Your Thoughts on the Cap

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     At the same time, when I look at the playoff losses, I see teams that were fairly clearly overmatched by their opponents (Ravens in 2009, Ravens in 2012, Broncos in 2013) or that lost to fairly average playoff talent (Jets in 2010, Giants in 2011).  I see the reason for those loses as talent issues.  The other explanations given on this site seem to fall in three categories:

    • Brady stinks in the postseason 
    • The loss of assistant coaches and coordinators has crippled the team (leading to poor playcalling, poor offensive strategy, poor player preparation, etc.)
    • Bad luck

     



    Pro I would agree with you about being overmatched in the 2009 Raven loss. They were overmatched and outplayed from play 1 in that game.

    2010 against the Jets they were just as talented if not more talented than the Jets. Sometimes teams have better game plans and play better than other teams.

    2011 it came down to execution. The Giants in no way shape or form overmatched the Pats they just executed the plays that needed executed in order to win. If anything thing in that game the Pats stars let them down. regardless of who you want to blame Brady, Welker, Nink all had plays if executed would most likely have led to a win.

    2012 against the Ravens they were up 13-7 at half. They stopped the Ravens on the 1st drive of the 2nd half and then took the ball and drove down to the raven 33. On 3rd and 9 Brady hit Welker between the 8 and 3 at the raven 21 and Welker dropped the ball. Instead of a 1st down and possibly increasing the lead they had to punt and the entire momentum and complexion of the game changed.

    Yes this year in the SB the Denver O definitely overmatched the Pats D especially when talib went down.

    I just don't think you can broad brush being overmatched in those losses. Definitely in 2009 and for the most part on D this past year against the Broncos.

     

     

     



    Hey Ghost, I probably wasn't clear.  I'd say they were overmatched in 2009, 2012, and 2013.  In 2010 and 2011, I wouldn't say they were overmatched, but they lost to just average playoff opponents.

    In 2010, the team with the better defense won.  Pats had a better offense, but that 58 yard pass play our secondary gave up killed us, I think.  Guys like Chung (of fake punt fame) and Merriweather are examples in my mind of the talent issues.  That secondary was just bad.

    I do think the Ravens over matched us in 2012. We kept it close for a while, but the second half turned into a beatdown.  I don't think I've ever seen Brady look more demoralized than in that game.  Without Gronk our offense just couldn't score (again talent--too dependent on just one player).  On defense it was the same story.  Remove one guy (Talib) and everything falls completely apart. 

    Giants also were also able to exploit poor pass coverage.  Our poor pass defense (and their good defensive line) combined with the Gronk issue was enough for a fairly mediocre team to beat us.  Again, I see this as a talent issue.  the pass defense was bad because of guys like Sterling Mooore and Chung.

     



    The reasons for the losses vary but I stated my opinions in some posts to PatEng. We could debate the reason for many posts but for me if you get to the AFCCG or the SB and play a competitive game it is difficult for me to say either team was overmatched. Overmatched to me was this years SB.

     

     

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     At the same time, when I look at the playoff losses, I see teams that were fairly clearly overmatched by their opponents (Ravens in 2009, Ravens in 2012, Broncos in 2013) or that lost to fairly average playoff talent (Jets in 2010, Giants in 2011).  I see the reason for those loses as talent issues.  The other explanations given on this site seem to fall in three categories:

    • Brady stinks in the postseason 
    • The loss of assistant coaches and coordinators has crippled the team (leading to poor playcalling, poor offensive strategy, poor player preparation, etc.)
    • Bad luck

     



    Pro I would agree with you about being overmatched in the 2009 Raven loss. They were overmatched and outplayed from play 1 in that game.

    2010 against the Jets they were just as talented if not more talented than the Jets. Sometimes teams have better game plans and play better than other teams.

    2011 it came down to execution. The Giants in no way shape or form overmatched the Pats they just executed the plays that needed executed in order to win. If anything thing in that game the Pats stars let them down. regardless of who you want to blame Brady, Welker, Nink all had plays if executed would most likely have led to a win.

    2012 against the Ravens they were up 13-7 at half. They stopped the Ravens on the 1st drive of the 2nd half and then took the ball and drove down to the raven 33. On 3rd and 9 Brady hit Welker between the 8 and 3 at the raven 21 and Welker dropped the ball. Instead of a 1st down and possibly increasing the lead they had to punt and the entire momentum and complexion of the game changed.

    Yes this year in the SB the Denver O definitely overmatched the Pats D especially when talib went down.

    I just don't think you can broad brush being overmatched in those losses. Definitely in 2009 and for the most part on D this past year against the Broncos.

     

     

     



    Hey Ghost, I probably wasn't clear.  I'd say they were overmatched in 2009, 2012, and 2013.  In 2010 and 2011, I wouldn't say they were overmatched, but they lost to just average playoff opponents.

    In 2010, the team with the better defense won.  Pats had a better offense, but that 58 yard pass play our secondary gave up killed us, I think.  Guys like Chung (of fake punt fame) and Merriweather are examples in my mind of the talent issues.  That secondary was just bad.

    I do think the Ravens over matched us in 2012. We kept it close for a while, but the second half turned into a beatdown.  I don't think I've ever seen Brady look more demoralized than in that game.  Without Gronk our offense just couldn't score (again talent--too dependent on just one player).  On defense it was the same story.  Remove one guy (Talib) and everything falls completely apart. 

    Giants also were also able to exploit poor pass coverage.  Our poor pass defense (and their good defensive line) combined with the Gronk issue was enough for a fairly mediocre team to beat us.  Again, I see this as a talent issue.  the pass defense was bad because of guys like Sterling Mooore and Chung.

     



    The reasons for the losses vary but I stated my opinions in some posts to PatEng. We could debate the reason for many posts but for me if you get to the AFCCG or the SB and play a competitive game it is difficult for me to say either team was overmatched. Overmatched to me was this years SB.

     

     



    Good post. 

