These are the facts

  1. 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 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]


    Lower Possessions favor the lower scoring team because it helps to even the score.

    Did you not watch the Pats score 28 points in 4 straight possessions against the niners? Or what they did in 4 possessions to the texans or Bills or in any of the blow outs?

    Do you understand the damage the pats CAN do with 4 possessions?

    The best way to avoid that is to never let the Pats have those 4 possessions.

    That's what the gints O did and the Pats D allowed them to do.

    THAT WAS THEIR GAME PLAN!

    Higher Possessions favor the higher scoring team

     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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]


    Lower Possessions favor the lower scoring team because it helps to even the score.

    Did you not watch the Pats score 28 points in 4 straight possessions against the niners? Or what they did in 4 possessions to the texans or Bills or in any of the blow outs?

    Do you understand the damage the pats CAN do with 4 possessions?

    The best way to avoid that is to never let the Pats have those 4 possessions.

    That's what the gints O did and the Pats D allowed them to do.

    THAT WAS THEIR GAME PLAN!

    Higher Possessions favor the higher scoring team

    [/QUOTE]

    This is a numbingly stupid theory that is tantamount to junk science. 

    9 possessions for the Pats, 8 for the Giants. 

    Patriots turned it over twice and only scored 17 point swhich means they gave two points and 2 possessions back to the Giants, so really they scored 15 points.

    You guys can gloss it over, reshape it to sound like anything you like but the reality is points for, points against and turnovers are the three most important stats in football in that order.

    You don't need a degree in statistics to figure it out, it's the offense's job to score and protect the ball, they did neither.  These stats about averages are BS. 

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    You guys can gloss it over, reshape it to sound like anything you like but the reality is points for, points against and turnovers are the three most important stats in football in that order.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I can't argue very strenuously about this with you wozzy. You're right. Our D being unable to get a single turnover was probably the biggest factor in the loss.

    The NFL average is 1.5 a game. We averaged 2+ a game during the season. Bigtime D fail getting zero.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to Jets' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Is this the BabeParilli Show?? he's doing his opening monolog for 3 days now. Give it a rest babe -Some people will disgree with you sometimes in life.

    Going on and and on and on.We get it- You don't think that Brady was the reason the pats lost the SB-Others put it squarely on TB.

    Some people don't think the Curse of Spygate is real others say it is real espacially after the Tyree catch off his helmet...then the horrible pass to Welker.

    It's happened twice so far that Curse!Lets hope it lasts longer then the Curse of the Bambino

    [/QUOTE]


    And what's the jets curse at now? 43?

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    This is a numbingly stupid theory that is tantamount to junk science. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What's funny is that the theory that number of possessions makes a difference is really the same theory as your own that the length of drives matters (both are different ways of talking about reducing scoring chances).  

    What's really numbingly stupid is thinking that number of possessions/length of drives is controlled solely by the offenses and is not also affected by the way the defenses play. 

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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. 

    [/QUOTE]

    The painful part is seeing them play well below their capability. Yet, whennhtey do, some "fans" start blaming other things besides their performance. Yet, they'll build on these wins and declare them GREAT and unstoppable. Then, when the playoffs come/go with no new Lombardi for the mantle, it's always somethng else that happened that caused it; usually a ref conspiracy, a rouge WR, a D that couldn't stop a dead spider, but NEVER the offense that couldn't get the first downs with a lead late in the game. This is NOT a complete Pats team. Too many ugly parts to win a beauty contest, and is why the Brokebacks are the #1 seed and odds makers favorites. Pats have lots of talent, but they have been hitting that sour note in the playoffs, and it's NOT the band. It can't always be the band year in and year out. But, on this board........

    They SHOULD beat the Texans because: 1) playing at home  2) OUTDOORS  3) no controlled weather, whatever it may be  4) playoff experience (only 2nd trip ever for Houston)  5) I like the Pats offense match up vs the Texans, who've been injured, especially their LB's. But, all this can be off if Schaub plays significantly better than he did in the last game. IF this should happen, I can just see the whining, moaning, and groaning again. This is the part that also hurts.... despite whatever we see in regular season, when they fall short in the playoffs, it's NEVER due to them or their play.

