These are the facts

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "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. 

    [/QUOTE]


    IM sorry I didnt read your whole post as It cant be that much to say thats different from yesterdays rant,. I couldnt respond to you yesterday for some reason but let me just say this. I Am a fan who calls its straight. Dont lump me in with everyone else. I have been in Texpats shoes where people say Im not a real fan so pump your brakes shorty. The other thing is that you seem so incessant and blaming BB and Brady so its hard to judge if you are a fan or not. I understand both BB and Brady while being great are not perfect. I understand when you create a dynasty, teams will hate you and every game u play is someone elses SB. You tried to school me the other day on why you like the krafts and proceeded to waste your time telling me about Kraft like I just stepped off the boat! You dnt have to know Kraft personally to know he used to sit in the stands,,Duh! so come off that high horse because you havent schooled anyone.

     

    As for our schedule, are we supposed to ask out of the AFC EAST!?!??!  and you dont think those games are tough, despite records!??!  Division games are always tough. When the AFC east plays the NFC they always fair well so explain that. How Miami is good enough to beat some good NFC teams but they arent worthy opponents for us???  You play the games on ur shedule buddy, nobody has to apologize for beating the Bills!  and tell me exactly WHICH divisions are Top NOtch and competitive every year please??   Like I said, I know the team is flawed and I know coaching could have been better in both SB as well as defense and offense so what? Am I supposed to stop watching now??!?!   DOnt come back after we win this year please and thank you.

     

    -rational pats fans

     

    lol

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Gee, if you keep the other guys out of the end zone and yet don't force any nturnovers, you can STILL win, right? Isn't this called, I believe, a SHUT OUT? Or, if you allow a few kicks through those yellow things (I think they call them GOAL POSTS) for a few points each, while your teams moves the ball a few times across that thick white line found after the 1 yard line (Touchdown?), you can also win, right?  Or, am I just reaching for something that could never, ever, in anyone's possible wildest imagination, happen?

    How much more about this game do I have to learn?

    [/QUOTE]

    Might be important to point out that the points given up by our defense in last year's Super Bowl were the lowest defensive total of every Super Bowl we've been in since 2001, the only one where we gave up fewer points.  Both totals are amongst the fewest total points of Super Bowls all time.

    Perhaps we should have scored more?

    [/QUOTE]

    You do realize the O has to have possessions to score, right? 

    [/QUOTE]

    I am pretty sure the Giants had the same number of possessions as the Patriots in that game...

    [/QUOTE]


    Which is exactly why it was a low scoring game. 

    The low score had NOTHING to do with a defense that allowed the gints to score on 50% of their possessions.  It had every thing to do with the lack of them and the jints holding the ball for nearly 5 minutes every time they got the ball.

    Just think for a minute.  In an average NFL game both the O and D combined should take 5 minutes to complete a possession.  When you have just an O doing that, you've got bigggggggg problems.

    [/QUOTE]

    Your point is not valid, as you clearly say yourself:

    "It had every thing to do with the lack of them and the jints holding the ball for nearly 5 minutes every time they got the ball."

    Now, please trell us how the Gints managed less than 5 min per possession? (Good Pats D, or lousy Gints offense?) The Pat's offense didn't do it (better Gints D, or lousy ats offense?) Which way do you want to go?

    This ought to be fun!

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:
    [QUOTE]

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

    [/QUOTE]


    No, they are so scrued up that they even fouled up cheating; couldn't even do THAT right!

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    BORING!!!

    Another homie who can't stand up to constructive conversation. Flaws are thinbgs like: having whole halfs where things aren't in "sync", or being consistently beat by a QB named "WHo's HE?", while making him a first ballot HOF'er. Flaws ae dropping wide open passes, or overthrowing wide open receivers. Imprefections is continually making the same mistakes.

    let's try this one more time. The Pats can do these things and win at least q10 of their annual games, because they play against vastly inferior opponents. But, when they do this against the "iron" of their schedule,a dn go .500, it SHOULD raise concerns, as these are the dsame guys they'll face in the playoffs. We all know how well this has worked out since the 2005 SB win, right?  They just don't have the same mental toughness as they once had. No swagger, nothing about this team strikes fear in the opposition any more. They can and have been beat in crucial games. These are imperfections.

    I don't stick my head in the ground and say all's right when this madness is going on. This sort of play WILL come back and haunt you. Points in fact: lousy defense all of last season, and they couldn't stop the Giants with 4 minutes left. Terrific offense last season, but couldn't move the ball and control the game, to keep the defense off the field.

    Glad you mentioned the Ravens game. A dropped TD pass and a muffed FG..... Sorry, the Pats had nothing to do with that miracle. The Ravens blew it. The Pats let them hang around just long enough to make things interesting. Thankful for us they (Ravens) messed it up in the end. I trevale in/out of Baltimore monthly on bznz, and they STILL lament the dropped TD and the fact that @ 95 players/coaches couldn't see that a TO should have been called instead of rushing the FG unit on the field. Yes, they were THAT close of repeating the 2000 SB vs the Giants. 