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     At the same time, when I look at the playoff losses, I see teams that were fairly clearly overmatched by their opponents (Ravens in 2009, Ravens in 2012, Broncos in 2013) or that lost to fairly average playoff talent (Jets in 2010, Giants in 2011).  I see the reason for those loses as talent issues.  The other explanations given on this site seem to fall in three categories:

    • Brady stinks in the postseason 
    • The loss of assistant coaches and coordinators has crippled the team (leading to poor playcalling, poor offensive strategy, poor player preparation, etc.)
    • Bad luck

     



    Pro I would agree with you about being overmatched in the 2009 Raven loss. They were overmatched and outplayed from play 1 in that game.

    2010 against the Jets they were just as talented if not more talented than the Jets. Sometimes teams have better game plans and play better than other teams.

    2011 it came down to execution. The Giants in no way shape or form overmatched the Pats they just executed the plays that needed executed in order to win. If anything thing in that game the Pats stars let them down. regardless of who you want to blame Brady, Welker, Nink all had plays if executed would most likely have led to a win.

    2012 against the Ravens they were up 13-7 at half. They stopped the Ravens on the 1st drive of the 2nd half and then took the ball and drove down to the raven 33. On 3rd and 9 Brady hit Welker between the 8 and 3 at the raven 21 and Welker dropped the ball. Instead of a 1st down and possibly increasing the lead they had to punt and the entire momentum and complexion of the game changed.

    Yes this year in the SB the Denver O definitely overmatched the Pats D especially when talib went down.

    I just don't think you can broad brush being overmatched in those losses. Definitely in 2009 and for the most part on D this past year against the Broncos.

     

     

     



    Hey Ghost, I probably wasn't clear.  I'd say they were overmatched in 2009, 2012, and 2013.  In 2010 and 2011, I wouldn't say they were overmatched, but they lost to just average playoff opponents.

    In 2010, the team with the better defense won.  Pats had a better offense, but that 58 yard pass play our secondary gave up killed us, I think.  Guys like Chung (of fake punt fame) and Merriweather are examples in my mind of the talent issues.  That secondary was just bad.

    I do think the Ravens over matched us in 2012. We kept it close for a while, but the second half turned into a beatdown.  I don't think I've ever seen Brady look more demoralized than in that game.  Without Gronk our offense just couldn't score (again talent--too dependent on just one player).  On defense it was the same story.  Remove one guy (Talib) and everything falls completely apart. 

    Giants also were also able to exploit poor pass coverage.  Our poor pass defense (and their good defensive line) combined with the Gronk issue was enough for a fairly mediocre team to beat us.  Again, I see this as a talent issue.  the pass defense was bad because of guys like Sterling Mooore and Chung.

     



    The reasons for the losses vary but I stated my opinions in some posts to PatEng. We could debate the reason for many posts but for me if you get to the AFCCG or the SB and play a competitive game it is difficult for me to say either team was overmatched. Overmatched to me was this years SB.

     

     



    Here's the thing, though.  The Pats have not beaten many truly good playoff teams in the past few years, despite first-round byes and homefield advantage.

    2009--one and done at home in a blow out

    2010--one and done at home against an average playoff team

    2011--beat a woeful Tebow-led Broncos team at home, beat a good Ravens team at home (but barely and with some luck at the end), lost to a pretty average playoff team in the Super Bowl

    2012--beat (handily) a hard-to-figure Texans team at home, then got beaten pretty convincingly at home by a good Ravens team

    2013--beat an average playoff team at home, then got beaten badly on the road

    I just don't see a team that's been all that impressive in the playoffs over the past five seasons.  I attribute most of their success getting to the playoffs to Belichick's (and his assistant's) brilliant coaching and game-planning, Brady's talent, and just enough from a few other key contributors.  But in the playoffs, the team's talent gaps really have been evident and have made the Pats less impressive than you'd expect from a team with such a stellar regular season record.

    I've been watching the Pats since the 70s and I'm certainly not complaining about their recent history, but I also like to understand the team's strengths and weaknesses as they really are.  To me, it's all part of better understanding the game and truly appreciating what's done on the field.

     

     

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     At the same time, when I look at the playoff losses, I see teams that were fairly clearly overmatched by their opponents (Ravens in 2009, Ravens in 2012, Broncos in 2013) or that lost to fairly average playoff talent (Jets in 2010, Giants in 2011).  I see the reason for those loses as talent issues.  The other explanations given on this site seem to fall in three categories:

    • Brady stinks in the postseason 
    • The loss of assistant coaches and coordinators has crippled the team (leading to poor playcalling, poor offensive strategy, poor player preparation, etc.)
    • Bad luck

     

     



     

    Pro I would agree with you about being overmatched in the 2009 Raven loss. They were overmatched and outplayed from play 1 in that game.

    2010 against the Jets they were just as talented if not more talented than the Jets. Sometimes teams have better game plans and play better than other teams.

    2011 it came down to execution. The Giants in no way shape or form overmatched the Pats they just executed the plays that needed executed in order to win. If anything thing in that game the Pats stars let them down. regardless of who you want to blame Brady, Welker, Nink all had plays if executed would most likely have led to a win.

    2012 against the Ravens they were up 13-7 at half. They stopped the Ravens on the 1st drive of the 2nd half and then took the ball and drove down to the raven 33. On 3rd and 9 Brady hit Welker between the 8 and 3 at the raven 21 and Welker dropped the ball. Instead of a 1st down and possibly increasing the lead they had to punt and the entire momentum and complexion of the game changed.

    Yes this year in the SB the Denver O definitely overmatched the Pats D especially when talib went down.

    I just don't think you can broad brush being overmatched in those losses. Definitely in 2009 and for the most part on D this past year against the Broncos.

     

     

     



    Hey Ghost, I probably wasn't clear.  I'd say they were overmatched in 2009, 2012, and 2013.  In 2010 and 2011, I wouldn't say they were overmatched, but they lost to just average playoff opponents.

    In 2010, the team with the better defense won.  Pats had a better offense, but that 58 yard pass play our secondary gave up killed us, I think.  Guys like Chung (of fake punt fame) and Merriweather are examples in my mind of the talent issues.  That secondary was just bad.

    I do think the Ravens over matched us in 2012. We kept it close for a while, but the second half turned into a beatdown.  I don't think I've ever seen Brady look more demoralized than in that game.  Without Gronk our offense just couldn't score (again talent--too dependent on just one player).  On defense it was the same story.  Remove one guy (Talib) and everything falls completely apart. 