     But, if it pleases you and other posters here, THE PATS ARE GREAT! They have no weaknesses, they should win the game by a lot, based on the regular season game, or play it close. If they get the wrong refs, they'll lose. If the receivers can hold onto the ball, they'll win. If the RB's don't fumble, they'll win. If the OL holds up and keeps Tom Terrific upright, they'll win. If TT has 70% completion rate, 350+ yards, and 4 TD's (no INT's), and a passer rating over 120, they'll win. If the running game can rip off a few long gains, it'll open up the passing game, and they'll win. If the D steps it up and shuts down long pass plays, they'll win. If the D remember how to tackle and wraps up the runners, they'll win. If the D has 2.67 takeaways, they'll win. If The Ghost hits all his FG attempts, they'll win. If BB and the coaches call the right plays on every play, they'll win. If they don't play the Giants, they'll win (had to toss this one in here).

    Gee! Sounds like the same "IF's" we can apply to any NFL team to be able to win a game, huh? 

    Enjoy the game and playoffs for as long the Pats are in them.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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. 

    [/QUOTE]

    The painful part is seeing them play well below their capability. Yet, whennhtey do, some "fans" start blaming other things besides their performance. Yet, they'll build on these wins and declare them GREAT and unstoppable. Then, when the playoffs come/go with no new Lombardi for the mantle, it's always somethng else that happened that caused it; usually a ref conspiracy, a rouge WR, a D that couldn't stop a dead spider, but NEVER the offense that couldn't get the first downs with a lead late in the game. This is NOT a complete Pats team. Too many ugly parts to win a beauty contest, and is why the Brokebacks are the #1 seed and odds makers favorites. Pats have lots of talent, but they have been hitting that sour note in the playoffs, and it's NOT the band. It can't always be the band year in and year out. But, on this board........

    They SHOULD beat the Texans because: 1) playing at home  2) OUTDOORS  3) no controlled weather, whatever it may be  4) playoff experience (only 2nd trip ever for Houston)  5) I like the Pats offense match up vs the Texans, who've been injured, especially their LB's. But, all this can be off if Schaub plays significantly better than he did in the last game. IF this should happen, I can just see the whining, moaning, and groaning again. This is the part that also hurts.... despite whatever we see in regular season, when they fall short in the playoffs, it's NEVER due to them or their play.

     But, if it pleases you and other posters here, THE PATS ARE GREAT! They have no weaknesses, they should win the game by a lot, based on the regular season game, or play it close. If they get the wrong refs, they'll lose. If the receivers can hold onto the ball, they'll win. If the RB's don't fumble, they'll win. If the OL holds up and keeps Tom Terrific upright, they'll win. If TT has 70% completion rate, 350+ yards, and 4 TD's (no INT's), and a passer rating over 120, they'll win. If the running game can rip off a few long gains, it'll open up the passing game, and they'll win. If the D steps it up and shuts down long pass plays, they'll win. If the D remember how to tackle and wraps up the runners, they'll win. If the D has 2.67 takeaways, they'll win. If The Ghost hits all his FG attempts, they'll win. If BB and the coaches call the right plays on every play, they'll win. If they don't play the Giants, they'll win (had to toss this one in here).

    Gee! Sounds like the same "IF's" we can apply to any NFL team to be able to win a game, huh? 

    Enjoy the game and playoffs for as long the Pats are in them.

    [/QUOTE]


    This is why I cant get through any of your posts. You are still not making any sense. Shall I add "demented" to your many attributes now? U keep saying what your problem is and then try to make it as if I have a problem. Im loving Life, how about you?

    If you took the time to figure it out, you would realize there are things attributed to us falling from grace. natural things like players retiring. Yes Weiss and Crennell leaving hurt this team but WHAT ARE YA GONNA DO AZZ???   ALLOW IT TO AFFECT YOUR LIFE?!??!  I DONT GET WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?  We had a dynasty and YES that ended in 05 and yet we have competed every year after that and been to 2 more SBs and could have easily been 4 more and now you go check how all the other dynasties faired once their run was over. Were their coahing staffs being raided like ours. Was there a salary cap when the Steelers had their Dynasty??  Lets start there Pops...

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The painful part is seeing them play well below their capability. Yet, when they do, some "fans" start blaming other things besides their performance. Yet, they'll build on these wins and declare them GREAT and unstoppable. Then, when the playoffs come/go with no new Lombardi for the mantle, it's always somethng else that happened that caused it; usually a ref conspiracy, a rouge WR, a D that couldn't stop a dead spider, but NEVER the offense that couldn't get the first downs with a lead late in the game. [/QUOTE]


    Great summation, this tells the whole story of the dichotomy of this site.

