5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday. :Yeah, Brady's 2011, a season where he was bordering on his worst INT rate of his entire career
    Posted by CliffordWasHere[/QUOTE]

    Yeah maybe if you only count the first half of the season or all of the passes that weren't picked off, but "could" have been.  Then your point might almost be true.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday. : Why don't you admit it didn't matter when Brady wants to throw 40+ times?  Did it matter in Buffalo? Did it matter in 2010 prior to BB dealing away Moss? Did it matter in the AFC title game or SB?
    Posted by CliffordWasHere[/QUOTE]

    It's vey apparent to the rest of the world that Brady had to throw alot to make up for a D that was allowing their opponents to score 50% of the time and that he also had less possessions than most of the rest of the NFL to do it in.
    Why not you?
    D allowed 31 pts in the Buff game in the second half.  Pathetic
    D almost blew the lead in the AFC game and did blow it in the SB.
    Sucks to leave the O 57 seconds after blowing the lead.  Would have been zero seconds if BB didn't make them score when he did.  Pathetic!
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday. : 2011 for Brady was "one of the greatest"? Why is that? I had no idea folding in a 4th qtr of a SB, not winning an MVP like he did in 2007 or 2010, means he had "one of the greatest seasons" in NFL history.
    Posted by CliffordWasHere[/QUOTE]

    Right idiot. Throwing for the 2nd most yards in NFL history, 2nd most yards per game, top 10 in TDs for a season, top 18 passer rating while leading his team to a 5th Super Bowl in 10 years despite a 31st ranked defense isn't a top 10 all-time year. You're a moron.

    Then throwing for a 100 PR with 8 TD and 4 INTs in the playoffs plus passing his team to a SB lead with a couple minutes and change left only to see his defense collapse yet again with the game on the line despite his HOF caliber TE being negated isn't capping a top 10 all-time year off good enough for you.

    Did I mention? You are a moron.

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

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday. :  Yeah, Brady's 2011, a season where he was bordering on his worst INT rate of his entire career,
    Posted by CliffordWasHere[/QUOTE]


    His INT% was the 3rd lowest of his entire 10 full season career imbecile. And he is the greatest in NFL history at taking care of the ball.

    Complaining about that is like complaining that Ruth only hit 54 HRs in 1928. Did I mention? You are a moron.

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

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday. : Yeah maybe if you only count the first half of the season or all of the passes that weren't picked off, but "could" have been.  Then your point might almost be true.
    Posted by pcmIV[/QUOTE]

    This is how this idiot thinks. He looks at a less than great part of a season, game, quarter, whatever. Then he takes that as all that happened and ignores the rest.

    i.e. - He harps on Brady's INT in the SB but ignores 2 TD passes as if they never happened.
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday. : False. 27 points.  Another dramatic attempt to spin away. One TD was a pick 6 courtesy of the dreamy Brady. Buffalo was HOT going into that game playing like that was their SB. I warned of it on this very board the week leading up to it. Everything was going swimmingly with Arrington picking Fitz TWICE to set up some of the Pats first points.   Oh boy, how I hate when our D creats turnovers and helps our offense to short fields so frequently. God knows, if we didn;t have them doing that, our offensive drives would stall and/or go 3 and out. lol Get your facts straight and then admit the D outplayed the offense in January. And February. Just think, if there wasn't  Safety, Brady's worst INT of his entire career (you know the photo  by now with him on the ground) or the drop....if ONE of those things does not occur, Brady has a 4th ring. One of those things. ONE. Read it again. If Brady simply eats the ball on that INT on first down, we win. Think about it.  Hurts your brain to admit that, doesn't it? And guess who has to praise the job BB did? ESPN, all the morons, trolls, and even people like you who think Roger Goodell's NFL is structured to help the D, not the O. lmao
    Posted by CliffordWasHere[/QUOTE]

    Both wrong but it was 21-0 in the second quarter.  Pats D gave up 34 pts  after that including a 54 yrd bomb by fitzy that had nothing to do with any int.