    Giants also were also able to exploit poor pass coverage.  Our poor pass defense (and their good defensive line) combined with the Gronk issue was enough for a fairly mediocre team to beat us.  Again, I see this as a talent issue.  the pass defense was bad because of guys like Sterling Mooore and Chung.

     



    The reasons for the losses vary but I stated my opinions in some posts to PatEng. We could debate the reason for many posts but for me if you get to the AFCCG or the SB and play a competitive game it is difficult for me to say either team was overmatched. Overmatched to me was this years SB.

     

     



    Here's the thing, though.  The Pats have not beaten many truly good playoff teams in the past few years, despite first-round byes and homefield advantage.

    2009--one and done at home in a blow out

    2010--one and done at home against an average playoff team

    2011--beat a woeful Tebow-led Broncos team at home, beat a good Ravens team at home (but barely and with some luck at the end), lost to a pretty average playoff team in the Super Bowl

    2012--beat (handily) a hard-to-figure Texans team at home, then got beaten pretty convincingly at home by a good Ravens team

    2013--beat an average playoff team at home, then got beaten badly on the road

    I just don't see a team that's been all that impressive in the playoffs over the past five seasons.  I attribute most of their success getting to the playoffs to Belichick's (and his assistant's) brilliant coaching and game-planning, Brady's talent, and just enough from a few other key contributors.  But in the playoffs, the team's talent gaps really have been evident and have made the Pats less impressive than you'd expect from a team with such a stellar regular season record.

    I've been watching the Pats since the 70s and I'm certainly not complaining about their recent history, but I also like to understand the team's strengths and weaknesses as they really are.  To me, it's all part of better understanding the game and truly appreciating what's done on the field.

     

     



    In 2009 I would agree with you 100%. That team from the start lacked fortitude due to some poor personel decisions (not talking about just talent). BB said it all during his football life conversation with Brady the end of the Saints game that year... I just can't get them to do what I them to do or something like that.

    2010 talent wise they were as good as the Jets ... sometimes teams just outplay other teams. I get criticized routinely for this but I believe momentum and certain plays can change the momentum and complexsion of  game. If you remember the opening drive of that game they drove pretty easily to inside the Jet 30 and instead of openeing the game with points Brady threw a pick. Things like that can influence play calling for the rest of the game and swing momentum.

    2011 I just don't get how you can say any SB team is an average playoff team. If you go back and watch that game it was about execution of a handful of plays in that game. See my post to PatsEng.

    2012 I would disgree they got beat handily. They actually dominated the 1st half. The problem was they could only score 13 points. Again I point to the Welker drop early in the 2nd half which significantly changed the game. They got steamrolled after that.

    2013 I would agree they got beat pretty handily on the road. I would say though that as big a BB fan as I am I would question the game plan on both sides of the ball and the lack of in game adjustments.

    Like yourself I have been following this team since the mid 70's and have been attending early 90's. I think under the current NFL rules this regime maximizes their resources. Do they make mistakes? ABSOLUTELY... They do business based on a model that they feel is successful. IMO opinion we fans have a difficult time with the discipline the Pats have adhering to this model. Myself included at times.

     

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     At the same time, when I look at the playoff losses, I see teams that were fairly clearly overmatched by their opponents (Ravens in 2009, Ravens in 2012, Broncos in 2013) or that lost to fairly average playoff talent (Jets in 2010, Giants in 2011).  I see the reason for those loses as talent issues.  The other explanations given on this site seem to fall in three categories:

    • Brady stinks in the postseason 
    • The loss of assistant coaches and coordinators has crippled the team (leading to poor playcalling, poor offensive strategy, poor player preparation, etc.)
    • Bad luck

     

     

     



     

     

    Pro I would agree with you about being overmatched in the 2009 Raven loss. They were overmatched and outplayed from play 1 in that game.

    2010 against the Jets they were just as talented if not more talented than the Jets. Sometimes teams have better game plans and play better than other teams.

    2011 it came down to execution. The Giants in no way shape or form overmatched the Pats they just executed the plays that needed executed in order to win. If anything thing in that game the Pats stars let them down. regardless of who you want to blame Brady, Welker, Nink all had plays if executed would most likely have led to a win.

    2012 against the Ravens they were up 13-7 at half. They stopped the Ravens on the 1st drive of the 2nd half and then took the ball and drove down to the raven 33. On 3rd and 9 Brady hit Welker between the 8 and 3 at the raven 21 and Welker dropped the ball. Instead of a 1st down and possibly increasing the lead they had to punt and the entire momentum and complexion of the game changed.

    Yes this year in the SB the Denver O definitely overmatched the Pats D especially when talib went down.

    I just don't think you can broad brush being overmatched in those losses. Definitely in 2009 and for the most part on D this past year against the Broncos.

     

     

     



    Hey Ghost, I probably wasn't clear.  I'd say they were overmatched in 2009, 2012, and 2013.  In 2010 and 2011, I wouldn't say they were overmatched, but they lost to just average playoff opponents.

    In 2010, the team with the better defense won.  Pats had a better offense, but that 58 yard pass play our secondary gave up killed us, I think.  Guys like Chung (of fake punt fame) and Merriweather are examples in my mind of the talent issues.  That secondary was just bad.

    I do think the Ravens over matched us in 2012. We kept it close for a while, but the second half turned into a beatdown.  I don't think I've ever seen Brady look more demoralized than in that game.  Without Gronk our offense just couldn't score (again talent--too dependent on just one player).  On defense it was the same story.  Remove one guy (Talib) and everything falls completely apart. 

    Giants also were also able to exploit poor pass coverage.  Our poor pass defense (and their good defensive line) combined with the Gronk issue was enough for a fairly mediocre team to beat us.  Again, I see this as a talent issue.  the pass defense was bad because of guys like Sterling Mooore and Chung.

     



    The reasons for the losses vary but I stated my opinions in some posts to PatEng. We could debate the reason for many posts but for me if you get to the AFCCG or the SB and play a competitive game it is difficult for me to say either team was overmatched. Overmatched to me was this years SB.

