Tom Brady is on pace to.....

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

    Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....

    In Response to Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tom Brady is on pace to..... : Your post could simply mean that you were not watching the games, or ineffectively analyzed what your were viewing. (OK, enough of imitiating your smug sarcasm.  I don't really disrespect you, but you have been pretty smug and sarcastic to a lot of people this week, and I figured you should get a dose of your own. Back to civility.) They were getting very good yards in the first half last week then abandoned the running game as if they were down 10 with seven left in the 4th. Ditto for the week before. And then they lost. It was the passing game that was failing, not the running game.  They should have just kept pounding the ball until they wore down the defenses, then later employed their hurry-up and alternated between the pass and run while the opposing teams could not substitute appropriately.  That was how they won some of their best games this season.
    Posted by chrisakawoody[/QUOTE]


    I realize you and others believe you are better game planners than BB, but I leave that to him. I trust that if we can run the ball effectively he will see to it that we run the ball.

    The fact is our passing game is in the top 5 at least and our running game is mediocre. That's probably why BB relies on our passing game more.

    The simple reality is that any coach in the NFL is going to rely on Brady before he relies on BJGE.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....

    I'm beginning to believe that Jet's fans like Brady more than you do Rusty. 

    Listen Rusty you really need to just invest in some milk. Do it!! It's got vitamins and protein in there...it's all the things your mom couldn't provide:)

    And admit it, you never went to college. You didn't. You deliver new's papers in the morning and then post all day.
     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....

    In Response to Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tom Brady is on pace to..... : This is where you have the Rusty disease, and I just can't figure out why. ALL QBs have point swings like you are pinning on Brady reltive to turnovers. Brady has one lost fumble which is better than 20 other QBs so far. He is on pace for 40 TDs which 3 other guys IN HISTORY have equaled but that is ignored. Only 5 times has that level been exceeded - EVER. And his INT number is within every paramater of what normal is. It is absolutely mind boggling that we have a D which gives up more yards per play than ANY TEAM IN THE LEAGUE, yes, more than the 0-9 Colts, the 1-7 Dolphins and 1-7 Rams. Yet fans blame the 3rd rated QB with the 100 passer rating who is on pace for the 6th most TD passes ever thrown. Most teams would kill for a QB with those numbers. This is the single dumbest argument about football I have ever witnessed in my life. You people really don't deserve Brady. You really don't. You deserve Bledsoe.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    Babe not all QB's have point swings like I stated in a single game. Averaged over a season yes this is true but not in single games. You can clearly tell when Brady is trying to hard and forcing balls into spots he shouldn't have thrown it. The whole point though is that we can directly relate 2 of the 3 loses to turn overs.

    yes the D is an issue but the standing point of any good team is to limit any and all points of problems. Turn overs is one of those area's that can be limited. The way you limit them is to have a more balanced O, provided you have RB's that can hold on to the ball. There's is no one with more sure hands in the game then BJGE and Woodhead doesn't turn it over a lot either.

    So, you can lower the risk of turn overs and actually open up the passing lanes if you run the ball more. It's been proven multiple times this year both on this team and other teams. Whether the running game is averaging 4 ypc or 2.5 ypc just having a slightly more balance attack has opened up throwing lanes and has reduced the risk of turn overs.

    This in no way blames Brady more blaming the game planning in general. The reason I'm focusing on Brady right now is because that is what the thread is about. In other threads about the D I have focused on their miscounts, and on other threads about the O game planning I focus on the game plan. That's where me and Rusty separates is I see an all around failure from Brady wanting to throw the ball to often, the game calling not properly adjusting during the game, the D disappearing in the most critical moments, and the ST's not giving the O or D good field position.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....

    In Response to Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....:
    [QUOTE]Interesting figures the Pats are 56-1 when the run the ball more then 50% of the snaps. So far this year results (% represents passing plays for that game): Jets - 48.5% - W Oak - 50% - W SD - 61.5% - W Dal - 62% - W Buf - 63% - L NYG - 67% - L Mia - 68.5% - W Pit - 74.5% - L The trend seems pretty clear to me, the more we run the better shot we have to win the game. The better one is when you break down the % of passes for the second half the 3 games with the highest % are Buf, Pit, and NYG. This doesn't mean you have to run it 50% of the time but more balance leads to a better team and better chances to win the game
    Posted by PatsEng[/QUOTE]

    Did a little research and the pass run mix of the last game was 50/50 in the first half.  That resulted in a 0-0 game.  Brady was pass happy in the 2nd half resulting in a couple of turnovers but also putting the team ahead on his last full drive. 

    Say what you want.  More running didn't put the pats ahead.  More passing did.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....

