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 Jets' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    IT WAS A HORRIBLE PASS! That's all I have to sy about that. You can go on and on al day long defending brady but it is falling on deaf ears. You do go on and on about All day and it's getting old. we get it -You don't think Brady blew the game where there are plenty of others that completely disagree with you. try to learn to accept that. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Complete nonsense. The pass was decent enough for Wes to get around and get both hands on it - he simply flubbed the catch.

    This is certain > you don't know what the hell you're talking about. From Collinsworth to the Butterfingers company to Welker himself - you are dead wrong.

    I'm going to keep on going on about it every time a rube like you spews your imbecilic nonsense. So get used to it.

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to Jets' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    your coach Bb thought he was bigger then the game and decided to "cheat" the greatest game ever played. So F him and all of you that have the audacity to defend the cheater.

    [/QUOTE]

    You are nothing more than a phoney and a hypocrite. The NFL created the memo and you use their authority to claim the Pats did wrong, but then ignore their authority when they use it to conclude the Pats got no unfair advantage from the tapes. Your fake righteousness is repugnant.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to Jets' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Without Brady Bb is nothing.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm not going to argue with you on this because the facts are BB hasn't been very successful at all without Brady. But to say he is "nothing" without him is going too far.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to Jets' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The Curse of Spygate has come back to bite the pats square in the pants twice now and I can't wait to see it happen again. you've earned it!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    More stupidity and nothing more. If the curse causes BB to be unable to draft defensive players then you might have something, but I think it is rather that he just isn't a great drafter.

     

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    So any time the Patriots play the Giants we should just expect the Pats to lose?

    [/QUOTE]

    No, but to beat them, we need better O-line play and better pass defense.  Because they get such effective pressure on Brady rushing just four, our passing offense is always going to be slowed by them.  They also are solid against the run, especially up the middle.  The Pats weakness on offense has been perimeter players (running backs who have the speed to bounce it outside, receivers who challenge along the sidelines and deep).  Our offensive players (TEs, Welker, our backs last year) are better suited to attacking the middle of the field and that's exactly where the Giants defense is strongest. 

    On the other side of the ball, we just can't let Eli complete 75% of 40 passes! It's hard to beat that. 

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    We never established a run game in the first half, hence why we didn't have one in the second half.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Squitming like a worm on the hook I see.


    Just STOP with the hocus pocus BS. Next we will be hearing how all the backs had turf toe. EXCUSES!

    We needed good runs and they failed. Man up and admit the FACTS and shove your spin where the sun don't shine junior.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    BJGE gets "cold" on the bench .... but your defense allows the other team to run clock for 15 minutes at a time and this has no effect on the offense?

    Get the ball back in a timely fashion is just as important in maintaining offensive rhythm .... which of course, probably doesn't exist among these folks unless it helps their cause (a.k.a., poor Benny, no rhythm, but the rest of the offense should perform perfectly after sitting on its hands for a half hour.) 

    The Patriots' defensive mantra (its printed in the locker room, and Wilfork says it all the time) is get the ball back for the offense.

    They did nothing in that game. Less than nothing. They were dominated. And it was NOT a game plan. 

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Here is hoping the defense comes to play, unlike last postseason. They are going to need it, because the offense isn't going to run the table scoring 30 a game. 

    [/QUOTE]

    This offense is actually built to win a low scoring affair now because it has a running game, something that's been missing that you'll never allow yourself to see because of your rigid dogma.  

    The same grind it out approach that the Giants stuck with in last year's Super Bowl should be our blueprint on how to beat the best teams in the playoffs... we should know it well, it's how we won three rings from 2001-2004.

    As soon as we win a tighly contested, low scoring playoff game by controlling the TOP expect me to dredge this post up to remind you of this.

    That I have to remind our "fans" of what Patriot football used to look like is sad, but it is what it is...

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It used to look like this, let me refresh your memory because it's a little hazy actually:

    TOP per drive

    Pats v Rams (11 drives) -- 2:22 

    Patriots v Eagles (13)-- 2:25

    Pats v Giants(II) (9)-- 2:32

    Patriots v Jets  (12)-- 2:54

    Patriots v Panthers  (13) -- 2:59

    And that doesn't even count the stunning displays of offensive ineptitude against teams like the Titans, Steelers, etc, where the offense just sat there turning the ball over and going three and out after three yards and a cloud of dust, and had *much* lower TOP per drive scores. 