     

     



    Here's the thing, though.  The Pats have not beaten many truly good playoff teams in the past few years, despite first-round byes and homefield advantage.

    2009--one and done at home in a blow out

    2010--one and done at home against an average playoff team

    2011--beat a woeful Tebow-led Broncos team at home, beat a good Ravens team at home (but barely and with some luck at the end), lost to a pretty average playoff team in the Super Bowl

    2012--beat (handily) a hard-to-figure Texans team at home, then got beaten pretty convincingly at home by a good Ravens team

    2013--beat an average playoff team at home, then got beaten badly on the road

    I just don't see a team that's been all that impressive in the playoffs over the past five seasons.  I attribute most of their success getting to the playoffs to Belichick's (and his assistant's) brilliant coaching and game-planning, Brady's talent, and just enough from a few other key contributors.  But in the playoffs, the team's talent gaps really have been evident and have made the Pats less impressive than you'd expect from a team with such a stellar regular season record.

    I've been watching the Pats since the 70s and I'm certainly not complaining about their recent history, but I also like to understand the team's strengths and weaknesses as they really are.  To me, it's all part of better understanding the game and truly appreciating what's done on the field.

     

     



    In 2009 I would agree with you 100%. That team from the start lacked fortitude due to some poor personel decisions (not talking about just talent). BB said it all during his football life conversation with Brady the end of the Saints game that year... I just can't get them to do what I them to do or something like that.

    2010 talent wise they were as good as the Jets ... sometimes teams just outplay other teams. I get criticized routinely for this but I believe momentum and certain plays can change the momentum and complexsion of  game. If you remember the opening drive of that game they drove pretty easily to inside the Jet 30 and instead of openeing the game with points Brady threw a pick. Things like that can influence play calling for the rest of the game and swing momentum.

    Agree that pick was bad and helped set the tone for the game--but in the end it wasn't that costly--the Jets only got a FG, right?  And it was early in the game, so there was time to regain the momentum.  From the stands, the point where I thought the game really was finally lost was that long pass play at the beginning of the fourth quarter when Merriweather was out of position.  There were a bunch of plays with poor execution: the interception, the drop by Crumpler, the Chung fake punt, etc.  But the thing that really left me feeling like they weren't good enough were the mistakes by the secondary.  When a QB like Sanchez rips you apart, that's a problem -- and that was a problem for the Pats for multiple years.  To me, the poor talent in the secondary (and even more broadly, the poor pass defense, including coverage from the LBs and pass rush) was their real problem in 2010 and 2011. I think the Jets and Pats were evenly matched, but I don't think that speaks well for the Pats, because I don't think the Jets were that good.  And I do think the Jets were better on defense and, in the end, that was the difference.  Their defense played well, while ours made mistakes.  

     

    2011 I just don't get how you can say any SB team is an average playoff team. If you go back and watch that game it was about execution of a handful of plays in that game. See my post to PatsEng.

    I think there are times when the best teams don't make it to the Super Bowl.  I really don't think the Giants were that good.  Pats were sort of medium.  Our defense was not good that year and the offense, while very good with Gronk, wasn't that good without him.  

     

    2012 I would disgree they got beat handily. They actually dominated the 1st half. The problem was they could only score 13 points. Again I point to the Welker drop early in the 2nd half which significantly changed the game. They got steamrolled after that.

    The lack of scoring was a problem.  It reminded me very much of some of their Jets games, actually.  Red zone effectiveness has been a real problem for the Pats the past few years when Gronk is out.  That has a lot to do with the small receivers they've got.  Even the Welker drop was symptomatic of the problems with the receiving corp.  I just see those as talent issues.  They become execution issues, too, but the root cause is the fact that they don't have big guys who you can rely on to catch the hard balls in traffic. 

    2013 I would agree they got beat pretty handily on the road. I would say though that as big a BB fan as I am I would question the game plan on both sides of the ball and the lack of in game adjustments.

    I think the receiving corp was a huge disadvantage in that game.  When I watched the tape of the first half, the thing that really stood out is how the Broncos used one safety deep and basically kept 8 and even 9 in the box on every play.  They simply didn't feel the need to defend Edelman and the others down field with more than one defender.  We kept trying to make something work with play action, and while a few of those play action passes worked, we missed on far too many of them.  This allowed the Broncos to stay in a run-defense mode, which took away what had worked against Baltimore and Indy.  In the second half, when the Pats were way behind and had to pass, Denver backed off a bit, but in the first half the absolute lack of concern/respect for our receivers was evident. 

     

    Like yourself I have been following this team since the mid 70's and have been attending early 90's. I think under the current NFL rules this regime maximizes their resources. Do they make mistakes? ABSOLUTELY... They do business based on a model that they feel is successful. IMO opinion we fans have a difficult time with the discipline the Pats have adhering to this model. Myself included at times.

     

    Yeah, and like I've said all along, I think Belichick has very good reasons for his approach--particularly when you consider that he ends up with low draft picks year after year.  That's a huge disadvantage in team building and probably forces Belichick to focus more on value than other teams if he wants to be successful. The Pats draft position stacks the odds against the Pats, and BB has to be creative and try to beat the odds every year.  Still, even if it's a good strategy to do what BB does given draft position, the odds are still stacked against the Pats and the end result is our talent isn't quite as good as the talent on many other championship teams. The NFL rules are designed to produce this result and BB does a good job trying to flout the bad odds the rules force us to take--but you can't beat the odds completely and that's why the talent issues still are real problems for us. 

      

     




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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap


    A great discussion by you two. Prolate seeing as you understand why BB builds the team the way he does and that he has a disadvantage of drafting so low as his team always wins so much,  then don't you think it is really splitting hairs to complain about said team building style? Kind of like biting the hand that feeds you?

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:


    A great discussion by you two. Prolate seeing as you understand why BB builds the team the way he does and that he has a disadvantage of drafting so low as his team always wins so much,  then don't you think it is really splitting hairs to complain about said team building style? Kind of like biting the hand that feeds you?