    In Response to Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tom Brady is on pace to..... : Babe not all QB's have point swings like I stated in a single game. Averaged over a season yes this is true but not in single games. You can clearly tell when Brady is trying to hard and forcing balls into spots he shouldn't have thrown it. The whole point though is that we can directly relate 2 of the 3 loses to turn overs. yes the D is an issue but the standing point of any good team is to limit any and all points of problems. Turn overs is one of those area's that can be limited. The way you limit them is to have a more balanced O, provided you have RB's that can hold on to the ball. There's is no one with more sure hands in the game then BJGE and Woodhead doesn't turn it over a lot either. So, you can lower the risk of turn overs and actually open up the passing lanes if you run the ball more. It's been proven multiple times this year both on this team and other teams. Whether the running game is averaging 4 ypc or 2.5 ypc just having a slightly more balance attack has opened up throwing lanes and has reduced the risk of turn overs. This in no way blames Brady more blaming the game planning in general. The reason I'm focusing on Brady right now is because that is what the thread is about. In other threads about the D I have focused on their miscounts, and on other threads about the O game planning I focus on the game plan. That's where me and Rusty separates is I see an all around failure from Brady wanting to throw the ball to often, the game calling not properly adjusting during the game, the D disappearing in the most critical moments, and the ST's not giving the O or D good field position.
    Posted by PatsEng[/QUOTE]

    The problem is not that we don't run enough. The problem is we have no viable deep threat to stretch the field. We are running a red zone offense all the time because of this. That's why we spread so much, to stretch the field horizontally because we can't vertically. The opposing D can limit the run because the extra guy is there due to the lack of a deep threat. They are not going to change their D because of the run threat under these circumstances. They don't have to.
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from mighty2012. Show mighty2012's posts

    Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....

    In Response to Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....:
    [QUOTE]Most teams would kill for a QB with those numbers. This is the single dumbest argument about football I have ever witnessed in my life. You people really don't deserve Brady. You really don't. You deserve Bledsoe.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    This says it all.
     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....

    In Response to Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tom Brady is on pace to..... : What says it all, will be your answer here... Would you rather have the Brady of 2001-2004 with Weis or the Brady of 2005-2011 with McDaniels/O'Brien?
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing[/QUOTE]

    What I would rather have is the 2001-2004 defense rather than this mess.
     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....

    In Response to Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tom Brady is on pace to..... : False.
    Russ, you can't call facts false.  They are facts.  Look it up.  In the first half the pats run pass mix was 50/50 and the pats didn't score a point.  They scored when they threw more. 

    Here is the flaw: O'Brien stopped using BJGE to run and started subbing in Woodhead. He got too cute subbing Woodhead for BJGE and then never running again in the second half.
    Not liking O'brien's methods doesn't make the facts false, it means you don't like his personnel use.  They ran the ball 50% of the time in the first half and did not score. 


    NE scores in bunches with the establishment of a run and balance. They stutter on offense when the run game is ditched on drives or never established. Coming out of halftime, they ditched it, so even though they barely scored 13 points (before the last TD that was too late), that 13 points is no different than the Dallas game where they scored 13 points over 57 minutes, also not establishing a run.
    Except that they scored all of their points with much less running.  And the last TD wasn't too late.  It put the pats ahead. 


    If you go into the game thread from Sunday you'll see me saying that O'Brien failed by sending in Woodhead for BJGE as a lead back in the first half.  Then, low and behold, they don't think Woodhead is the runner.  Then I said "be patient. just keep running the second half", and what happens? INT out of half and then a fumble. This is a perfect example of how stats don't tell you actually what happened. Also, one TD drive came off a botched fumble by NY. Our  offense still does not move the sticks consistently.
    That may be the case but neither does your defense.  Your defense gave up 2 80 yard drives resulting in touchdowns to end the game.  Maybe defensive conditioning is an issue. 


    You're falling into the misconception. One or two decent drives, executing better for a short period in the game, isn't enough. That's the problem.
    How many points do you think the offense should score in a game? 
    How many points do you think the defense should be allowed to give up in a game?


    We waste the entire half subbing in Woodhead, Brady throws an INT, fumbles, throws another INT, but somehow the 10 points NE allows is the D's fault in those cases? We never genuinely wanted to establish a run.  if we did, we would have  done it in the second half. NE was down by what 7 points in the 3rd qtr? When we stopping running, our O LIne doesn't look good.  Then, in the second half, without running it, in the base shotgun spread, Brady threw an inexplicable INT and fumbled, yet again in the shotgun/spread.
    Brady threw an int in the first half during a 50/50 pass/run mix and scored no points.  He was maybe 75/25 pass/run in the second half with twice as many turnover and infinitely more points (20).  In the first he earned 0 points for his 1 turnover.  In the second he earned 10 points for each turnover.  Which would you rather have.  Especially if you expect the offense to score. 

    It should have been 21-0 at the half, worst case, 14 or 17-0.  You gotta play somewhat clean for 60 minutes. Our offense plays 30 minutes.
    It was 0-0 with your greater run mix. 

    Posted by RidingWithTheKing[/QUOTE]
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....

    In Response to Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tom Brady is on pace to..... : I am pretty sure NE is undefeated when Brady throws less than 35 times. Yep. Brady was awful in SD last year, but we ran it ok (enough to move the chains and punt it deep) and battled on an off day. He threw 35 times, but was never picked. Truth hurts.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing[/QUOTE]

    Russ, do you agree that teams have to throw the ball if they are behind, because its conventional wisdom that a team can score faster with the pass than the run? 

