This isn't balance.

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

     

    btw Babe:

    "But it's pretty clear the facts show for some 3 decades NFL teams have passed about 35 times a game and run about 27."

    learn what a decade is. According to your chart the 35 pass to 27 run started around 1990 and your chart goes to 2010 which is 2 decades not 3




    You can disagree with the facts presented without the condescending attack on my intelligence, can't you?

    I stated "passed about 35 times a game and run about 27". The chart shows the divergence toward passing more occurring around 1982. Going to 2012, that's 3 decades.

    Using the term "about" is appropriate for the trend of the graph. The fact the numbers in a specific year may have actually been 35/30 is moot to the point I made, just as the fact in certain specific years where passing exceeded 35 times a game is moot to the general point I was making.

     




    Hey you tend to say "WRONG" in caps at people this is just doing the same thing without being as rude as saying wrong in caps




    Saying wrong in caps isn't as egregious as telling a grown man he doesn't know what a decade is. Nor is it as egregious as saying someone's claims are false when their claims are absolutely not and provably not false.

     

    And you are WRONG about wrong in caps being rude. All caps is considered rude, but a single word used in caps is only for emphasis.

     




    How are you a scientist without being able to read a graph?

     

    btw about doesn't mean you can say 27 when the data shows 30-31 that's greater then a 10% error




    LOL

    It's because he's not a "scientist".   He just says that to try to come off more intelligent, hoping it gives him some credence here. LOL

    I am stunned anyone defends him, to this day.  He's nothing more than a troll, who goes so far with this extreme Pro-Brady agenda.

    Also, I think he is the same guy (but using his Babe Parilli) handle who claimed he was a chemist as "Brady1966", remember that guy?  Hmm.  Babe claims his first love for the Pats was 1966.

    Hmm.




    Pro Brady agenda?

     

    How dare a Patriot's fan have a pro Brady agenda.

     

    You really have thought yourself into a corner.

     

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

    Russ...why are you always blasting Brady and sticking up for our d? Don't you realize thawifi we didn't have Brady, we wouldn't even be sniffing playoffs or sb's over the last 6 years here. Meanwhile the great d you keep propping up , which has been a work in progress since 2006, hasstriven up the big plays and not Ben able to close for us. I hope this year is different. 

     

     




    I go by what I see.

     




    Bingo - your problem in a nutshell. That's why facts are anathema to you.

     

    Unlike you, most of us use facts as a landmark to guide our perceptions.

     

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: This isn't balance.

     



    Yours is behind a pro Brady agenda. We know that. Yours is the Jeffrey Dahmer/psychotic level.

    lmao

    "Pro Brady" is Tony Mazz and Felger, and the minions here who ignore horrendous decisions of his, INTs on 1st down, not running the ball forward when he can, panicking in the pocket , or any other flaw of his in recent seasons.

    AndyHart from Pats.com just came on 98.5 about an hour ago and said something to the effect of "look how much better than D can play when the offense is balanced."

    If you had your way, you'd want Brady passing 40 times minimum per game and then racing to your computer to blame the D after 4 or 5 straight 3 and outs and a couple of turnovers. LMAO

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Just as you ignore the flaws of the D over the past few seasons and put it all in Brady's lap?

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

     

    btw Babe:

    "But it's pretty clear the facts show for some 3 decades NFL teams have passed about 35 times a game and run about 27."

    learn what a decade is. According to your chart the 35 pass to 27 run started around 1990 and your chart goes to 2010 which is 2 decades not 3




    You can disagree with the facts presented without the condescending attack on my intelligence, can't you?

    I stated "passed about 35 times a game and run about 27". The chart shows the divergence toward passing more occurring around 1982. Going to 2012, that's 3 decades.

    Using the term "about" is appropriate for the trend of the graph. The fact the numbers in a specific year may have actually been 35/30 is moot to the point I made, just as the fact in certain specific years where passing exceeded 35 times a game is moot to the general point I was making.

     




    Hey you tend to say "WRONG" in caps at people this is just doing the same thing without being as rude as saying wrong in caps




    Saying wrong in caps isn't as egregious as telling a grown man he doesn't know what a decade is. Nor is it as egregious as saying someone's claims are false when their claims are absolutely not and provably not false.

