Tom Brady's playoff numbers

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

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 42AND46's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Came across this article today. I think it illustrates a point that our offense has struggled in the post season while dropping back 78% of the time as opposed to 72% in the regular season(which is already a very high number) I hope we come out tomorrow night and change this trend.

     

    The Colts’ four-man rush vs. Brady 

     

    "Brady’s postseason play has been part of New England’s recent playoff problem. His 71.1 Total QBR in the regular season since losing Super Bowl XLII is fourth best in the league, but his 45.7 playoff QBR in that span ranks 19th. 

     

    Brady vs. 4 or Fewer Rushers

    From 2008 till 2013 Brady has dropped back 

    71% of the time in the regular season. 78%* in the post season.

     

     

    That means Tom Brady drops back 78% of the time in the playoffs. It is the highest %  of drop backs by any QB other then Drew Brees in the post season for the last 5 years.

     

     

    Comp pct. 65.0% in regular season.  59.9% in the post season

     

     

    Yds per att 7.5 in the regular season, 6.4 in the post season.

     

     

    TD to INT rate 89-37 in the regular season. 12-10 in the post season.

     

     

    Total QBR 75.6 in the regular season. 35.0 in the post season. 

     

     

     

    "Brady has always been good against the blitz. He has 76 touchdowns and six interceptions when opponents send at least five rushers since the start of 2008 (including the playoffs). His plus-70 TD-Int differential is best in the league, and only Aaron Rodgers has even thrown 70 touchdowns. 

     

     

     

    The problem is teams don’t blitz Brady as often in the postseason. The 2007 Giants solidified a basic tenet for beating Brady: don’t rely on extra pass-rushers. Teams have followed that blueprint with success since the 2007 Giants". 

     

    Question....

    Anybody have any ideas on how we should attack a 4 man rush? Or why teams consistently rush 4 and drop 7 in the post season...how do they know that will work? 

    Thoughts?

    [/QUOTE]


    if u can rush 4 and drop 7 you will stop just about any QB or offense.

    [/QUOTE]

    Even kids watching the game for only a year realize this; but somehow grown men here can't. They must have an "agenda".

    [/QUOTE]

    So, how do you think we should attack a 4 man rush babe? Surely you have an opinion?

    [/QUOTE]

    The best way is to block it.  You do have five O lineman after all.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Some in depth analysis here prolate. And sometimes we have 6 O linemen when you figure in a blocking TE. But I guess they can't figure it out in the big stage. Strange that BB doesn't just "fix it".

    How would you attack this 4 man rush that has so clearly given us trouble in the post season? Besides just, "block it".

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

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    So, how do you think we should attack a 4 man rush babe? Surely you have an opinion?

    [/QUOTE]

    That depends on whether the 4 man rush was being effective or not.

    [/QUOTE]

    Whaaa?

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, if the 4 man rush is being effectively handled by the O-line I would attack one way, but if they were stopping the run and pressuring the QB I would attack another way.

    [/QUOTE]

    So if they were stopping the run AND pressuring the QB what way would you attack exactly?

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    why do I see people running around here saying "GOAT" constantly and then run away after every postseason when he disappoints?

    [/QUOTE]

    Nobody runs away fool. They're right here saying he would have 2 more rings and probably 2 more SBMVPs if the D didn't collapse yet again at the end of a SB.

    Those games were won with a stop, or a catch by either Welker or Samuel.

    The town fool, bludgeoned again!

    [/QUOTE]

    Nah.

    Brady could only lead the current all time leading offense in NFL history (at the time) to 14 points in Sb 42.  Sb 46 wasn;t much better. No team wins SBs with barely scoring.

    To be that subpar in an easy offensive era to let the team down has been bitterly disappointing for real Pats fans.   

    You can't change it now, but Brady can, starting tomorrow night.  

    [/QUOTE]

    But the fact remains, if the D held Brady would indeed have 2 more rings. You are aware of this right? Can you say it? It might be good therapy. Just write down, "If the D held at the end of the game Brady would have 5 SB wins" Try it my man!