    Thus, it may be the case that the pats were behind and had to throw. 

    Along the same lines, it is conventional wisdom that teams that are ahead will run the ball more frequently in order to take more time off the clock. 

    Thus it makes sense in the pats wins that they ran more.  They probably had the lead and used the run to use time. 
     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....

    Breaking news!! The Patriots have traded quarterback Tom Brady to the 1990's in exchange for quarterback Drew Bledsoe. They did this to satisfy a tremendously intelligent, highly successful and educated troll of a fan Rusty (aka my mom ran out of breast milk) defensive secondary genius. In the trade the Patriots will also receive a "how to rebuild a young and exciting defense" book. Also rumoured to be part of the agreement is a copy of "why the best quarterback in the league is the reason why our defense is so poor (but really not poor...just "exciting and young").

    Clearly this is one hell of a lopsided exchange, which should propel us to Super Bowl glory! Now that the Patriots have acquired their quarterback of the future they just need to get going on that pass rusher...How about Rob Nincovich and Patriot Place for Bruce Smith?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....

    Russ as an outsider, and I am not trying to throw you under the bus, I see Brady and his receivers and Belichick the positives of the team.  

    As great as belichick is, he can only coach the players he has on D.  they get the job done some, but the defense is significantly worse than it was earlier in the decade.  The pats D scares no one.  That said, they played really really well in the last game (what I saw), except that they fell apart when it mattered. 

    Brady was significantly less than himself in that game (yes he bears blame) but ultimately he did the job needed to win the game. 

    The issue with the pats now is that they can't rely on their d.  Brady is pressing and committing mistakes. 

    You guys look eerily similar to the colts.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....

    In Response to Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....:
    [QUOTE]In the Dallas and Giants games, which side of the ball outperformed the other? I'd rather have Weis era Brady.  If we were to even make a SB and Brady throws 2 or 3 INTs and not even generate a drive on his own, losing a SB would be because of the offense, not the defense. Were you happy when Brady threw an INT in SB 38 in the end zone in the second half? Our D gave up 29 points in that SB. You lose.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing[/QUOTE]

    Hey when are you going to get around to telling us what's wrong with the defense? You already spent the past three weeks bashing the offense, can you point out some of the flaws of the last ranked defense? I'm sure we'd all love to be educated by your brilliant defensive mind. 

    Perhaps you can start with some of our "young and exciting players". Or maybe you can talk about our bus load of very successful second round picks...some of which are no longer here or playing. Tell me again about how Dunlap is better than Cunningham...please Rusty...oh please. Maybe you can set up a draft board for us and you know target guys that Bill might think will fit our system. Perhaps you can tell us what it was that had you gushing over our brilliant pass rusher Moore (who is now picking cheese out of his belly button while watch America's Got Talent!).  

    Don't leave us hanging Rusto...
     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....

    In Response to Re: Tom Brady is on pace to.....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tom Brady is on pace to..... : Look at your last sentence. I hate the COlts! I knew you'd be somewhat of a phony, though. Our D blows the Colts D of even last year's away. Here is a reponse from PatsEng on the "4th qtr last drive for NE" thread: "What I mean is that on the last 4 downs, they had enough room for the 1st down and plenty of time. They didn't need to try to throw it in to the end zone 3 times in a row. I was screaming to just get the first down and make the Giants use time outs. Now I know the object was to score a TD and win the game but you had 3 downs to get 9 yards . They could have tried a 5-10 yrd pass on 2nd down and if the player ran it in for a score great and if they only managed to get closer to a 1st down that's fine too. The point being 3 straight calls to the end zone IMO wasn't the right call. I would have liked to see them try to get the 1st down on 2nd down and if they didn't get close you have 2 shots at the end zone but if your were close you could keep the clock moving then use the 4th to get into the end zone. If you actually look at the play call too, the Giants gave up the short 5 yrd underneath area to cover the end zone but all the Pats receivers went to the end zone. I blame O'Brien for not having a check down for 5 yrds as a relief value to get the 1st. " Translation? The Weis Era Brady would have NEVER done that.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing[/QUOTE]
    Russ - I wasn't being kind when I said your team looks like the colts.  what I meant by it was a great QB, great receivers, suspect defense. 

    And yes - even bad - the pats d is better than the colts, but not by that much (and I don't mean the colts d this year). 

    I am always suspect of this idea of slowing down an offense so as to not leave time on the clock for the opposition.  You can do this when you only need a FG and you are in FG range, but when you need 7.  you've got to get your points when they are available.  attempting to add plays to a drive just keep the ball away from the opposition when a team is down and needs a touchdown, imo, is wrong.  Adding plays can mean adding opportunities for turnovers.  It also means eliminating possible scoring opportunities just to keep the ball.  And what happens if the pats get a 1st down but then can't get it in from there.  What if there's a false start or just 3 bad plays and now the pats are in a 4th down situation and don't get it in.  Then you'd really have brady's neck. 

    Down by more than 3, get the td when you can.  Remember, the defense is made up of professionals, too, and their purpose is to keep the offense from scoring.
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share