     

    And you are WRONG about wrong in caps being rude. All caps is considered rude, but a single word used in caps is only for emphasis.

     




    How are you a scientist without being able to read a graph?

     

    btw about doesn't mean you can say 27 when the data shows 30-31 that's greater then a 10% error




    LOL

    It's because he's not a "scientist".   He just says that to try to come off more intelligent, hoping it gives him some credence here. LOL

    I am stunned anyone defends him, to this day.  He's nothing more than a troll, who goes so far with this extreme Pro-Brady agenda.

    Also, I think he is the same guy (but using his Babe Parilli) handle who claimed he was a chemist as "Brady1966", remember that guy?  Hmm.  Babe claims his first love for the Pats was 1966.

    Hmm.




    Pro Brady agenda?

     

    How dare a Patriot's fan have a pro Brady agenda.

     

    You really have thought yourself into a corner.

     




    Yours is behind a pro Brady agenda. We know that. Yours is the Jeffrey Dahmer/psychotic level.

    lmao

    "Pro Brady" is Tony Mazz and Felger, and the minions here who ignore horrendous decisions of his, INTs on 1st down, not running the ball forward when he can, panicking in the pocket , or any other flaw of his in recent seasons.

    AndyHart from Pats.com just came on 98.5 about an hour ago and said something to the effect of "look how much better than D can play when the offense is balanced."

    If you had your way, you'd want Brady passing 40 times minimum per game and then racing to your computer to blame the D after 4 or 5 straight 3 and outs and a couple of turnovers. LMAO

     




    Alrighty then. A Pats' fan appreciating the greatest player this team has ever had is - psychotic.

     

    Gotcha. Thanks for sharing the wisdom.

     

    Oh, and now you want Brady to run with the ball and say he has a problem "panicking in the pocket".

     

    More wisdom.

     

    Have you ever wondered why you can't find anybody on Earth that agrees with you about your claimed plethora of Brady's shortcomings?

     

     

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:

     

    And I don't put it all in Brady's lap. The fact is, if Brady like he did in SB 42, a myriad of other playoff games since 2007, and recently, we don't win ONE of the 3 SBs we have in NE.

     

     


    Completely ridiculous statement.

    Why do you always posture any cockamamie opinion you conjure up as if it was a fact?

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: This isn't balance.

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:

    In response to csylvia79's comment:

     



    Yours is behind a pro Brady agenda. We know that. Yours is the Jeffrey Dahmer/psychotic level.

    lmao

    "Pro Brady" is Tony Mazz and Felger, and the minions here who ignore horrendous decisions of his, INTs on 1st down, not running the ball forward when he can, panicking in the pocket , or any other flaw of his in recent seasons.

    AndyHart from Pats.com just came on 98.5 about an hour ago and said something to the effect of "look how much better than D can play when the offense is balanced."

    If you had your way, you'd want Brady passing 40 times minimum per game and then racing to your computer to blame the D after 4 or 5 straight 3 and outs and a couple of turnovers. LMAO

     




    Just as you ignore the flaws of the D over the past few seasons and put it all in Brady's lap?



    How am I ignoring the flaws in the D?  Me talking down pink hats off a ledge and simply saying that other NFL Ds are also experiencing other issues like us, isn't ignoring our own flaws.

    And I don't put it all in Brady's lap. The fact is, if Brady like he did in SB 42, a myriad of other playoff games since 2007, and recently, we don't win ONE of the 3 SBs we have in NE.

    You can't have it both ways. Brady is not above the team. Period.  Period. Why is this so hard for you types to grasp?  BB's whole thing here is about TEAM.

    What did I tell you and others last year?:  "The D will be ready for the postseason when Spikes and Chung are back. Will Brady and the offense?"

    It's been far more about how our offense is managed in this offensive Goodell infused era, than it is asking for blood from stone from a young, rebuilt D.

     

     



    What about the line not blocking well or WR not getting open in less than 3 to 4 sec.. or many other team failings in big games.

     

    But with you it is ALWAYS just Brady bashing. Its not even pointing out  a few "FACTS"... like you say it is  team game. How about you put some of the bias against the whole team and the coaching.