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

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    So, how do you think we should attack a 4 man rush babe? Surely you have an opinion?

    [/QUOTE]

    That depends on whether the 4 man rush was being effective or not.

    [/QUOTE]

    Whaaa?

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, if the 4 man rush is being effectively handled by the O-line I would attack one way, but if they were stopping the run and pressuring the QB I would attack another way.

    [/QUOTE]

    So if they were stopping the run AND pressuring the QB what way would you attack exactly?

    [/QUOTE]

    Are they playing zone, double teaming in man, what would the 7 non-rushers be doing?


    But in general... I would still pass and run the bread and butter plays here and there, but would throw in a lot more draws, screens, dink and dunk passes to the receivers and passes to backs slipping through the line or into a flat to make them uncomfortable in their defensive scheme. Maybe even a couple of reverses or trick plays.

    You can't just keep beating your head against a stone wall where the run isn't working, the QB is pressured by 4 guys and your receivers are all double teamed down-field. You have to get tricky to frustrate them with that.

    But anytime 4 rushers are getting consistent pressure and stopping the run, you're in an uphill battle.

     

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

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    why do I see people running around here saying "GOAT" constantly and then run away after every postseason when he disappoints?

    [/QUOTE]

    Nobody runs away fool. They're right here saying he would have 2 more rings and probably 2 more SBMVPs if the D didn't collapse yet again at the end of a SB.

    Those games were won with a stop, or a catch by either Welker or Samuel.

    The town fool, bludgeoned again!

    [/QUOTE]

    Nah.

    Brady could only lead the current all time leading offense in NFL history (at the time) to 14 points in Sb 42.  Sb 46 wasn;t much better. No team wins SBs with barely scoring.

    To be that subpar in an easy offensive era to let the team down has been bitterly disappointing for real Pats fans.   

    You can't change it now, but Brady can, starting tomorrow night.  

    [/QUOTE]


    If you are man enough, just answer yes or no.

    If the D had stopped the Giants on their last drive in our last two SBs Brady would have two more rings, right?

     

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

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    So, how do you think we should attack a 4 man rush babe? Surely you have an opinion?

    [/QUOTE]

    That depends on whether the 4 man rush was being effective or not.

    [/QUOTE]

    Whaaa?

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, if the 4 man rush is being effectively handled by the O-line I would attack one way, but if they were stopping the run and pressuring the QB I would attack another way.

    [/QUOTE]

    So if they were stopping the run AND pressuring the QB what way would you attack exactly?

    [/QUOTE]

    Are they playing zone, double teaming in man, what would the 7 non-rushers be doing?


    But in general... I would still pass and run the bread and butter plays here and there, but would throw in a lot more draws, screens, dink and dunk passes to the receivers and passes to backs slipping through the line or into a flat to make them uncomfortable in their defensive scheme. Maybe even a couple of reverses or trick plays.

    You can't just keep beating your head against a stone wall where the run isn't working, the QB is pressured by 4 guys and your receivers are all double teamed down-field. You have to get tricky to frustrate them with that.

    But anytime 4 rushers are getting consistent pressure and stopping the run, you're in an uphill battle.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Can you keep beating your head against the wall when the pass isn't working? Or does that only work with the run?


    If they were getting consistent pressure and not stopping the run, which route would you go?

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

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    Rusty if you admit it babe promises he will never rag on you in regard to the D giving up the final 2 scores.

    Babe are you on board?

    I feel this is going to be a major break through on this board.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    I'm not going to read the rest of the garbage between the first post and here, simply because most of it is just that.  (There are some good posts there, I'm sure.)  If this is redundant, I apologize to those who I don't have on ignore.

    Playoff numbers are down because the competition is much better.  No low lying teams to beat the snot out of like the ones in October.

    It's very simple and easy to understand if you're not stupid.