     
  10. 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 pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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]


    Lower Possessions favor the lower scoring team because it helps to even the score.

    Did you not watch the Pats score 28 points in 4 straight possessions against the niners? Or what they did in 4 possessions to the texans or Bills or in any of the blow outs?

    Do you understand the damage the pats CAN do with 4 possessions?

    The best way to avoid that is to never let the Pats have those 4 possessions.

    That's what the gints O did and the Pats D allowed them to do.

    THAT WAS THEIR GAME PLAN!

    Higher Possessions favor the higher scoring team

    [/QUOTE]

    This is a numbingly stupid theory that is tantamount to junk science. 

    9 possessions for the Pats, 8 for the Giants. 

    Patriots turned it over twice and only scored 17 point swhich means they gave two points and 2 possessions back to the Giants, so really they scored 15 points.

    You guys can gloss it over, reshape it to sound like anything you like but the reality is points for, points against and turnovers are the three most important stats in football in that order.

    You don't need a degree in statistics to figure it out, it's the offense's job to score and protect the ball, they did neither.  These stats about averages are BS. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    What's numbingly stupid is that a self proclaimed student of the game doesn't understand something so simple.  No NFL offnse has ever scored from the side lines".

    This concept has been around for 100 years or more.

    The gints are notorious for it. 

    The reason not all teams do it is a match up probems.  The problem is with a weak defense it becomes easier.  You can't hold the ball all game if the D is not allowing it.

    The Pats own defense did more to hurt the offense that the Jints D did.
    the jints D allowed 3 scores and the Pats D took away 4 chances to score.  Those 4 possessions or 3 or 5, whatever, were opportunities lost and high powered O's tend to take advantage of opporitunities to score.  That's how they scored so many in the first place.

    Stop saying the Pats had an exrtra possession.  It's just not true.  You can't throwaway a teams possession just because it was a kneel down.  It's still a possession.  They could have put up a hail mary on their one play.  Just because they knelt doesn't mean it it not a possession

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Pats own defense did more to hurt the offense that the Jints D did.

    [QUOTE]

    You're trying to win an argument with semantics, which frankly is better than the junk science you usually throw out, but it's still weak.  

    A punt to the Giant's and a kneel down with seconds left on the clock before the half wasn't a possession that could be used to score.  Thats just dumb.  And even if you wanted to throw it in there there still wasn't any benefit to the Giant's like you all suggested, that the Giant's had more possessions than the Patriots... what, it went from they had a lot more possessions, to now they were even, ok so where's the advantage?

    So say they had an equal amount of possessions (9), the Giant's punted 4 times, the Patriots punted 3 times... what was the deciding factor in the game, oh yeah the two turnovers by the Patriot offense and that the Patriot's defense didn't get any turnovers.  

    Satisfied, it still means the two turnovers by the offense was the biggest reason for the loss besides their inability to score more than 17 points.  The Patriot defense gave up the least amount of points from 4 out their last 5 Super Bowls.

    But OK, the Patriot's defense is to blame for their offense not scoring and turning it over twice. Boy this is some rock solid logic... lol! 

     
  12. 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 pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Pats own defense did more to hurt the offense that the Jints D did.

    [QUOTE]

    You're trying to win an argument with semantics, which frankly is better than the junk science you usually throw out, but it's still weak.  

    A punt to the Giant's and a kneel down with seconds left on the clock before the half wasn't a possession that could be used to score.  Thats just dumb.  And even if you wanted to throw it in there there still wasn't any benefit to the Giant's like you all suggested, that the Giant's had more possessions than the Patriots... what, it went from they had a lot more possessions, to now they were even, ok so where's the advantage?

    OK so say they had an equal amount of possessions, the Giant's punted 4 times, the Patriots punted 3 times... what was the deciding factor in the game, oh yeah the two turnovers by the Patriot offense and that the Patriot's defense didn't get any turnovers.  

    Satisfied, it still means the two turnovers by the offense was the biggest reason for the loss besides their inability to score more than 17 points.

    But OK, the Patriot's defense is to blame for their offense not scoring and turning it over twice. Boy this is some rock solid logic... lol! 

