These are the facts

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    NEWSFLASH: There are MANY fans who agree with me and me with them.

    [/QUOTE]


    Those who believe Brady and the shotgun spread are our "real" problem are few and far between junior.

    Still waiting for you to produce any expert sources that confirm a word of what you say.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Tom Brady is the greatest QB of all time

    Bill Belichick is the greatest coach of all time

    The Patriots offense is historically great

    The Patriot defense has improved and will be a factor.

     

    These are facts that any Patriot fan will agree with-

    step up and identify yourself as a jealous troll if you disagree.

     

    Troll List

    Rusty

    Jints

    Underdog

    Leon

    Phatrex

    Frnkbnhm

    [/QUOTE]


    Very interesting that we have a thread here designating others and it is receiving no disdain from the board.  If I do it however, its as if I've committed a felony. 

    BTW - you've got some of your facts wrong. 

    [/QUOTE]


    That's because everybody here hates you troll.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Eli Manning 2011 - Regular Season 92.9 / Post Season 103.3

    Aaron Rodgers 2010 - Regular Season 101.2 / Post Season 109.8

    Drew Brees 2009 - Regular Season 109.6 / Post Season 117.0

    Roethlisberger 2008 - Regular Season 80.1 / Post Season 91.6

    Eli Manning 2007 - Regular Season 73.9 / Post Season 95.7

    All of these guys played better in the post-season.

    [/QUOTE]

    And Brady had a 100.4 in this last post-season. But you don't think that is comparable to these numbers? And he did this despite having to play the NFL's best pass D - the Ravens - 68.8 DPR.

    How much better did you think he should have done in 2010 than his 89 against the Jets' 77 DPR while he was getting sacked 5 times?

    In the 2007 SB he was sacked 5 times as well. Not to mention getting slammed another nearly 15 times.

    Learn the game.

    [/QUOTE]

    Brady's did have a 100.4 rating last year in the playoffs which was almost entirely do to the 6 TD performance against the Broncos still down from 105.6 rating he had during the regular season. 

    As for the Jets in 2010, considering he had put up a 148.9 rating against the same team a month earlier and had a 111.0 rating on the season. I had hoped for something better.

    I am not saying the fact he cannot put up the same numbers in the post-season is his fault. The whole team under performed in the two Giants Super Bowls and that Jets game. 

    My point has always been that there is a reason this team stopped winning championships when it started focusing on putting up ridiculous offensive numbers. 

    I think that this year the team refocused on defense (with the drafting of Hightower and Jones and the trade for Talib) and beyond more balanced on offense (more runs and more effective running), and that should get them back to winning the Super Bowl.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    You keep changing your tune Wozzy.  Now TOP doesn't matter, just points and turnovers?  You've been arguing ground and pound to control clock, and talking about an "offense designed to win low scoring games" (a hilarious concept, by the way--and bordering on absurd if now you don't think TOP matters either), and now when shown how running the ball isn't always the way to control TOP, you back track. 

    Sorry, Bill Belichick knows how to win football games . . . you guys act like he's been a screw-up since 2004 who went all soft and "finesse."  He hasn't gone soft or forgotten the basics of the game.  He's just trying to win with the talent he has given years of having to try to build a team with low draft picks . . . 

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to Philskiw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    When we got beat in the superbowls it was because the giants generated a pass rush. Whether it was due to the O line breaking down, scheme or what ever, it worked.  

    For this game we need a pass rush. We get that our corners look al pro and we will beat anyone. Time for chandler jones to step up and be the force he can be. If they have to double him the other side can have a lot of fun.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Weren't there a lot of folks who said that if there was any other QB in those two SB games against the Giants other than Brady, the Pats would have lost worse?  Name a QB who would have done better under the pressure the Giants put on TB those two games.  Seems EVERYONE forgets, put enough pressure on ANY QB and they will not perform well and everyone agrees, the Giants D was playing way above their norm those two games while the Pats O-line underperformed!


     
  7. 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'll never allow yourself to see because of your rigid dogma.  

     

    [/QUOTE]



    Doesn't get much more ironic than this wozzy.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    Back from your weekly electro-shock therapy session so soon, crusty?