    I'm not complaining.  I'm just trying to make sense of why the Pats, despite stellar regular season records, have been (in my opinion) just mediocre in the playoffs since 2009.  There are lots of theories why this is the case: poor playcalling, an offensive strategy that uses too much shotgun or too little running, Brady's bad attitude, loss of coordinators, bad luck, etc.  

    My own conclusion from watching the games is that the team simply doesn't have enough top-end talent across enough positions to be a dominant playoff team.  There are also execution failures, but in my opinion a lot of those failures stem from talent issues.  You can't expect guys with average skills to consistently win battles against guys with higher levels of talent. 

    So if the Pats are going to be a dominant playoff team again, I think they need to up their talent level--not a lot because they are basically a very good team, but just enough in enough key positions to (1) be competitive against the best playoff teams and (2) be not quite so vulnerable to injuries to one or two key players such as Gronk and/or Talib.  Maybe, given their consistently low draft positions, it's impossible to do this.  Maybe BB's value strategy is truly the best approach possible and nothing would work better.  But I often wonder if it would make sense for BB to be just a little more willing to (1) sign higher quality (and higher cost) veterans in their prime and (2) pick a bit higher in the draft.  As it is, Belichick's strategy is designed to give the team more picks in the draft (which increases the odds of getting a good player lower in the draft, but limits the opportunity to take a player high in the draft where most of the best talent is picked) and avoid getting over committed financially to too many veterans (which preserves Belichick's flexibility to continually tweak the team's make-up, but means more mid-lvel talent and less elite talent). I understand this strategy, and I think it's generally a smart one, particularly for a team that doesn't get a lot of high draft picks to begin with and therefore would have to spend a lot in free agency to get good talent outside the draft.  At the same time, I do see a downside to the strategy, which is a roster with a bit less top-level talent than ideal.  Since I also believe that a lack of top-level talent has hurt the team in the playoffs, I do question whether a slight alteration in the strategy to get more high-end talent might not be beneficial.  Would it help the Pats if they were willing to be just a bit more aggressive signing just one or two more veterans in their prime each offseason and occasionally trade up a bit in the draft?  I don't know the answer, but I think the question is an interesting one to discuss. 

     

     

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:


    A great discussion by you two. Prolate seeing as you understand why BB builds the team the way he does and that he has a disadvantage of drafting so low as his team always wins so much,  then don't you think it is really splitting hairs to complain about said team building style? Kind of like biting the hand that feeds you?



    I'm not complaining.  I'm just trying to make sense of why the Pats, despite stellar regular season records, have been (in my opinion) just mediocre in the playoffs since 2009.  There are lots of theories why this is the case: poor playcalling, an offensive strategy that uses too much shotgun or too little running, Brady's bad attitude, loss of coordinators, bad luck, etc.  

    My own conclusion from watching the games is that the team simply doesn't have enough top-end talent across enough positions to be a dominant playoff team.  There are also execution failures, but in my opinion a lot of those failures stem from talent issues.  You can't expect guys with average skills to consistently win battles against guys with higher levels of talent. 

    So if the Pats are going to be a dominant playoff team again, I think they need to up their talent level--not a lot because they are basically a very good team, but just enough in enough key positions to (1) be competitive against the best playoff teams and (2) be not quite so vulnerable to injuries to one or two key players such as Gronk and/or Talib.  Maybe, given their consistently low draft positions, it's impossible to do this.  Maybe BB's value strategy is truly the best approach possible and nothing would work better.  But I often wonder if it would make sense for BB to be just a little more willing to (1) sign higher quality (and higher cost) veterans in their prime and (2) pick a bit higher in the draft.  As it is, Belichick's strategy is designed to give the team more picks in the draft (which increases the odds of getting a good player lower in the draft, but limits the opportunity to take a player high in the draft where most of the best talent is picked) and avoid getting over committed financially to too many veterans (which preserves Belichick's flexibility to continually tweak the team's make-up, but means more mid-lvel talent and less elite talent). I understand this strategy, and I think it's generally a smart one, particularly for a team that doesn't get a lot of high draft picks to begin with and therefore would have to spend a lot in free agency to get good talent outside the draft.  At the same time, I do see a downside to the strategy, which is a roster with a bit less top-level talent than ideal.  Since I also believe that a lack of top-level talent has hurt the team in the playoffs, I do question whether a slight alteration in the strategy to get more high-end talent might not be beneficial.  Would it help the Pats if they were willing to be just a bit more aggressive signing just one or two more veterans in their prime each offseason and occasionally trade up a bit in the draft?  I don't know the answer, but I think the question is an interesting one to discuss. 

     

     



    Pretty good synopsis by alL

    After that I think these arguments take teeth, I never expected them to get to the SB  for 46, but I think Gronk being at half speedbdefinitely reduced tha talent level for us. I really can't argue about talent coz BB was rebuilding

    And the same thing against the Ravens, but not sure we had the talent vs the niners

    I really thought that this yr was going yo be the year, up until all the injuries, obviously the drop in  level couldn't be made up. 

    But do you guys think that we only look at the skill positions Too muc? And not the more the  Oline? I think they have been outplayed in all their losses from 42on?

     

     

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

     



    Pretty good synopsis by alL

    After that I think these arguments take teeth, I never expected them to get to the SB  for 46, but I think Gronk being at half speedbdefinitely reduced tha talent level for us. I really can't argue about talent coz BB was rebuilding

    And the same thing against the Ravens, but not sure we had the talent vs the niners

    I really thought that this yr was going yo be the year, up until all the injuries, obviously the drop in  level couldn't be made up. 

    But do you guys think that we only look at the skill positions Too muc? And not the more the  Oline? I think they have been outplayed in all their losses from 42on?

      

    [/QUOTE]

    I think this year's team (prior to the injuries) was the best we've had in a while, especially on defense.  I started a thread after cutdown day arguing that it was the most talented team that the Pats had had in years.  My one big concern on offense was the WRs.  I thought it was very important for Dobson (or one of the rookies) to become a quality starter.  Injuries played a role, but overall I was disappointed in that group, and I think the lack of good receivers hurt us against Denver.