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

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm not going to read the rest of the garbage between the first post and here, simply because most of it is just that.  (There are some good posts there, I'm sure.)  If this is redundant, I apologize to those who I don't have on ignore.

    Playoff numbers are down because the competition is much better.  No low lying teams to beat the snot out of like the ones in October.

    [/QUOTE]

    Does that argument hold up to the stats?  Baltimore scored a ton of points and yardage in last year's playoffs.

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

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I[/QUOTE]


    So, how do you think we should attack a 4 man rush babe? Surely you have an opinion?

    [/QUOTE]

    The best way is to block it.  You do have five O lineman after all.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Some in depth analysis here prolate. And sometimes we have 6 O linemen when you figure in a blocking TE. But I guess they can't figure it out in the big stage. Strange that BB doesn't just "fix it".

    How would you attack this 4 man rush that has so clearly given us trouble in the post season? Besides just, "block it".

    [/QUOTE]

    Again, a four man rush is the normal situation in the NFL.  If you can't block that, you're in trouble.  You can hold back extra blockers, but that just means your receivers are much more likely to be covered.  Or you can line up in the shotgun and try the quick pass.  Or you can give up on passing and try to run the ball (which I'm sure is what you think we should do), but that only works if you can move the ball well running.  Often, when D lines are good enough to pressure the passer with just four, they are good against the run too.  This is especially true if there aren't real deep threats on the field and the defense can keep the LBs and safeties close to the LOS.

    Really, the answer here is "block better."  You may not like that answer, but there it is. It's hard to scheme yourself out of ineffective blocking. 

     

     

     

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

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "Brady’s postseason play has been part of New England’s recent playoff problem. His 71.1 Total QBR in the regular season since losing Super Bowl XLII is fourth best in the league, but his 45.7 playoff QBR in that span ranks 19th. 

     Total QBR 75.6 in the regular season. 35.0 in the post season. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I see two major flaws with these stats....

    How can a QB "Rank 19th" in the playoffs? Just how many teams make the playoffs again?

    One part of your stats says his QBR is 45.7 in the playoffs....then a few lines later you claim it's 35. Which is it?

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

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    From 2008 to 2013 Brady has played in 7 postseason games.  In 2 of those games he destroyed the opposing defense (Denver, Houston).  In the 2nd SB against the Giants I thought he played pretty well.  That leaves 4 games, 3 of which came against the Ravens a team who has always played Brady tough.  Idk if I would read too much into this "blueprint".  It was basically carried out by one team with a bunch of HoF'ers on defense with the Jets game being the one exception.

    [/QUOTE]


    Exactly and those three games against the Ravens people forget that they had the number one rated defense against the pass in at least one of those games (maybe two). And Baltimore was also solid against the run, had good players, experienced players and had faced our offense many times before. Those were very tough matchups.

    The game against the Jets I thought heading in was going to be very tough, they were playing well and at the time rex had a good secondary. I remember the first matchup against them where we throttled them at home - that was one of the weirdest blowouts I've seen - Brady was fitting that ball into some very tight windows. I remember the jet's players looking at eachother like...how did he do that? They had good coverage and it didn't matter. That was one of the those games where Brady just played like few could - I didn't think he could do that again against the jets in the playoffs...and he didn't. Having said that I wouldn't put that loss on him, the defense did nothing in that game, they stopped our run when they had to too.

    And Super Bowl 46 is a very underrated game for him, if we won that game he would of been Super Bowl MVP hands down. He played better than Eli...he played better than anyone on either team. People want to talk about that pick to Gronk? Well he should of been sacked on that play, it was him, and him alone that got free of that pass rush off his scramble. He made a bad throw...he could of done something else, but the truth is if you watch that play again he scrambled left, he scrambled right, he ran up the right and fired the ball to Gronk at the last second deep. If Gronk caught it he would of been at the 20...instead it was picked and resulted in essentially a punt. There were 20 other throws that were perfect in that game from him - several of which were dropped - he also orchestrated the longest scoring drive in Super Bowl history in that game (he went something ridicolous like 9 for 9 during it).