    Of course, with the exception of the Panthers game, those offenses weren't great. So those stats are logical to someone who pays attention to what really matters in football. They routinely had three and outs, and weren't tremendously efficient at scoring, or getting first downs, hence, they didn't chew a lot of clock. 

    Hence, the last two playoff losses were actually more efficient TOP performances by the offense because the offenses are better and do more with less. If you want a more *balanced* TOP between the teams ... the defense needs to get off the field

    And yet ironically, the BEST defensive performances came in the games with the WORST amount of clock eaten up by the Pats offense. Weird, considering defenses must have a running game to be efficient. Huh?

    But wait, the single BEST TOP per drive performance came in the game where Brady threw the ball 48(!!!!!!!) times. I think that is 9 whole passes over yours and Rusty's "limit" where you can't win, right (they won)? Or get an efficient TOP (it was the best of their Superbowl run)? Or have a defense that creates turnovers (they created one)? Or another host of assumptions basing a bad faith argument. 

    I can't say it anymore, or show you any more stats that conflict with this fictional account of the halcyon days where running = winning. If you don't believe it looking at such naked statistics, you won't ever. 

    Sorry, if the reality of their TOP per drive conflicts with your "story" about "tough" offenses. The difference between those teams and this one was that they had great defenses that could actually contribute to a win, get off the field, get them the ball back over and over. 

    Saying, or even hinting that the sole difference between playoff wins then and losses now is because New England runs the ball a couple of times less in the game really just shouldn't even be taken seriously, and I find it remarkable that the forum entertains this at this point. 

    Pretending otherwise is fine, but not based in reality. Again, sorry for busting up your little story. Carry on.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    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'....

     
  9. 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 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.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Saying, or even hinting that the sole difference between playoff wins then and losses now is because New England runs the ball a couple of times less in the game really just shouldn't even be taken seriously, and I find it remarkable that the forum entertains this at this point. 

    Pretending otherwise is fine, but not based in reality. Again, sorry for busting up your little story. Carry on.

    [/QUOTE]

    In the 3 SB wins our D snagged 8 turnovers. In the two SB losses, they have a total of one.

    That's over a 5X rate of gaining turnovers in the wins compared to the losses.

    Yet the offense managed to score fairly well per possession in every SB.

    The difference between the good old days and the recent bad ones is DEFENSE, not running.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    Another Babe idiocy designed to deflect critism from the love of his life.

     

    The offense underperforms but it's the defense's fault.

     

    tell me again Babe how this season's loss to the Seahawks was all the D's fault and had nothing to do with 1 for 6 in the red zone

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Another Babe idiocy designed to deflect critism from the love of his life.

     

    The offense underperforms but it's the defense's fault.

     

    tell me again Babe how this season's loss to the Seahawks was all the D's fault and had nothing to do with 1 for 6 in the red zone

    [/QUOTE]


    Tell us again Rusty how zero turnovers is good D. Learn the game meathead.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Saying, or even hinting that the sole difference between playoff wins then and losses now is because New England runs the ball a couple of times less in the game really just shouldn't even be taken seriously, and I find it remarkable that the forum entertains this at this point. 

    Pretending otherwise is fine, but not based in reality. Again, sorry for busting up your little story. Carry on.

    [/QUOTE]

    In the 3 SB wins our D snagged 8 turnovers. In the two SB losses, they have a total of one.

    That's over a 5X rate of gaining turnovers in the wins compared to the losses.

    Yet the offense managed to score fairly well per possession in every SB.

    The difference between the good old days and the recent bad ones is DEFENSE, not running.

    [/QUOTE] Brady was playing on the defense in those 3 SB wins right?  So, since he wasn't playing on the D side of the line in the 2 SB losses since, he is to blame for the lack of D takeaways.  I get it!!!! He IS to blame, then!!!  (-;


     
  14. 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 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.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    I guess the Energizer Bunny is keeping this string alive!  Just agree, the TEAM is to blame for the losses from HC to the water boy!

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Another Babe idiocy designed to deflect critism from the love of his life.

     

    The offense underperforms but it's the defense's fault.