    [/QUOTE]


    I never said they had a lot more possessions, I said normal NFL games have a lot more possessions, thus more opportunity to score.

    The possessions were =  There was a punt and a play.  just because they chose not to try and advance does not mean it wasn't  a possession.  It was a possession ended by time.

    Time ends possessions.  Period!

    The Pats D is responsible for the lack of possessions, high scoring teams tend to score with possessions.  So, yes, the D hurt the O.    If they had gotten off the field there would have been a "normal" amount of possessions and more opportunities to score. Period!

    The Pats don't score 34 points with 8 possessions, they score 34 points with a normal amount of possessions.     It's just that simple.  The gints held them to 8 (and a few seconds) possessions 3 out of 3 of the last games.  The Steelers held them to 8 possessions,  The gints held the Bills to 8 possessions.  In every instance, the team with the higest scoring O, LOST!!!!!!  Not coincidence!

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The painful part is seeing them play well below their capability. Yet, when they do, some "fans" start blaming other things besides their performance. Yet, they'll build on these wins and declare them GREAT and unstoppable. Then, when the playoffs come/go with no new Lombardi for the mantle, it's always somethng else that happened that caused it; usually a ref conspiracy, a rouge WR, a D that couldn't stop a dead spider, but NEVER the offense that couldn't get the first downs with a lead late in the game. [/QUOTE]


    Great summation, this tells the whole story of the dichotomy of this site.

    [/QUOTE]


    NOt only did you correct AZ's error for him you actually said great summation when his point started with this

    "The painful part is seeing them play well below their capability. Yet, when they do, some "fans" start blaming other things besides their performance"

    This doesnt even make any sense. Why would anybody BLAME anyone if/when we play to our capabilities. Isnt it when we DONT do that when we complain???  LmAO!

    This board has become a haven for Robots in unision attacking the Best Player in this franchise the last 10 years...WoW

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I never said they had a lot more possessions, I said normal NFL games have a lot more possessions, thus more opportunity to score.

    The possessions were =  There was a punt and a play.  just because they chose not to try and advance does not mean it wasn't  a possession.  It was a possession ended by time.

    Time ends possessions.  Period!

    The Pats D is responsible for the lack of possessions, high scoring teams tend to score with possessions.  So, yes, the D hurt the O.    If they had gotten off the field there would have been a "normal" amount of possessions and more opportunities to score. Period!

    The Pats don't score 34 points with 8 possessions, they score 34 points with a normal amount of possessions.     It's just that simple.  The gints held them to 8 (and a few seconds) possessions 3 out of 3 of the last games.  The Steelers held them to 8 possessions,  The gints held the Bills to 8 possessions.  In every instance, the team with the higest scoring O, LOST!!!!!!  Not coincidence!

    [/QUOTE]

    Again, who gives a F what the averages are in the context of a single game.  These are junk statistics... garbage.

    Points scored, points against, turnovers.

    When you examine the above stats, what does logic tell you, not your predetermined bias which leads you to look for arbitrary stats that fit your preconceived notions.

    They judge football games with points, not good intentions.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    What we've got on this board is a bunch of posters (I'll refrain from naming names, but we all know who they are) who all basically think the coaches ran the offense the wrong way for multiple years.  They all think the shotgun is generally bad and they all think that running more (regardless of how well you can run) is good.  None of them has the balls to go ahead and say Belichick is a bad coach, so instead they all pretend that either Brady or O'Brien was solely responsible for the offense and therefore to blame for every playoff failure ever.  They all completely ignore the defense, completely ignore the actual talent the Pats had on the team on offense, and completely ignore the details of execution and game situations that impact what happens in each game.  Instead they place all their blame on the strategic decisions of one of two people-- Brady or O'Brien -- and, because they don't have the balls to blame Belichick, pretend that he somehow had no ability to change an offensive philosophy that apparently has been rotten, not just for a game or two, but for multiple years going back to 2007 or even earlier. 

    This, of course, is totally absurd.  If the offensive philosophy has been an abject failure for half a decade or more, then Belichick by definition must be either a bad coach or a coach without control of his team. Fortunately, for those with brains in their heads, it's easy to see that the offense has actually been a great success--and so have the Patriots--despite the struggles in the playoffs.  The primary reasons for this success are exactly the people blamed by this set of posters:  Brady, the offensive coaching staff, and (though they try to deny this blame) Belichick.

