (Perfect point is the 2008 edition.... went 11-5 and missed the playoffs. What an outrage! Oh, yeah, all 5 losses were to that season's playoff teams. Tut! Tut! Brady wasn't a factor, as he had little to do with winning 11 games, as he didn't play in them, injured early vs the Chiefs.) Coincidence? If you're going to narrow down the spread to a particular time frame, let's ask this: What NFL team has won the most regular season games over the past 5 seasons (excluding eh 2012 season, as it's not completed yet), and LOST two Super Bowls? Are you sure you want to play this game?

    Answer to question #2: The NFL, on a whole, has dramatically changed to be more offensive (in oh, so many ways). Jacksonville takes the Texans to OT before losing. Gee, I recall the scores being in the mid-high 30's, NOT 17-14. Again, inept isn't the point of my contentions. They play well against teams they they SHOULD beat, but struggle againt those 6 teams that they SHOULD beat (if you buy into all those glitzy offensive stats), yet go .500 against. NOT the stuff of dominating teams. There is NO aspect of this team that strikes fear into any NFL team, on either side of the ball, and includes Special Teams.  Using the excuse that they can only play the games they have scheduled, it proves my point further.... mediocre vs good/playoff bound teams, world beaters against the dregs of the NFL. It's almost like the University of Charlotte's football team taking $1M to go play Michigan in The Big House. No doubt on the outcome (Appalachain State game notwithstanding).

    Statement #3: Appreciate what we have? You continue to show your "ineptitude" in reading for comprehension. Do I REALLY need to remind and explain to you how long I've been a Pats' fan? Or how dark and horrible it was living as a fan during the Sullivan and Kiam regimes? Kraft is a complete and total breath of fresh air. He's factually got football people running the show, unlike Jerky Jones in Dallas or Interferring Snyder in Washington. We can see the results. Any long time suffering Pats fans can appreciate a 9-7 season over the 1-15, 2-12 debacles of the past. My contention is that today's team just doesn't have the swagger the early 2000's teams did. ll these big win seasons have translated into are post season disappointments. Seriously tell me that yoiu are just overwhelmed with pride that the Pats "just made" the SB. Now, do it so that we can believe you. In the last two SB seasons, I NEVER read a post from a die hard pats fan that said "At least we mae it there!". We all have a reasonable expectation of victory, yet they can't seem to play that full 60 minutes. Is it the players? Coaches? Game Plan? How about strapping this one on: MENTAL TOUGHNESS? There have been more mental mistakes costing them games than they ever made in the early 2000's. Poor decisions on tackling, when and where to throw the ball, not securing the ball at all times, not securing the ball before trying to advance YAC. And, more disturbing, those stupid, self-induced penalties, like excessive end zone celebrations. Recall the Colts game where they scored late to take the lead, got flagged for 15 yards, and gave the stinkin' Colts the ball around midfield with Manning throwing it? Lost the game on the field and between the ears. They've also done this in regular season too, with the results being pretty much the same, making it unnecessarily harder on themselves. Joe Pa at Penn State said it so well and so eloquently: When you score, act like you've been there before. Yes, THAT is being "a bumbling collection of ineptitude." This says that the Pats have sunk to the level of players only placating their egosd, with no care of at happens to the team. I believe it's called "being selfish", and I'm surprised BB lets it go on. Simple concept: If you don't do it, the refs can't possibly call a penalty. Do it and take the risk.

    ROFLMFAO!!! I can't believe that an alleged adult would actually tell someone else to stop raining on his parade!!!! What? Are you going to have your Mommy call my Mommy? Grow up, Sparky! if you don't like what I write or say, good for you. Don't read it, and most definitely, don't engage in conversation with me. Tex Pat, me, or other allegedly "negative" posters (trolls excluded), have never told ANY homies or punk hatters to shut up, because your opinions greatly bother or disturb us, or if you don't agree with us. Cripes! if you knew anything, TexPat and I have had our share of differences over the years! But, guess what? We still converse and share opinions, thoughts, and observations.  May I suggest you taking a page from this playbook?

    As for attitude going through life, it must be horrible to find out that not everything you've been told is true: you're the best, you're terrific, only you matter in life. Has got to be horrible when teh best you can offer up in a discussion is: well, if you don't like (fill in the blank), move/quit/go somewhere else. Shows complete lack of depth AND creativity. 

     
  • This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    Belicheck has won NOTHING without Tom Brady. Fact. Dont bring up Cassel season. That was a no playoff season.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share