     

    Michael Rosenberg >INSIDE THE NFL More Columns Email Michael Rosenberg Brady's performance in Super Bowl adds a lot to his legacy. Really Story Highlights Tom Brady didn't win his fourth Super Bowl on Sunday, but he played very well Had Wes Welker not dropped catchable pass, we might be calling Brady best ever Fact is, Brady led nondescript team with terrible defense to brink of championship <iframe src="//www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fsportsillustrated.cnn.com&send=false&layout=box_count&width=49&show_faces=false&action=like&colorscheme=light&font=verdana&height=62" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border:none; overflow:hidden; width:49px; height:62px;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe> 3
    inShare
    Share Email Print <iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fsportsillustrated.cnn.com%2F&layout=button_count&show_faces=false&width=110&action=like&font=verdana&colorscheme=light&height=21" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border:none; overflow:hidden; width:110px; height:21px;" allowTransparency="true" id="cnnShareFB"></iframe> inShare3 Share Email Print Decrease font Decrease font Enlarge font Enlarge font Tom Brady and the Patriots lost their second straight Super Bowl to the Giants on Sunday, but the defeat shouldn't negatively affect his legacy. Tom Brady and the Patriots lost their second straight Super Bowl to the Giants on Sunday, but the defeat shouldn't negatively affect his legacy. AP Super Bowl XLVI SI.com's Coverage From Indy Super Bowl XLVI Live Blog SI Photos Best SB XLVI Photos Best SB XLVI Photos SB XLVI Halftime Show SB XLVI Halftime Show

    Legacy? Sure, we can talk about Tom Brady's legacy. Obviously, when you look at the way Brady carried the Patriots to the Super Bowl and the way he played Sunday, he added quite a bit to his legacy.

    Wait. Are you saying you think Brady damaged his legacy Sunday?

    What?

    Sometimes I wonder if people watched the same game I did. Brady completed 27 of 41 passes for 276 yards and two touchdowns. He also threw one interception, when he underthrew a deep ball to Rob Gronkowski. (A healthy Gronkowski probably would have knocked that ball down if he didn't catch it, but Gronkowski had an injured ankle.) And Brady took a safety when he threw another deep ball to nobody from his own end zone.

    But overall, these facts should not be in dispute: Brady took an otherwise nondescript Patriots team to the brink of a championship, and he played well Sunday. At the end of the first half, he completed 10 of 10 passes and drove the Pats 98 yards for a touchdown. He broke the Super Bowl record for consecutive completions.

    Quarterbacks have played worse than Brady played Sunday and won Super Bowl MVP. One of them was Tom Brady: In his first Super Bowl, he completed 16 of 27 passes for 145 yards and a touchdown, and he won the game's MVP award.

    Somehow, that game helped establish Brady as a winner while Sunday's game brought his reputation into question. Part of this is timing. When Brady led the Patriots to that first title, it was his first year as a starter and simply by winning the game, he exceeded the expectations. Now we measure Brady against our image of what he was, or of what Joe Montana was. But it still isn't right.

    Look: I understand that a quarterback's job is to win games, not pile up stats. It's what our football culture demands, and this has helped Brady's reputation much more than it has hurt it over the years. But in our rush to talk about legacies and measure careers against each other, we're losing sight of this: A quarterback cannot win a game himself. Other players matter.

    Did Eli Manning outplay Brady Sunday? Well, Manning was great, and his numbers (30 of 40 completions, 296 yards, one touchdown, no interceptions, no intentional grounding penalties that led to a safety) were better. But Manning also had an easier task than Brady in almost every way.

    Manning has better receivers -- Victor Cruz, Hakeem Nicks and Mario Manningham might be the best trio in the NFL. He got to face the absolutely horrendous Patriots pass defense. In an average game against the Patriots this year -- an AVERAGE game -- quarterbacks completed 24 of 38 passes for 293 yards. The Giants' pass defense was bad this year too, but I think it's fair to say the Patriots' pass defense was worse. And I think it's pretty clear that the Giants' pass rush is better than New England's. If we can't agree on anything else, we can agree on that.

    True, Brady only led his team to 17 points. But New England had the worst field position I can ever remember for a Super Bowl team. The Pats started on their own 6, their 29, their 20, their 2, their 21, their 17, their 20, their 8 and their 20. The Patriots played the entire game uphill.

    Manning also led his team to the game-winning score, while Brady failed to do so. But you have to look at circumstances there, too. Manningham made an incredible catch on a sideline route as he got hit. Wes Welker dropped a pass that he normally catches; it was certainly not Brady's best throw, but it was an easier catch than the one Manningham made, and Welker beat himself up for it afterward.

    When Brady needed to go 80 yards in the final 57 seconds to win the Super Bowl, his first two passes were dropped. That made a difficult task almost impossible, but it also set up the best clutch play that either quarterback made Sunday: on fourth-and-16, Brady escaped the rush and found Deion Branch for a first down.

    Did Brady complete a bunch of passes downfield? No, he did not. But have you seen his roster? His leading receiver is 5-foot-9 Welker, a possession receiver. His second-leading receiver is a tight end. His third-leading receiver is another tight end. His fourth-leading receiver is another 5-9 guy, Branch, who is 32 years old.

    Good players, all of them. But who in that group seems like a deep threat to you? Bill Belichick answered this question last summer: Nobody. That is why he acquired Chad Ochocinco -- he was supposed to be that deep threat. Unfortunately Ochocinco is neither deep nor a threat.