    Let me be the first to say that Brady, Belichick, and Belichick's coaches deserve the highest praise and admiration for what they've done.  If others feel differently, please go root for some other team that calls the plays the way you like them.  I think Jacksonville would work.  

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    So when you've run out of arguments, the final straw is to say "you must think you know more than Belichick."  

    How about Belichick is like any other manager of people, he is subject to loss of staff by other employers, he has to re-train new staff, implement new, easier schemes that young players and coaches can effectively use.  Belichick is not god, he doesn't automatically get what he wants from his staff anymore than he does draft picks... despite your ridiculous expectations for him.  

    I'm certainly not blaming Brady or Belichick, I manage people for a living, its at best controlled chaos and it's ever changing.

    But what I also won't try to do shine a turd into a diamond and say it's great, wear it on your finger, which is what you guys are trying to do with last year's offense in the Super Bowl, instead blaming a defense which actually showed up and played above themselves.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: These are the facts

    When all is said and done, there is always a losing team in the SB regardless of the blame, which is being "argued" here left and right!  As Patriots fans, can't we be happy that we have a team that has been in FIVE of them in the last 11 years, winning 3, when most fans can't even brag about their team being in ONE of them??!!  We always want our team to come out on top as does the fans and opponent of the Pats when they play in the SB.  Sometimes the other team just happens to make that one extra key play or two to win.  Let's stop this nonsense and root the Pats on to their next SB win next month!!!

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

    Re: These are the facts

    Here is a fact, I'm going to Hooters for lunch... Go Pats!

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So when you've run out of arguments, the final straw is to say "you must think you know more than Belichick."  

    How about Belichick is like any other manager of people, he is subject to loss of staff by other employers, he has to re-train new staff, implement new, easier schemes that young players and coaches can effectively use.  Belichick is not god, he doesn't automatically get what he wants from his staff anymore than he does draft picks... despite your ridiculous expectations for him.  

    I'm certainly not blaming Brady or Belichick, I manage people for a living, its at best controlled chaos and it's ever changing.

    But what I also won't try to do shine a turd into a diamond and say it's great, wear it on your finger, which is what you guys are trying to do with last year's offense in the Super Bowl, instead blaming a defense which actually showed up and played above themselves.

    [/QUOTE]

    I haven't run out of arguments.  It's just that you only listen to your own, which all do in fact imply the Belichick either created or allowed the continuation of a failed offensive philosophy for many years. It's true.  I keep saying that the Pats have done a remarkable job with their offense.  You keep saying they haven't.  Remember, the offensive strategy is what you're criticising, not the players.  If that's really the problem, then a competent leader makes sure the strategy changes.  That's his responsibility.  As the top leader of an organization, you don't delegate something that essential to someone who is incompetent and then say "it's not my fault, it was the last two or three offensive coordinators I hired."  

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I haven't run out of arguments.  It's just that you only listen to your own, which all do in fact imply the Belichick either created or allowed the continuation of a failed offensive philosophy for many years. It's true.  I keep saying that the Pats have done a remarkable job with their offense.  You keep saying they haven't.  Remember, the offensive strategy is what you're criticising, not the players.  If that's really the problem, then a competent leader makes sure the strategy changes.  That's his responsibility.  As the top leader of an organization, you don't delegate something that essential to someone who is incompetent and then say "it's not my fault, it was the last two or three offensive coordinators I hired."  

    [/QUOTE]

    I suspect Belichick is doing the best he can, which is fine by me. That doesn't make your assertion that the defense carries the burden of defeat while the offense gets off scott free when they clearly played below their standard and the defense played at or above it's standard.

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So when you've run out of arguments, the final straw is to say "you must think you know more than Belichick."  

    How about Belichick is like any other manager of people, he is subject to loss of staff by other employers, he has to re-train new staff, implement new, easier schemes that young players and coaches can effectively use.  Belichick is not god, he doesn't automatically get what he wants from his staff anymore than he does draft picks... despite your ridiculous expectations for him.  

    I'm certainly not blaming Brady or Belichick, I manage people for a living, its at best controlled chaos and it's ever changing.

    But what I also won't try to do shine a turd into a diamond and say it's great, wear it on your finger, which is what you guys are trying to do with last year's offense in the Super Bowl, instead blaming a defense which actually showed up and played above themselves.