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    The idea about the blue print is not that far off but the point is that when you throw the ball 70% of the time it is very predictable.

    I think the patriot OCs have thought there is enough variation  in the passsing game that they can just trot out there and throw the ball all over and have success.

    Um ... it has worked in the regular season but fails in the playoffs.

    Defenses are better and the small receivers get molested more.  Facts.

    Predictable offense means Pass rushers TEE OFF and use stunts and mess around since they KNOW you don't have the ability to morph out of this tendency.   It is failed offensive strategy that has produced these stats...   As soon as you go into your spread and tell the defense what you are doing you are doing them a favor.  

    cut that sh1t out( v. balt/ buff) ...  and we have seen better results the last few weeks.  Win the unpredictability game.  simple as that.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:



    That's right. But, Brady hasn't played well in back to back playoff games since 2004.

    It's a fact.

    Take out say, 3 seasons, two for not having a strong offensive cast in 2006 or 2009 and his injury year in 2008, and that is literally FIVE total playoff years where he couldn't play well in back to back games.

    5.

    I'd take 3 1 and dones if it meant after those 3, my QB would be great again.

    Will Brady be great again? This is the elephant in the room and has been for years and years now.

    The excuses are over. It's down to Z on the Excuse Rolodex.



    Brady needs to play well for us to win. That's obvious. He needs to block better, catch the ball better, cover better and tackle better. Oh, and he also needs to coach better.

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

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    I know I speak for others when I say I long for the good old days with Scott Secules at QB.  The guy never lost a playoff game.  To this day no one second-guesses his postseason play-calling, audibles, pocket presence, or accuracy on the deep ball.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I know I speak for others when I say I long for the good old days with Scott Secules at QB.  The guy never lost a playoff game.  To this day no one second-guesses his postseason play-calling, audibles, pocket presence, or accuracy on the deep ball.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I was a Tommy Hodson guy.

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

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    So, how do you think we should attack a 4 man rush babe? Surely you have an opinion?

    [/QUOTE]

    That depends on whether the 4 man rush was being effective or not.

    [/QUOTE]

    Whaaa?

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, if the 4 man rush is being effectively handled by the O-line I would attack one way, but if they were stopping the run and pressuring the QB I would attack another way.

    [/QUOTE]

    So if they were stopping the run AND pressuring the QB what way would you attack exactly?

    [/QUOTE]

    Are they playing zone, double teaming in man, what would the 7 non-rushers be doing?


    But in general... I would still pass and run the bread and butter plays here and there, but would throw in a lot more draws, screens, dink and dunk passes to the receivers and passes to backs slipping through the line or into a flat to make them uncomfortable in their defensive scheme. Maybe even a couple of reverses or trick plays.

    You can't just keep beating your head against a stone wall where the run isn't working, the QB is pressured by 4 guys and your receivers are all double teamed down-field. You have to get tricky to frustrate them with that.

    But anytime 4 rushers are getting consistent pressure and stopping the run, you're in an uphill battle.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Can you keep beating your head against the wall when the pass isn't working? Or does that only work with the run?


    If they were getting consistent pressure and not stopping the run, which route would you go?

    [/QUOTE]


    I would run if it was being effective and the pass was not.

    But remember, any good coach is going to sink or swim with his best player(s). If neither the run or pass is working well, BB will live or die with Brady, and he is 100% right in doing that. If he had Jim Brown in his prime and Tannehill as QB, he would live and die with Brown.

     

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

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think the patriot OCs have thought there is enough variation  in the passsing game that they can just trot out there and throw the ball all over and have success.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm pretty sure the HC would apply a boot to the OC's azz if he thought the balance was hurting the team; in a NY minute.

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

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    In response to tanbass' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "Brady’s postseason play has been part of New England’s recent playoff problem. His 71.1 Total QBR in the regular season since losing Super Bowl XLII is fourth best in the league, but his 45.7 playoff QBR in that span ranks 19th. 