    As far as the O line, I think it's been generally okay, though not as athletic as ideal.  In the playoffs, age and injury have been issues too.  Because of the lack of great athleticism this O line does struggle with athletic D lines.  I think the loss of in 2007 was almost entirely on the O line (which was not 100% healthy) and its inability to counter the Giant's excellent D line. I also think the line play was a big factor in 2011, though not the biggest factor.  Right now, Wendell is not a very good center and Connolly is just okay, so I'd like to see the interior line upgraded. I also may get flamed for this one, but I thought Solder was too inconsistent last year.  He is athletic and he makes some great plays, but he also gets beat a lot by good pass rushers.  Left tackle is one of those positions that takes a long time to get really good at, so I'm not too worried because the basic talent is definitely there.  I just would like to see him get more consistent.

     

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    Pro,

    When I look at those Super bowls it is impossible to see a lack of talent. Teams that played so well for 16,17 even 18 games suddenly bomb on the biggest stage. That can't be talent.

    When I see the great players and talented players not play up to their standard on the biggest stage, I can't say they suddenly lost their talent?

    When guys like Wilfork, Mayo, Jones, Nink, DMC, Spikes, Hightower don't make a play between them it isn't because...they suck, or are no good.

    When I see a HOF QB struggle to score 15.5 ppg in 6 straight playoff losses with guys like Randy Moss in his prime, Wes Welker in his prime, Rob Gronkowski, Aaron Hernandez, guys who caught an unbelievable 70% of their targets for entire seasons, guys who broke td records, then citing a talent deficiency seems absurd to me. 

    But I guess that is where we differ. i disagree with your premise, I think these Patriot teams have had plenty of talent, no a plethora of talent, but under performed for all the marbles. Bad luck, and not enough mental toughness has been the difference in making the 1 or 2 plays that really would have been 3 more super bowl championships.

    When the difference between 3 super bowl championships is 1 play or 1 more minute of game clock. It can't be a talent problem.

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    Pro,

    When I look at those Super bowls it is impossible to see a lack of talent. Teams that played so well for 16,17 even 18 games suddenly bomb on the biggest stage. That can't be talent.

    When I see the great players and talented players not play up to their standard on the biggest stage, I can't say they suddenly lost their talent?

    When guys like Wilfork, Mayo, Jones, Nink, DMC, Spikes, Hightower don't make a play between them it isn't because...they suck, or are no good.

    When I see a HOF QB struggle to score 15.5 ppg in 6 straight playoff losses with guys like Randy Moss in his prime, Wes Welker in his prime, Rob Gronkowski, Aaron Hernandez, guys who caught an unbelievable 70% of their targets for entire seasons, guys who broke td records, then citing a talent deficiency seems absurd to me. 

    But I guess that is where we differ. i disagree with your premise, I think these Patriot teams have had plenty of talent, no a plethora of talent, but under performed for all the marbles. Bad luck, and not enough mental toughness has been the difference in making the 1 or 2 plays that really would have been 3 more super bowl championships.

    When the difference between 3 super bowl championships is 1 play or 1 more minute of game clock. It can't be a talent problem.



    I think the 2007 team was very talented, but I think that loss was 90% the result of the bad match-up between our O line and their D line. Unfortunately our O line was injured a bit by the end of the year, and a few guys (like Neal) were really starting to decline because of age.  I see that game as just a bad match-up for the Pats. 

    My argument is more for teams post-2008.  Those teams in my opinion have had real problems that are related to talent.  Two problems really stand out to me:

    1. Pass defense. . .  this finally got better when Talib was brought in, but until then I think it was atrocious
    2. Receivers . . .  once Moss declined, the only good receiver was the slot (Welker).  The Pats compensated for a while with good TEs, but whenever Gronk is out (and he's out a lot in the playoffs), the offense just doesn't look that good. 

    I don't think it's mental toughness or play calling or anything else.  I think it's just not having the guns you need to beat really good teams.

     

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    Pro,

    When I look at those Super bowls it is impossible to see a lack of talent. Teams that played so well for 16,17 even 18 games suddenly bomb on the biggest stage. That can't be talent.

    When I see the great players and talented players not play up to their standard on the biggest stage, I can't say they suddenly lost their talent?

    When guys like Wilfork, Mayo, Jones, Nink, DMC, Spikes, Hightower don't make a play between them it isn't because...they suck, or are no good.

    When I see a HOF QB struggle to score 15.5 ppg in 6 straight playoff losses with guys like Randy Moss in his prime, Wes Welker in his prime, Rob Gronkowski, Aaron Hernandez, guys who caught an unbelievable 70% of their targets for entire seasons, guys who broke td records, then citing a talent deficiency seems absurd to me. 

    But I guess that is where we differ. i disagree with your premise, I think these Patriot teams have had plenty of talent, no a plethora of talent, but under performed for all the marbles. Bad luck, and not enough mental toughness has been the difference in making the 1 or 2 plays that really would have been 3 more super bowl championships.

    When the difference between 3 super bowl championships is 1 play or 1 more minute of game clock. It can't be a talent problem.



    I think the 2007 team was very talented, but I think that loss was 90% the result of the bad match-up between our O line and their D line. Unfortunately our O line was injured a bit by the end of the year, and a few guys (like Neal) were really starting to decline because of age.  I see that game as just a bad match-up for the Pats. 

    My argument is more for teams post-2008.  Those teams in my opinion have had real problems that are related to talent.  Two problems really stand out to me:

    1. Pass defense. . .  this finally got better when Talib was brought in, but until then I think it was atrocious
    2. Receivers . . .  once Moss declined, the only good receiver was the slot (Welker).  The Pats compensated for a while with good TEs, but whenever Gronk is out (and he's out a lot in the playoffs), the offense just doesn't look that good. 

    I don't think it's mental toughness or play calling or anything else.  I think it's just not having the guns you need to beat really good teams.

     



    Right, due to injury...as you just said.

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    Pro,

    When I look at those Super bowls it is impossible to see a lack of talent. Teams that played so well for 16,17 even 18 games suddenly bomb on the biggest stage. That can't be talent.

    When I see the great players and talented players not play up to their standard on the biggest stage, I can't say they suddenly lost their talent?