    [/QUOTE]

    I haven't run out of arguments.  It's just that you only listen to your own, which all do in fact imply the Belichick either created or allowed the continuation of a failed offensive philosophy for many years. It's true.  I keep saying that the Pats have done a remarkable job with their offense.  You keep saying they haven't.  Remember, the offensive strategy is what you're criticising, not the players.  If that's really the problem, then a competent leader makes sure the strategy changes.  That's his responsibility.  As the top leader of an organization, you don't delegate something that essential to someone who is incompetent and then say "it's not my fault, it was the last two or three offensive coordinators I hired."  

    [/QUOTE ]
     No..................................all you do is say BB the defensive mastermind has a bad defense, because BB the GM cant acquire talent

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     No..................................all you do is say BB the defensive mastermind has a bad defense, because BB the GM cant acquire talent

    [/QUOTE]

    That is a strange isn't it...

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I haven't run out of arguments.  It's just that you only listen to your own, which all do in fact imply the Belichick either created or allowed the continuation of a failed offensive philosophy for many years. It's true.  I keep saying that the Pats have done a remarkable job with their offense.  You keep saying they haven't.  Remember, the offensive strategy is what you're criticising, not the players.  If that's really the problem, then a competent leader makes sure the strategy changes.  That's his responsibility.  As the top leader of an organization, you don't delegate something that essential to someone who is incompetent and then say "it's not my fault, it was the last two or three offensive coordinators I hired."  

    [/QUOTE]

    I suspect Belichick is doing the best he can, which is fine by me. That doesn't make your assertion that the defense carries the burden of defeat while the offense gets off scott free when they clearly played below their standard and the defense played at or above it's standard.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I never said the offense gets off scott free.  I've said repeatedly that there were execution failures on many plays.  What I disagree with is this idea that the problems with the offense (to the extent that there were problems) were the result of a coaching failure or a flawed offensive system.  I also don't make excuses for a defense that allows a 75% completion rate, points on 50% of the opponents' drives, and allows their opponent's offense to repeatedly mount long drives.  Note that I don't blame the defensive coaches for their system either.  Just as for the offense, the problems that existed on defense were mostly execution and talent problems--not coaching problems. 

     

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So when you've run out of arguments, the final straw is to say "you must think you know more than Belichick."  

    How about Belichick is like any other manager of people, he is subject to loss of staff by other employers, he has to re-train new staff, implement new, easier schemes that young players and coaches can effectively use.  Belichick is not god, he doesn't automatically get what he wants from his staff anymore than he does draft picks... despite your ridiculous expectations for him.  

    I'm certainly not blaming Brady or Belichick, I manage people for a living, its at best controlled chaos and it's ever changing.

    But what I also won't try to do shine a turd into a diamond and say it's great, wear it on your finger, which is what you guys are trying to do with last year's offense in the Super Bowl, instead blaming a defense which actually showed up and played above themselves.

    [/QUOTE]

    I haven't run out of arguments.  It's just that you only listen to your own, which all do in fact imply the Belichick either created or allowed the continuation of a failed offensive philosophy for many years. It's true.  I keep saying that the Pats have done a remarkable job with their offense.  You keep saying they haven't.  Remember, the offensive strategy is what you're criticising, not the players.  If that's really the problem, then a competent leader makes sure the strategy changes.  That's his responsibility.  As the top leader of an organization, you don't delegate something that essential to someone who is incompetent and then say "it's not my fault, it was the last two or three offensive coordinators I hired."  

    [/QUOTE ]
     No..................................all you do is say BB the defensive mastermind has a bad defense, because BB the GM cant acquire talent

    [/QUOTE]

    The defense is demonstrably bad--far more consistently bad than the offense.  This is so indisputable it's absurd that it even has to be stated. 

    And guess what.  I think BB is a great defensive mind and coach.  However, it is clear that Sterling Moore and Kyle Arrington aren't top starting corners. 

     
  25. 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 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. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Sorry that your beloved perfect Ravens lost against the Pats. Now i know why you hate the team so much. Too bad for you Sterling Moore knocked the ball out of Evans' hands. You were so close to going to the super bowl. I feel for you but oh well better luck this weekend against the Broncos. You should probably start following the Harlem Globetrotters, they never seem to lose.

     

Share