    If the D gets one int. or one fumble or one 3 & out or committed one less penalty, or didn't allow Eli a 75% completion or to score on 50% of his drives,  or didn't leave the O with pizz-poor field position every drive, we win. 
    You choose.  They had a lot more chances to get just one of those things right  since they were on the field 2/3rds of the game.

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

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    These guys have been neutered so many times on this topic, I'm with Truechamp on this, there is no point talking about it anymore.  Even though the proof was there for everyone to see last night that there is an obvious attempt to balance this offense, they would deny it was raining even as they're getting soaked to the bone.

    They deflect, ignore and/or don't know how San Francisco can increase their number of rushing attempts so dramatically with a coach who took "smashmouth" to the Nth degree and improve across the board in so many areas... it's anything but the run game.

    They've lost the battle of "it's the points per possession" BS argument repeatedly on so many levels but still cling to it like a life raft. Anything that needs a complex mathematical equation to understand, that flies in the face of simple stat's like the score itself are simply junk science.

    They attack the messenger instead of arguing the merits of the message, try to catch us in a loophole or a turn of a phrase instead of take what has been stated by us, Brady, Belichick and other players about the need for balance that they are like political pundits caught in a lie.

    In the end the Patriots, the offensive system they employ and the very weight of 100+ years of football contradicts what they say, yet they still yell about it until they're blue in the face.

    If and when the Pat's increase their rushing carries to where they're top ten in the NFL, they will say it was because of personnel and not because O'Brien was not talented enough or cognizant enough to even understand the philosophical leanings of the system he employed. Even though he was utterly impotent in the playoff's.
     
    Enjoy the rest of the season guys, don't expect to be taken seriously if you can't back up your ideas with more than flimsy "because I said so" arguments.  All we had on our side was three rings won with this "smashmouth" style, and you have the Colts.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.:
    [QUOTE]These guys have been neutered so many times on this topic, I'm with Truechamp on this, there is no point talking about it anymore.  Even though the proof was there for everyone to see last night that there is an obvious attempt to balance this offense, they would deny it was raining even as they're getting soaked to the bone.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    Oh clueless wozzydoo. It was a preseason game. Don't read too much into it. Duh.

    Do you think BB + Co. might have been more interested in seeing what their RBs can do rather than what the scrub QBs can do?

    You haven't ever neutered anybody but yourself dum bass.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.:
    [QUOTE]These guys have been neutered so many times on this topic, I'm with Truechamp on this, there is no point talking about it anymore.  Even though the proof was there for everyone to see last night that there is an obvious attempt to balance this offense, they would deny it was raining even as they're getting soaked to the bone. They deflect, ignore and/or don't know how San Francisco can increase their number of rushing attempts so dramatically with a coach who took "smashmouth" to the Nth degree and improve across the board in so many areas... it's anything but the run game. They've lost the battle of "it's the points per possession" BS argument repeatedly on so many levels but still cling to it like a life raft. Anything that needs a complex mathematical equation to understand, that flies in the face of simple stat's like the score itself are simply junk science. They attack the messenger instead of arguing the merits of the message, try to catch us in a loophole or a turn of a phrase instead of take what has been stated by us, Brady, Belichick and other players about the need for balance that they are like political pundits caught in a lie. In the end the Patriots, the offensive system they employ and the very weight of 100+ years of football contradicts what they say, yet they still yell about it until they're blue in the face. If and when the Pat's increase their rushing carries to where they're top ten in the NFL, they will say it was because of personnel and not because O'Brien was not talented enough or cognizant enough to even understand the philosophical leanings of the system he employed. Even though he was utterly impotent in the playoff's.   Enjoy the rest of the season guys, don't expect to be taken seriously if you can't back up your ideas with such flimsy "because I said so" arguments.  All we had on our side was three rings won with this "smashmouth" style, and you have the Colts.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    Yes siree bob, The practice game where they scored 7 points just proved everything.  Can't wait for more of those.
    Guess what, if we've been neutered then you had a full blown sex change!
    The NFL has evolved quite a bit in the past *50* years, missy. 
    Hasn't reached 100 quite yet.  Just another one of your obvious blunders.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.:
    [QUOTE] They've lost the battle of "it's the points per possession" BS argument repeatedly on so many levels but still cling to it like a life raft.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    Explain again how our noting the defense not being able to get off the field to save their lives was a battle lost wozzydoo. The whole wide world pretty much agrees our defense sucked. Not the least of which is BB who shot nearly his entire draft wad on defense.