     

    tell me again Babe how this season's loss to the Seahawks was all the D's fault and had nothing to do with 1 for 6 in the red zone

    [/QUOTE]


    Tell us again Rusty how zero turnovers is good D. Learn the game meathead.

    [/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?

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

    Re: These are the facts

    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?

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

    Re: These are the facts

    AZPat..  according to some here, you also have to remember one player plays all 22 positions and is to blame for any TEAM loss!!

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

    Re: These are the facts

    Wozzy - points per drive - relevant or not relevant?

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    We never established a run game in the first half, hence why we didn't have one in the second half.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Squitming like a worm on the hook I see.


    Just STOP with the hocus pocus BS. Next we will be hearing how all the backs had turf toe. EXCUSES!

    We needed good runs and they failed. Man up and admit the FACTS and shove your spin where the sun don't shine junior.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    BJGE gets "cold" on the bench .... but your defense allows the other team to run clock for 15 minutes at a time and this has no effect on the offense?

    Get the ball back in a timely fashion is just as important in maintaining offensive rhythm .... which of course, probably doesn't exist among these folks unless it helps their cause (a.k.a., poor Benny, no rhythm, but the rest of the offense should perform perfectly after sitting on its hands for a half hour.) 

    The Patriots' defensive mantra (its printed in the locker room, and Wilfork says it all the time) is get the ball back for the offense.

    They did nothing in that game. Less than nothing. They were dominated. And it was NOT a game plan. 

    [/QUOTE]

    This I could not agree with more. The secret to both Giants victories was holding the ball for long stretches on offense. The Patriots offense cannot do anything from the sideline. The Giants won by limited the Patriots time of possession and field position in both games.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: These are the facts

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    It used to look like this, let me refresh your memory because it's a little hazy actually:

    TOP per drive

    Pats v Rams (11 drives) -- 2:22 

    Patriots v Eagles (13)-- 2:25

    Pats v Giants(II) (9)-- 2:32

    Patriots v Jets  (12)-- 2:54

    Patriots v Panthers  (13) -- 2:59

    And that doesn't even count the stunning displays of offensive ineptitude against teams like the Titans, Steelers, etc, where the offense just sat there turning the ball over and going three and out after three yards and a cloud of dust, and had *much* lower TOP per drive scores. 

    Of course, with the exception of the Panthers game, those offenses weren't great. So those stats are logical to someone who pays attention to what really matters in football. They routinely had three and outs, and weren't tremendously efficient at scoring, or getting first downs, hence, they didn't chew a lot of clock. 

    Hence, the last two playoff losses were actually more efficient TOP performances by the offense because the offenses are better and do more with less. If you want a more *balanced* TOP between the teams ... the defense needs to get off the field

    And yet ironically, the BEST defensive performances came in the games with the WORST amount of clock eaten up by the Pats offense. Weird, considering defenses must have a running game to be efficient. Huh?

    But wait, the single BEST TOP per drive performance came in the game where Brady threw the ball 48(!!!!!!!) times. I think that is 9 whole passes over yours and Rusty's "limit" where you can't win, right (they won)? Or get an efficient TOP (it was the best of their Superbowl run)? Or have a defense that creates turnovers (they created one)? Or another host of assumptions basing a bad faith argument. 

    I can't say it anymore, or show you any more stats that conflict with this fictional account of the halcyon days where running = winning. If you don't believe it looking at such naked statistics, you won't ever. 

    Sorry, if the reality of their TOP per drive conflicts with your "story" about "tough" offenses. The difference between those teams and this one was that they had great defenses that could actually contribute to a win, get off the field, get them the ball back over and over. 

    Saying, or even hinting that the sole difference between playoff wins then and losses now is because New England runs the ball a couple of times less in the game really just shouldn't even be taken seriously, and I find it remarkable that the forum entertains this at this point. 

    Pretending otherwise is fine, but not based in reality. Again, sorry for busting up your little story. Carry on.

    [/QUOTE]

    Dang, Z is mopping the floor with the trolls today.  

     
  25. 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 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]


    And both SB's had the lowest amount of possessions in SB history, which accounts for the low scoring game.

    Hmmmm....maybe the D should have gotten the ball back to the O quicker so they actually had more opportunities to score.  Ya think?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share