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    Well Mr AZZPATSFAN.

    It appears nobody cares about you encyclopedia of Pats bunders and reasons why they are irrelevant or not good enough for your outlandish standards.

    Hint: this is the real world.  Sometimes in the real world, people fail.  Organizations fail!  The best laid plans fail.  Sometimes you come in 2nd place or third or last.

    If you can't acknowledge that, then I would say (and I'm quite sure others have told you this), the problem is yours.   You call yourself a realist,  Really?  Realist realize sometimes things aren't going to go the way you want or expect.

    Pessimist and people incapable of REALISTIC expectations, don't.

      Have you ever failed at something?  Assuming you have,  guess you consider yourself to be inadequate or not worthy of praise or appreciation.  If not, why would you define a team by it's failures and diminish accomplishments, if you don't hold yourself to the same standards?

     

    Would you chastise your great, great, great grandchild for coming in second in a spelling bee or diminish their accomplishment of being a finalist by stating they were only slightly better than their poor competition? 

    Somehow, I think you would and that is really, really sad.

    Like I said, sux to be you!

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Gee, if you keep the other guys out of the end zone and yet don't force any nturnovers, you can STILL win, right? Isn't this called, I believe, a SHUT OUT? Or, if you allow a few kicks through those yellow things (I think they call them GOAL POSTS) for a few points each, while your teams moves the ball a few times across that thick white line found after the 1 yard line (Touchdown?), you can also win, right?  Or, am I just reaching for something that could never, ever, in anyone's possible wildest imagination, happen?

    How much more about this game do I have to learn?

    [/QUOTE]

    Might be important to point out that the points given up by our defense in last year's Super Bowl were the lowest defensive total of every Super Bowl we've been in since 2001, the only one where we gave up fewer points.  Both totals are amongst the fewest total points of Super Bowls all time.

    Perhaps we should have scored more?

    [/QUOTE]

    You do realize the O has to have possessions to score, right? 

    [/QUOTE]

    I am pretty sure the Giants had the same number of possessions as the Patriots in that game...

    [/QUOTE]


    Which is exactly why it was a low scoring game. 

    The low score had NOTHING to do with a defense that allowed the gints to score on 50% of their possessions.  It had every thing to do with the lack of them and the jints holding the ball for nearly 5 minutes every time they got the ball.

    Just think for a minute.  In an average NFL game both the O and D combined should take 5 minutes to complete a possession.  When you have just an O doing that, you've got bigggggggg problems.

    [/QUOTE]

    Your point is not valid, as you clearly say yourself:

    "It had every thing to do with the lack of them and the jints holding the ball for nearly 5 minutes every time they got the ball."

    Now, please trell us how the Gints managed less than 5 min per possession? (Good Pats D, or lousy Gints offense?) The Pat's offense didn't do it (better Gints D, or lousy ats offense?) Which way do you want to go?

    This ought to be fun!

    [/QUOTE]


    What?  That makes no sense. 

    The gints averaged nearly 5 minutes a possession due to the Pat's D allowing them to, because they allowed, on average, more than 3 1st downs per possession.  The only drive that even was close to the NFL standard was the one where BB let them score in order to get the ball back.  The D's inability to get off the field limited the game to 8 possessions.

    Is this that hard to understand?

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. 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 wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Philskiw1's comment:
    [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 three times in the 4th and did nothing with it except turn it over for the 2nd time that day. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Truth in this. 

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

     [/QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    FrnkBnhm, you'll notice I said "in order of importance..."  so tell me which part isn't correct again?

    And Prolate, what I said above IS a Belichick quote, albeit paraphrased where he is talking about stats.  

    Cherry picking his comments to try and give credence to some inane ideas you guys have about certain stats that you're all obsessed with because it supposedly proves that the defense was responsible for last year's Super Bowl defeat doesn't take away anything from the "stats are for losers" quote or that in the end points for, points against and turnovers are the three most important stats after wins."

    You guys can make all sorts of excuses for why the offense didn't score more, but that's their job isn't it; to score.  

    Saying the offense didn't have possession of the ball enough (BS), Gronk was injured (and that's why he caught a 21 yard pass and almost caught a horribly thrown ball 40 yards downfield) doesn't absolve the offense from not scoring more points, turning the ball over twice or even controlling the clock so the Giant's couldn't score.  Our best pass rusher was injured also.

    Most of us here don't point to the defense and say "great job" instead we say if you spend 2/3rds of your payroll on offense, build your entire team around your passing offense, don't build a running game to run time off the clock or convert first downs, then when the offense fails to keep pace and the defense plays better than expected than the burden lies with the offense.

    After that game I felt bad for the defense, they held the Giant's time and again to a punt or a field goal only to watch our offense flounder again and again... 

    Sorry but according to the only stats that matter (via Belichick) points scored, points against and turnovers, the offense failed miserably.