    What is your astute explanation of the fact that we scored more points per possession in this recent SB we lost as opposed to others that we have won?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday. :  Guess what, if we've been neutered then you had a full blown sex change!
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]


    That was truly outstanding! Take a bow, you earned it.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.:
    [QUOTE]In the end the Patriots, the offensive system they employ and the very weight of 100+ years of football contradicts what they say, yet they still yell about it until they're blue in the face.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]


    As I have shown you wozzydoo, the Pats' run balance is entirely in line with the NFL norm for the last 20 years.

    Yet you still rant on about how you know better than BB.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday. : Explain again how our noting the defense not being able to get off the field to save their lives was a battle lost wozzydoo. The whole wide world pretty much agrees our defense sucked. Not the least of which is BB who shot nearly his entire draft wad on defense. What is your astute explanation of the fact that we scored more points per possession in this recent SB we lost as opposed to others that we have won?
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    Most rational people would agree with every single word of this - unfortunately there is about 6 people on this board who aren't.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday. : Most rational people would agree with every single word of this - unfortunately there is about 6 people on this board who aren't.
    Posted by mthurl[/QUOTE]

    6 irrationals and many more than that of fake Rusty accounts chiming in here and there.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    We've beat this one to death since Feb. It's a new season and a new team. This is our year, we should be strong on both sides of the ball. I don't think the defense is as bad as many do considering that they have been in rebuild mode for a few years. 

    Offense, defense, special teams, I just love this team.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.:
    [QUOTE]These guys have been neutered so many times on this topic, I'm with Truechamp on this, there is no point talking about it anymore.  Even though the proof was there for everyone to see last night that there is an obvious attempt to balance this offense, they would deny it was raining even as they're getting soaked to the bone. They deflect, ignore and/or don't know how San Francisco can increase their number of rushing attempts so dramatically with a coach who took "smashmouth" to the Nth degree and improve across the board in so many areas... it's anything but the run game. They've lost the battle of "it's the points per possession" BS argument repeatedly on so many levels but still cling to it like a life raft. Anything that needs a complex mathematical equation to understand, that flies in the face of simple stat's like the score itself are simply junk science. They attack the messenger instead of arguing the merits of the message, try to catch us in a loophole or a turn of a phrase instead of take what has been stated by us, Brady, Belichick and other players about the need for balance that they are like political pundits caught in a lie. In the end the Patriots, the offensive system they employ and the very weight of 100+ years of football contradicts what they say, yet they still yell about it until they're blue in the face. If and when the Pat's increase their rushing carries to where they're top ten in the NFL, they will say it was because of personnel and not because O'Brien was not talented enough or cognizant enough to even understand the philosophical leanings of the system he employed. Even though he was utterly impotent in the playoff's.   Enjoy the rest of the season guys, don't expect to be taken seriously if you can't back up your ideas with more than flimsy "because I said so" arguments.  All we had on our side was three rings won with this "smashmouth" style, and you have the Colts.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    Ummm . . . we've never argued that the offense doesn't need more diversity or balance. In fact, we've been calling for that all along.  The argument is whether the offense lacked diversity because the necessary talent was lacking (our side) or because the coaches were stupid (your side).  