    I'm not saying Brady was better than Manning or that this was the greatest performance of his life. But he played very well in a Super Bowl, for a team that, top to bottom, is not as talented as the Giants. Yes, I know the Pats won 13 regular-season games and the Giants won nine. But that was largely a function of schedule (New England didn't beat a team with a winning record until the playoffs) and the greatness of Brady and Belichick.

    Brady was supposedly trying to stake his claim as greatest quarterback ever in this game. After all, Joe Montana has that title now, and he won four Super Bowls, so if Brady could win his fourth ... and hey, there is your claim. This storyline was largely a media creation -- two years ago, in the lead-up to that Colts-Saints Super Bowl, there was a lot of talk about whether a Colts would win mean Peyton Manning was the greatest quarterback ever. But it was a fun media creation.

    If you think Montana was better, that's fine. Montana was phenomenal. But if we're going to discuss it, we should at least point out that Brady has been sturdier than Montana, and that midway through Montana's career, the 49ers added the best receiver in history to a contending roster. Jerry Rice did not make Joe Montana; Montana was an alltime great before Rice showed up. But I think it's fair to say Wes Welker is no Jerry Rice.

    I enjoy those debates, and I don't have a dog in the fight. I grew up during Montana's peak, and I have watched Brady with admiration as an adult and I can't really argue against either of them. But when a quarterback plays as well as Brady did Sunday and it supposedly hurts his legacy because his defense couldn't stop the other quarterback ... well, that's when I shake my head. You can argue that Brady is not the best quarterback ever. Just don't use this Super Bowl as your evidence.

     



    Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_rosenberg/02/06/brady.legacy/index.html#ixzz2HJIhBAZa

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You keep changing your tune Wozzy.  Now TOP doesn't matter, just points and turnovers?  You've been arguing ground and pound to control clock, and talking about an "offense designed to win low scoring games" (a hilarious concept, by the way--and bordering on absurd if now you don't think TOP matters either), and now when shown how running the ball isn't always the way to control TOP, you back track. 

    Sorry, Bill Belichick knows how to win football games . . . you guys act like he's been a screw-up since 2004 who went all soft and "finesse."  He hasn't gone soft or forgotten the basics of the game.  He's just trying to win with the talent he has given years of having to try to build a team with low draft picks . . . 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course TOP matters, hence why we feel running it more will HELP TOP.

    Ever notice we lose the TOP battle against good Ds. Why do you think that is?  LMAO

    Get over it. Brady isn't as good as he thinks he is in his preferred shotgun spread base.

    [/QUOTE]

    Tell that to Wozzy, Rusty.  He's the one that's saying all that matters are points, points against, and turnovers. 

     

     
  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]

    49ers lost because of three fumbled kick returns, don't get it twisted.

    A smashmouth team can spread out and play finesse, a finesse team can't necessarily do the same, at least we haven't been able to, the Manning Colt's couldn't...

    The only stats that matter are points scored, points against and turnovers.  

    The Patriots of old that won rings were "smashmouth" teams, the Patriot teams that have lost every year since were not.

    [/QUOTE]


    Ya, I think the NFL Defensive puzzys of those years, had quite a bit to do with that.

    By your own standards, no turn-overs and more points allowed.  (2 out of 3 DEFENSIVE failures)  proves that.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    Rusty have you ever presented an iota of evidence that Belichick lets Brady run the offense completely and just sits on his hands even if he disagrees with the playcalling?  You continuously make this claim over and over as if it is a fact.  There is a difference between giving Brady a lot of leeway to run the offense and letting him do whatever the f he wants even if his coach disagrees.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    Can we all stop with the troll hunt seriously. What are we all in 3rd grade saying "so and so is a coutie head"

    What, unless you are completely wearing ruby glasses you are a troll? We are fans, everyone and as fans we have the right to question the moves of the team. Not because we have any control over it but because we spend money, have an emotional connection to the team, and want to see the team succeed in the manner we see it to succeed.

    I don't always agree with Rusty (esp when it comes to Brady) but he does provide some good talking points when it comes to the D. You can tell Rusty is a devoted fan (sometimes to much when he attacks other posters views) he's not a troll.

    I don't always agree with Babe (esp when it comes to balance) but he does provide some good talking points when it comes to the O. You can tell Babe is a devoted fan (even when he calls out former players or gives misleading stats to prove his argument) he's not a troll.

    Frankly, I question a persons fanship when all they do is come out and call other fans trolls without bringing any other points to the discussion. Just as long as you enjoy watching the team and bring points to discussions about the team you are not a troll.