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

    Russ...why are you always blasting Brady and sticking up for our d? Don't you realize thawifi we didn't have Brady, we wouldn't even be sniffing playoffs or sb's over the last 6 years here. Meanwhile the great d you keep propping up , which has been a work in progress since 2006, hasstriven up the big plays and not Ben able to close for us. I hope this year is different. 

     

     




    I go by what I see. And you're wrong. NE went 11-5 in 2008, albeit with an older veteran D, but who knows what would have happened with the team playing well at the end of the year that year.

    I would have loved to see a rematch with Pitt in Pitt that year, for example. NE would have been loose as a goose with nothing to lose and Pitt would have been under pressure to win. You give BB a second shot a team he loses to in a regular season, and watch out.

    The D has been a work in progress since 2006? That's a flat out lie or you are terrible at doing homework. BB had essentially the same core defensive guys into 2007 and even into 2008 (Seymour, Warren, Bruschi, Vrabel, etc).

    The transition year started in 2009 when Seymour was dealt (and Vrabel for that matter) and BB knew Brady wouldn't be Brady in 2009.  He couldn't sign Wilfork and Seymour, so he cut bait and conceded it.

    Please do your homework and stop lying. I am not bashing Brady, I expect more from our best player in an offensive era in the postseson, YES. Shoot me.

    You're a Brady Apologist Deluxe if you don't expect him to be better than what he's been in recent postseasons.

    So far, this year, with McDaniels in here with a fresh set of eyes and guy Brady will listen to, we see a very good Brady more consistently through 4 qtrs.

    Good to see.



    You are right Russ. The d rebuilding started later. I meant to say it should have started a lot earlier instead of waiting til half the d was over 40. The 2006 AFcc is case in point. We had something a 20 pt lead going into hapf time and the d couldn't cLose...same in 2007...the o was anemic but the d still had a chance to close and couldn't..same as last year...

    Not letting Brady and the o off the hookeither. Plenty of mistakes made...but in all 3 of those examples the d was no where to be found when it had a chance of closing the game. 

    I asked you this question about 5 different times and you never answer...I will try a sixth. If you have 2 mins to go wiTh a tie score, do you personally give it to Brady and the o, or our great d? 

     

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

     

    I asked you this question about 5 different times and you never answer...I will try a sixth. If you have 2 mins to go wiTh a tie score, do you personally give it to Brady and the o, or our great d? 

     




     

    Good question. Very good one. Answer it Rusty.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:

    It depends. I've answered it many times. Many factors go into that decision.  Is the D realatively healthy, what does the other team look like in terms of satmina and their health, how is the other QB? What's he been playing like?  What does the other team's D look like? You morons are like 12 year olds seeing things in black and white. As an adult, you should be mortified your brain never matured to be able to execute critical thining skills.

    In an offensive league with how Goodell has it structured, I would go with our own offense, yes, if I had to choose.

    That's the whole point you dumbos for some reason don't understand.

    The problem has been, our offense has been abysmal when it counts against good Ds, not just with 2 minutes to go, but earlier in games, making it seem like it's D's fault, later in the game. Get it?

    Our all world offense barely scored 14 points in SB 42. LOL! Indefensible. Absolutely indefensible.  Last year, they barely put up the 17. 

    How dumb are you at this point that you don't see what Goodell is doing to grow this league? He makes a special effot to cater to offenses yet you expect MORE from the defense in this era? That makes absolutely and unequivocally no sense whatsoever.

     




    You call people stupid at least 3 times, and don't even answer the question.

    Same old unprovoked attacks and ZERO substance from you.

     

     

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:

    Hey, Babe, err, ahem, excuse me, scientist Babe..Have you figured out your own graph yet? LOL!




    It's not my graph. And it's straightforward. Doesn't require "figurin'".

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from jerh5. Show jerh5's posts

    Re: This isn't balance.

       I think we a fairly balanced now. LOL

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    In response to jerh5's comment:

       I think we a fairly balanced now. LOL



    Agreed, new offensive first down record.  Balance isn't overrated...

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from jerh5. Show jerh5's posts

    Re: This isn't balance.

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to jerh5's comment:

       I think we a fairly balanced now. LOL



    Agreed, new offensive first down record.  Balance isn't overrated...



      I  like JM's play calling the last 2 weeks.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share