    In fact, you summarized your argument nicely in another of your posts on another thread when you said:

    There are 12 year olds playing Madden that could call a better game than O'Brien.  

    Not much more to add to this one, give me Tom Brady calling the signals and I would statistically be one of the top offensive coordinators in the league, doesn't mean I would know what it takes to win a ring or even understand the philosophical premise behind the offensive system. 
     
    You think the coaches are stupid and you're capable of being one of the best offensive coordinators in the league (even if you don't understand the offensive philosophy)  You'll win this argument just as soon as you get paid by an NFL team for coordinating their offense . . . and win a few NFL games.  Until, that time, my money is on Belichick and, yes, even Bill O'Brien. They've actually done it.  



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

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday. : Ummm . . . we've never argued that the offense doesn't need more diversity or balance. In fact, we've been calling for that all along.  The argument is whether the offense lacked diversity because the necessary talent was lacking (our side) or because the coaches were stupid (your side).   In fact, you summarized your argument nicely in another of your posts on another thread when you said: There are 12 year olds playing Madden that could call a better game than O'Brien.   Not much more to add to this one, give me Tom Brady calling the signals and I would statistically be one of the top offensive coordinators in the league, doesn't mean I would know what it takes to win a ring or even understand the philosophical premise behind the offensive system.    You think the coaches are stupid and you're capable of being one of the best offensive coordinators in the league.  You'll win this argument just as soon as you get paid by an NFL team for coordinating their offense . . . and win a few NFL games.  Until, that time, my money is on Belichick and, yes, even Bill O'Brien. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    +1... the more he posts the deeper of a hole he digs for himself. At first his argument had some merit but longer this goes on you relize its all shifting sands or sparkle and mirrors.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday. :  The NFL has evolved quite a bit in the past *50* years, missy.  Hasn't reached 100 quite yet.  Just another one of your obvious blunders.
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    The origin of professional football can be traced back to 1892, with William "Pudge" Heffelfinger's $500 contract to play in a game for the Allegheny Athletic Association against the Pittsburgh Athletic Club. In 1920 the American Professional Football Association was formed. This league changed its name to the National Football League (NFL) two years later, and eventually became the major league of American football.

    Wrong... again.  No surprise...
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    In response to "Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday. : The origin of  professional football  can be traced back to 1892, with  William "Pudge" Heffelfinger's  $500 contract to play in a game for the  Allegheny Athletic Association  against the  Pittsburgh Athletic Club . In 1920 the American Professional Football Association was formed. This league changed its name to the  National Football League  (NFL) two years later, and eventually became the  major league  of American football. Wrong... again.  No surprise... Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE] Oh dear, 2012-1920=92<100 must be another of those complex mathematical equations that confuse wozzy.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday. : The origin of  professional football  can be traced back to 1892, with  William "Pudge" Heffelfinger's  $500 contract to play in a game for the  Allegheny Athletic Association  against the  Pittsburgh Athletic Club . In 1920 the American Professional Football Association was formed. This league changed its name to the  National Football League  (NFL) two years later, and eventually became the  major league  of American football. Wrong... again.  No surprise...
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    Actually the original game of football (soccer) was established in London in 1863

    Really, I lied, it was way before that.
    King Edward III banned soccer in 1365 owing to the growing incidents of violence and military indulgence in the sport. In 1424 King James I of Scotland also proclaimed in the Parliament— "Na man play at the Fute-ball" (No man shall play football)  
    .
    Neither game is played like the present day football as we know it.
    Just as the cavemen used to walk more like animals, football has evolved into a passing league.   LIVE WITH IT!
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    The origin of professional football can be traced back to 1892, with William "Pudge" Heffelfinger's $500 contract to play in a game for the Allegheny Athletic Association against the Pittsburgh Athletic Club.

    I know reading is a challenge...
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: 5 Questions from Kirwan and his camp visit on Sunday.

    Let me guess, that's what the history books say, but not really what they meant.
     

Share