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    Im not reading your post but with each one they make less and less sense. I truly dont even understand the point you are making in reference to me. it sounds like u are talking to a bunch of people who are nothing like me and prefacing it with my name for what?? I dont care what your opinion is of the krafts,I just told you not to try to school me on his story because I grew up here and to stop acting like you present some new material.

    You keep saying "young and learning". Please find the post with MY name attached that has excused ANYTHING! I call out the defense plenty and I dont make excuses about age. If you have been posting all year YOU would KNOW this but you havent , you just popped up last week with your sh*tstorm and lumped all of us into your "UNrealistic fan" category. I only defend Brady when our resident genius makes up lies to make him look bad. I will be the 1st to admit that Brady's postseason play hasnt been as good as it used to but I cant understand how people like you cant make the connection with the bad Defense and TB feeling pressured to do more in the big Game! If Brady is on the sideline watching his defense on the field all game when he finally DOES get back on the field,he is pressing, trying to force plays because he knows he HAS to score and may not see the Ball again for a WHILE!  This is evident to any knowledgable fan of football without BIAS! I admit that BB got outcoached in each of the last SBs and havent made excuses for anyone infact ive moved on. I have a wife and 3 young boys to worry about. I think you and Texpats have gone MAD over the years watching this unfold and it sais more about YOU than US who are still watching and rooting on our team because at the end of the day, ITS ONLY A GAME!  OK!

    Now, class is over Pops!

     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    Azz, Its called "ANY GIVEN SUNDAY"  when you play in the NFL maybe you can make statements about how easy its supposed to be.  Like I said, what exactly can we do about the division??  Should we not show up? You are mad because we dominate the division and not the postseason???  lol

    Jeeez! you make being a pats fan sound very painful. Just do yourselve a favor and give it up. Stop watching and  you will live longer. We will just have to enjoy our next SB win without you. 

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    This is top shelf among the multitude of idiotic analysis you belch out on here junior.

    Brady had less than 1 second to get rid of the ball when Vollmer launched the defender into him. Learn the game, you complete incompetent.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     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]

    Problem with that is the Montana's teams were loaded.

    How do you think Brady would do with the greatest receiver of all time catching his passes? And the great TE he did have was KOd for this last SB but you complain that he didn't put up numbers equal to his seasonal ones.

    I smell a lack of objectivity and an agenda here.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    What good are facts that you make up as you go?

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [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.

    [/QUOTE]

    You are way right. Congratulations for actually understanding the game which too many others here struggle with.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    It's an offensive QB league. Fact is, Eli Manning outplayed Brady

    [/QUOTE]

    Funny how you like to have your cake and eat it too junior.

    You say the D played well, but Eli outplayed Brady.

    How did Eli outplay Brady if the D played so well?

    Because we know Brady had a 100 PR up to the 57 second fiasco the D collapse forced on him. So by any reasonable measure that is playing "well".

    Explain yourself junior!

     

    (It is so much fun making you look like a fool.)

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Sorry but according to the only stats that matter (via Belichick) points scored, points against and turnovers, the offense failed miserably.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    And how many turnovers did our D get wozzy?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What good are facts that you make up as you go?

    [/QUOTE]


    What facts are being made up wozzy?

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [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.

    [/QUOTE]

    You are way right. Congratulations for actually understanding the game which too many others here struggle with.

    [/QUOTE]


    It has little to do with understanding the game... and more to do with common sense. 

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What good are facts that you make up as you go?

    [/QUOTE]


    What facts are being made up wozzy?

    [/QUOTE]

    The number of possessions favored the Giants, it didn't by the count of one possession.  All these garbage stats are meaningless compared to the final score and number of turnovers.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    After that game I felt bad for the defense, they held the Giant's time and again to a punt or a field goal only to watch our offense flounder again and again... 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You must have been ecstatic in 2004 when you saw our D give up only 1.75 points per opponent possession compared to the 33% more points per possession (2.62) the 2011 defense gave up.

    Sure, there is a 9% mitigation in that for the safety. But you can't simply cling to the final score when there were only 8 possessions and most games have more like 12.

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What good are facts that you make up as you go?

    [/QUOTE]


    What facts are being made up wozzy?

    [/QUOTE]

    The number of possessions favored the Giants, it didn't by the count of one possession.  All these garbage stats are meaningless compared to the final score and number of turnovers.

    [/QUOTE]


    What people are trying to say is that if you're the Giants you want fewer possessions because you don't want the Pats' O on the field since that was our strength. They accomplished that. They kept it close. And they blasted the D for the win at the end. (And this factor would have been even more crucial if Gronk was healthy.)

    The only thing that could have busted up that strategy if it worked was turnovers by the Giants, which our D got none of.

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [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.

    [/QUOTE]

    You are way right. Congratulations for actually understanding the game which too many others here struggle with.

    [/QUOTE]


    It has little to do with understanding the game... and more to do with common sense. 

    [/QUOTE]


    The two usually do go hand in hand.

     

Share