    When guys like Wilfork, Mayo, Jones, Nink, DMC, Spikes, Hightower don't make a play between them it isn't because...they suck, or are no good.

    When I see a HOF QB struggle to score 15.5 ppg in 6 straight playoff losses with guys like Randy Moss in his prime, Wes Welker in his prime, Rob Gronkowski, Aaron Hernandez, guys who caught an unbelievable 70% of their targets for entire seasons, guys who broke td records, then citing a talent deficiency seems absurd to me. 

    But I guess that is where we differ. i disagree with your premise, I think these Patriot teams have had plenty of talent, no a plethora of talent, but under performed for all the marbles. Bad luck, and not enough mental toughness has been the difference in making the 1 or 2 plays that really would have been 3 more super bowl championships.

    When the difference between 3 super bowl championships is 1 play or 1 more minute of game clock. It can't be a talent problem.



    I think the 2007 team was very talented, but I think that loss was 90% the result of the bad match-up between our O line and their D line. Unfortunately our O line was injured a bit by the end of the year, and a few guys (like Neal) were really starting to decline because of age.  I see that game as just a bad match-up for the Pats. 

    My argument is more for teams post-2008.  Those teams in my opinion have had real problems that are related to talent.  Two problems really stand out to me:

    1. Pass defense. . .  this finally got better when Talib was brought in, but until then I think it was atrocious
    2. Receivers . . .  once Moss declined, the only good receiver was the slot (Welker).  The Pats compensated for a while with good TEs, but whenever Gronk is out (and he's out a lot in the playoffs), the offense just doesn't look that good. 

    I don't think it's mental toughness or play calling or anything else.  I think it's just not having the guns you need to beat really good teams.

     



    Right, due to injury...as you just said.



    Injury has been a big part of it, but when the loss of one player (Gronk) kills your offense you gotta wonder about the quality and depth in the other positions.  

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    Pro,

    When I look at those Super bowls it is impossible to see a lack of talent. Teams that played so well for 16,17 even 18 games suddenly bomb on the biggest stage. That can't be talent.

    When I see the great players and talented players not play up to their standard on the biggest stage, I can't say they suddenly lost their talent?

    When guys like Wilfork, Mayo, Jones, Nink, DMC, Spikes, Hightower don't make a play between them it isn't because...they suck, or are no good.

    When I see a HOF QB struggle to score 15.5 ppg in 6 straight playoff losses with guys like Randy Moss in his prime, Wes Welker in his prime, Rob Gronkowski, Aaron Hernandez, guys who caught an unbelievable 70% of their targets for entire seasons, guys who broke td records, then citing a talent deficiency seems absurd to me. 

    But I guess that is where we differ. i disagree with your premise, I think these Patriot teams have had plenty of talent, no a plethora of talent, but under performed for all the marbles. Bad luck, and not enough mental toughness has been the difference in making the 1 or 2 plays that really would have been 3 more super bowl championships.

    When the difference between 3 super bowl championships is 1 play or 1 more minute of game clock. It can't be a talent problem.



    I think the 2007 team was very talented, but I think that loss was 90% the result of the bad match-up between our O line and their D line. Unfortunately our O line was injured a bit by the end of the year, and a few guys (like Neal) were really starting to decline because of age.  I see that game as just a bad match-up for the Pats. 

    My argument is more for teams post-2008.  Those teams in my opinion have had real problems that are related to talent.  Two problems really stand out to me:

    1. Pass defense. . .  this finally got better when Talib was brought in, but until then I think it was atrocious
    2. Receivers . . .  once Moss declined, the only good receiver was the slot (Welker).  The Pats compensated for a while with good TEs, but whenever Gronk is out (and he's out a lot in the playoffs), the offense just doesn't look that good. 

    I don't think it's mental toughness or play calling or anything else.  I think it's just not having the guns you need to beat really good teams.

     



    Right, due to injury...as you just said.



    Injury has been a big part of it, but when the loss of one player (Gronk) kills your offense you gotta wonder about the quality and depth in the other positions.  



    I don't think it killed our offense, we lost by 4 points in the SB and our offense spotted the other team 2 of those. It would be fair to say that a healthy gronk ensures a victory given that he averaged 1.1 tds a game that year! 

    If the player you lose is your best skill position player and the best in the league, it is a tough loss and greater then just losing 1 of your receivers or even a good receiver.

    Regardless, the offense played no different then the norm on the biggest stage with or without Gronk. They score 15.5 ppg in 6 straight playoff losses. That is no matter who was playing. 23 td Randy Moss or 17 td Rob Gronkowski. You see, all 6 teams produced the same offensive result despite the roster.

    There is a problem but it isn't talent, and it isn't Tom Brady. It is the predictable, stale, pass heavy offense that we force down a defense's throats no matter what they are giving us. The players change but the game remains the same. Plenty of talent in Foxboro.

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    Pro,

    When I look at those Super bowls it is impossible to see a lack of talent. Teams that played so well for 16,17 even 18 games suddenly bomb on the biggest stage. That can't be talent.

    When I see the great players and talented players not play up to their standard on the biggest stage, I can't say they suddenly lost their talent?

    When guys like Wilfork, Mayo, Jones, Nink, DMC, Spikes, Hightower don't make a play between them it isn't because...they suck, or are no good.

    When I see a HOF QB struggle to score 15.5 ppg in 6 straight playoff losses with guys like Randy Moss in his prime, Wes Welker in his prime, Rob Gronkowski, Aaron Hernandez, guys who caught an unbelievable 70% of their targets for entire seasons, guys who broke td records, then citing a talent deficiency seems absurd to me. 

    But I guess that is where we differ. i disagree with your premise, I think these Patriot teams have had plenty of talent, no a plethora of talent, but under performed for all the marbles. Bad luck, and not enough mental toughness has been the difference in making the 1 or 2 plays that really would have been 3 more super bowl championships.

    When the difference between 3 super bowl championships is 1 play or 1 more minute of game clock. It can't be a talent problem.



    I think the 2007 team was very talented, but I think that loss was 90% the result of the bad match-up between our O line and their D line. Unfortunately our O line was injured a bit by the end of the year, and a few guys (like Neal) were really starting to decline because of age.  I see that game as just a bad match-up for the Pats. 