    Now can we all grow up, stop trying to divide the board into camps, and finally just enjoy civil discussions about how we think the Pats would be best suited without resorting to name calling and labeling each other

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Eli Manning 2011 - Regular Season 92.9 / Post Season 103.3

    Aaron Rodgers 2010 - Regular Season 101.2 / Post Season 109.8

    Drew Brees 2009 - Regular Season 109.6 / Post Season 117.0

    Roethlisberger 2008 - Regular Season 80.1 / Post Season 91.6

    Eli Manning 2007 - Regular Season 73.9 / Post Season 95.7

    All of these guys played better in the post-season.

    [/QUOTE]

    And Brady had a 100.4 in this last post-season. But you don't think that is comparable to these numbers? And he did this despite having to play the NFL's best pass D - the Ravens - 68.8 DPR.

    How much better did you think he should have done in 2010 than his 89 against the Jets' 77 DPR while he was getting sacked 5 times?

    In the 2007 SB he was sacked 5 times as well. Not to mention getting slammed another nearly 15 times.

    Learn the game.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Not to mention they are comparing stats in a 16 game regular season to a (in TB's case, 1-3 game post season) or in Eli, Brees.  ect 3 game season.  One bad game in a 16 game regular season will not necessarily skew those stats but one bad game in a 1-3 game postseason will greatly reduce QBR.

    And yes, the D's play in limiting possessions greatly decreased QBR as did the 8 dropped passes in the SB.  Passes completed and yards gained would have INCREASED dramatically, without those.

    In other words, it takes a village.

    [/QUOTE]


    What is especially irritating is that not a one of the very few Brady bashers EVER gives an iota of slack to the fact Gronk was virtually KOd for the last SB.

    They act as if that dynamic in the game didn't exist and we should have scored 28-30 points on a hot Giants' team that was keeping our D on the field all day.

    It is pure incompetence as a fan to harbor such dunderheaded notions. Brady played a fabulous game considering the lack if effective running, the lack of a normal number of possessions and the many dropped passes. In fact, if not for his excellence.... the Giants probably would have won a laugher.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I can't believe this debate still rages when the proof is clearly in the pudding. 

    You can't win a SB without a run game. Doesn't haveto be dominant, you just have to some semblance of one to keep Ds honest.  I don't understand why a basic concept like this is rebuffed by so many on this board. The premise Brady needs a HOF caliber RB like Corey Dillons is also ludicrous, especially considering his salary at this point.

    Our offense last SB tried to defy that fact, and in SB 42, it was something that was also a flaw. Considering how great the 2007 offense was in general, however, it's somewhat forgiveable, because that was a unique situation.

    However, to seriously pretty much mirror the approach and do it again, only to again blame a defense that literally shutown/contained the opposing team's offense from scoring a lot of points, is also ludicrous.

    Can we please stop this nosense?   It's so ridiculous. We could run Ridley/Bolden 25 times combined in every game, including the SB, win the whole thing, and people will still be on here apparently trying to spin how Brady still needs to throw a lot and a shotgun spread base is still the best approach. lol

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You CAN win a SB without a run game in fact MANY have.  What you can't do is win with a DPR of  92+ as NO TEAM EVER HAS!

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    If you score more points than the opposition, hold them to less points and don't turn the ball over than who cares what the TOP is?  I haven't changed my tune about anything.  

    You are ignoring my message and attacking the messenger.  Stick to my point, this offense is tougher, stronger more "smashmouth" just like in our championship years.  

    Address this, instead of trying to deflect away my very common sense logic by using misdirection.

    Are we or are we not tougher offensively?  

    If you can answer this honestly we can keep talking, otherwise you are like the rest of your cohorts spinning your wheels looking at miles of useless, arbitrary stats...  stats are for losers.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I can't believe this debate still rages when the proof is clearly in the pudding. 

    You can't win a SB without a run game. Doesn't haveto be dominant, you just have to some semblance of one to keep Ds honest. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Nobody is going to disagree with you junior that the run game was ineffective in the last 2 SBs. In that case you likely need a D playing very tough to win. As it is, despite anemic running and defensive collapses, we lost them both in the last minutes.

    Your problem is you expect Brady to make up for the other deficiencies every time. He can only do that to a certain extent. You just don't get that Brady is the one guy who was doing his job well enough to keep us in it despite the fails of others.

     

     

     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    If the Pats win the TO battle they will win the game. This is why the too many men call in SB on the fumble recovery was huge. This year the Pats have a better running game and a better defense (if everyone is healthy).

     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to themightypatriots's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    NE struggles against good defenses. Why? Their offense slows down, and their defense hasn't been able to stop mediocre offenses like Baltimore or NY in the past.

    [/QUOTE]


    Ding ding ding.  We have a winner.

    [/QUOTE]


    Giants offense last year was "mediocre"?  Ok....

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share