     Total QBR 75.6 in the regular season. 35.0 in the post season. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I see two major flaws with these stats....

    How can a QB "Rank 19th" in the playoffs? Just how many teams make the playoffs again?

    One part of your stats says his QBR is 45.7 in the playoffs....then a few lines later you claim it's 35. Which is it?

    [/QUOTE]

    I believe it is out of all playoff qbs of the past 5 years. Did I say 35?

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

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I[/QUOTE]


    So, how do you think we should attack a 4 man rush babe? Surely you have an opinion?

    [/QUOTE]

    The best way is to block it.  You do have five O lineman after all.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Some in depth analysis here prolate. And sometimes we have 6 O linemen when you figure in a blocking TE. But I guess they can't figure it out in the big stage. Strange that BB doesn't just "fix it".

    How would you attack this 4 man rush that has so clearly given us trouble in the post season? Besides just, "block it".

    [/QUOTE]

    Again, a four man rush is the normal situation in the NFL.  If you can't block that, you're in trouble.  You can hold back extra blockers, but that just means your receivers are much more likely to be covered.Which we have done but I agree it looks like 3 receivers against 7 defenders has been tough. Is it kind of a gamble by the other team to stand n a read and react 7 man coverage? What if we didn't pass at that? Or you can line up in the shotgun and try the quick pass.Well we clerly have used that approach.  Or you can give up on passing and try to run the ballInteresting, in your eyes we would have had to actually "give up passing" in order to run the ball more against a 4 man rush? (which I'm sure is what you think we should do), but that only works if you can move the ball well running.So, if you were getting like 4.5 ypc?  Often, when D lines are good enough to pressure the passer with just four, they are good against the run too.Wow, I've always figured 5 o linemen blocking a 4 man rush would allow for running the ball. I did not know a 4 man rush could effectively rush a passer and simultaneously stop the run, they must have had extra arms or something. How do they attack the QB while getting blocked and still shed their blocker with 1 arm while tackling the runner with the other...unless the runner was a really small guy running draw plays or something. Like Woodhead... Then maybe?  This is especially true if there aren't real deep threats on the field and the defense can keep the LBs and safeties close to the LOS.

    Really, the answer here is "block better."  You may not like that answer, but there it is. It's hard to scheme yourself out of ineffective blocking. So the blocking works great in the regular season when Brady drops back 71% of the time against a 4 man rush, but not good in the post season when he drops back 78% of the time against a 4 man rush?

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think the patriot OCs have thought there is enough variation  in the passsing game that they can just trot out there and throw the ball all over and have success.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm pretty sure the HC would apply a boot to the OC's azz if he thought the balance was hurting the team; in a NY minute.

    [/QUOTE]

    What would he do to the D.C if he thought the defense was hurting the team?

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

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm not going to read the rest of the garbage between the first post and here, simply because most of it is just that.  (There are some good posts there, I'm sure.)  If this is redundant, I apologize to those who I don't have on ignore.

    Playoff numbers are down because the competition is much better.  No low lying teams to beat the snot out of like the ones in October.

    It's very simple and easy to understand if you're not stupid.

    [/QUOTE]

    Good post! You must read books or something. "Your smack is so fresh, give me a pound dog"

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from qball369. Show qball369's posts

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I know I speak for others when I say I long for the good old days with Scott Secules at QB.  The guy never lost a playoff game.  To this day no one second-guesses his postseason play-calling, audibles, pocket presence, or accuracy on the deep ball.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I was a Tommy Hodson guy.

    [/QUOTE]

    I was always partial to Hugh 'thrillin' Millen myself - or maybe the Pats could re sign Tony Eason?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from qball369. Show qball369's posts

    Re: Tom Brady's playoff numbers

    The good news I think the Pats plan will please Rusty today - and we ALL know how important that is -the Pats have looked great running it recently, and Indy looks very vunerable to the run - if Blount/Ridley hold onto it today it should be a quick game, low possessions, and the Pats getting a 24- 14 win

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share