    My argument is more for teams post-2008.  Those teams in my opinion have had real problems that are related to talent.  Two problems really stand out to me:

    1. Pass defense. . .  this finally got better when Talib was brought in, but until then I think it was atrocious
    2. Receivers . . .  once Moss declined, the only good receiver was the slot (Welker).  The Pats compensated for a while with good TEs, but whenever Gronk is out (and he's out a lot in the playoffs), the offense just doesn't look that good. 

    I don't think it's mental toughness or play calling or anything else.  I think it's just not having the guns you need to beat really good teams.

     



    Right, due to injury...as you just said.



    Injury has been a big part of it, but when the loss of one player (Gronk) kills your offense you gotta wonder about the quality and depth in the other positions.  



    I don't think it killed our offense, we lost by 4 points in the SB and our offense spotted the other team 2 of those. It would be fair to say that a healthy gronk ensures a victory given that he averaged 1.1 tds a game that year! 

    If the player you lose is your best skill position player and the best in the league, it is a tough loss and greater then just losing 1 of your receivers or even a good receiver.

    Regardless, the offense played no different then the norm on the biggest stage with or without Gronk. They score 15.5 ppg in 6 straight playoff losses. That is no matter who was playing. 23 td Randy Moss or 17 td Rob Gronkowski. You see, all 6 teams produced the same offensive result despite the roster.

    There is a problem but it isn't talent, and it isn't Tom Brady. It is the predictable, stale, pass heavy offense that we force down a defense's throats no matter what they are giving us. The players change but the game remains the same. Plenty of talent in Foxboro.



    Completely disagree about the coaching.  I think the offense overachieves because of the coaching.  Without the coaching (and without Brady), the true quality of the talent would be obvious . . . and it wouldn't be pretty. 

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    What a pleasure it is to read a discussion between two knowledgeable fans who disagree on several points but maintain a civil demeanor throughout.  It is refreshing.

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

     

     

     



    Pretty good synopsis by alL

     

    After that I think these arguments take teeth, I never expected them to get to the SB  for 46, but I think Gronk being at half speedbdefinitely reduced tha talent level for us. I really can't argue about talent coz BB was rebuilding

    And the same thing against the Ravens, but not sure we had the talent vs the niners

    I really thought that this yr was going yo be the year, up until all the injuries, obviously the drop in  level couldn't be made up. 

    But do you guys think that we only look at the skill positions Too muc? And not the more the  Oline? I think they have been outplayed in all their losses from 42on?

      



    I think this year's team (prior to the injuries) was the best we've had in a while, especially on defense.  I started a thread after cutdown day arguing that it was the most talented team that the Pats had had in years.  My one big concern on offense was the WRs.  I thought it was very important for Dobson (or one of the rookies) to become a quality starter.  Injuries played a role, but overall I was disappointed in that group, and I think the lack of good receivers hurt us against Denver.

    As far as the O line, I think it's been generally okay, though not as athletic as ideal.  In the playoffs, age and injury have been issues too.  Because of the lack of great athleticism this O line does struggle with athletic D lines.  I think the loss of in 2007 was almost entirely on the O line (which was not 100% healthy) and its inability to counter the Giant's excellent D line. I also think the line play was a big factor in 2011, though not the biggest factor.  Right now, Wendell is not a very good center and Connolly is just okay, so I'd like to see the interior line upgraded. I also may get flamed for this one, but I thought Solder was too inconsistent last year.  He is athletic and he makes some great plays, but he also gets beat a lot by good pass rushers.  Left tackle is one of those positions that takes a long time to get really good at, so I'm not too worried because the basic talent is definitely there.  I just would like to see him get more consistent.

     



    Agreed with your basic premises

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    What a pleasure it is to read a discussion between two knowledgeable fans who disagree on several points but maintain a civil demeanor throughout.  It is refreshing.



    We are going to all be ok , smile

     

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    What a pleasure it is to read a discussion between two knowledgeable fans who disagree on several points but maintain a civil demeanor throughout.  It is refreshing.



    We are going to all be ok , smile



    Quite so, sir, quite so.

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    What a pleasure it is to read a discussion between two knowledgeable fans who disagree on several points but maintain a civil demeanor throughout.  It is refreshing.



    We are going to all be ok , smile



    Quite so, sir, quite so.



    The thread lent itself to some really good discussion. Kudos to the OP.

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     

    In response to ATJ's comment:

     

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    What a pleasure it is to read a discussion between two knowledgeable fans who disagree on several points but maintain a civil demeanor throughout.  It is refreshing.

     



    We are going to all be ok , smile

     

     



    Quite so, sir, quite so.

     



    The thread lent itself to some really good discussion. Kudos to the OP.



    Indeed.  (And it reinforces why our mothers taught us it was never polite to talk about politics, religion, or--depending on your mother's particular bugaboo--money or sex.)

     

     

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    What a pleasure it is to read a discussion between two knowledgeable fans who disagree on several points but maintain a civil demeanor throughout.  It is refreshing.

     



    We are going to all be ok , smile

     



    Quite so, sir, quite so.



    The thread lent itself to some really good discussion. Kudos to the OP.



    Indeed.  (And it reinforces why our mothers told us it was never polite to talk about politics, religion, or--depending on your mother's particular bugaboo--money or sex)

     

     



    Rofl

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    What a pleasure it is to read a discussion between two knowledgeable fans who disagree on several points but maintain a civil demeanor throughout.  It is refreshing.

     



    We are going to all be ok , smile

     



    Quite so, sir, quite so.



    The thread lent itself to some really good discussion. Kudos to the OP.



    Indeed.  (And it reinforces why our mothers told us it was never polite to talk about politics, religion, or--depending on your mother's particular bugaboo--money or sex)

     

     



    Rofl



    It's a good thing that sports isn't on that list, because otherwise there would never be anything to talk about!

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    It's only coz our Moms didn't think about it

     

     

     

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

    Re: Your Thoughts on the Cap

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    It's only coz our Moms didn't think about it

     

     

     



    I was gonna say something about women finding lots of other things to talk about . . . . but nothing any man gives a damn about . . .

     

     

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share