Brady playing old?

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

    Re: Brady playing old?

    Nah - He's younger than Manning and hasn't had 4 neck surgeries.  He'll be ok.  He just needs to work more with his young receivers.  They are talented.  They just need to be groomed more.

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

    Re: Brady playing old?

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    I love how Mt Hurl also tries to sell us on "those early hits" in the game somehow ruined Brady. Just pathetic.   After the 2nd drive the O Line protected him just fine for a road game.

    How about don't use playaction on the second play of the game, Tommy! Establish that run first, so it can be effective. Jesus.

    SB 46 dousche chills on that first play. Play action with no run game. What a joke.

    How about Brady just sucked and had a really bad game, one the worst of his career?




    First possession plays are scripted, right from BB's book of failures.

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

    Re: Brady playing old?

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    Well his age is going to catch up with him sooner or later. I know it was raining, but I've never seen the ball come out of his hand like it did today. I've seen him play plenty of times in those conditions and his ball handling skills are usually top notch - there was a game against the Ravens 6 or 7 years ago that was like a monsoon and I don't remember the ball ever getting away from him like it did today. And I don't remember ever seeing him throw behind receivers as much as I've seen him over the last five games. Now maybe the talent around him is the reason for it - and it probably is - but I am starting to wonder. Truthfully even playing like he is right now, he is still better than 90% of the quarterbacks out there.

    I wonder if some of those huge hits off play action messed with him early? There just seemed to be no rythem in his play today...he didn't look confident and he didn't look like he knew where the ball needed to go. It was just kind of all over the place today. He would focus on Amendola for a while, force it, etc. He didn't even look Dobson's way until late - forcing things to Amendola and Edelman is not going to cut it...neither of those guys are Welker. 



    I think he is very tentative with these new receivers. He looks like he is fearing them to break the wrong way on every play. Until there is some continuity of the personnel and a rapport develops I'm afraid this tenuous feel to the passing game will remain.

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

    Re: Brady playing old?

    The first time I saw Brady play like he was old was near the end of last year's AFC championship game.  That was the first time it struck me that Brady was not merely frustrated (as he sometimes has been throughout his career when things have gone bad) but completely dispirited.  I wonder if his heart's into it anymore.  I think he knew in the AFC championship that that offense without Gronk didn't really have the firepower to win.  I think he feels the same now.  Is he too old to be good anymore?  I doubt it.  But can he keep his enthusiasm up when he looks around him and sees a bunch of guys who really aren't very good and are a longshot to win?  That I'm not sure of anymore. 

     

    The fact is, the current offense is just plain bad. The lack of serious attention (for several years) to the wide receiver position and the loss of both Gronk and Hern at TE, and also the loss of Vereen and Ridley at RB have left it very thin in the skill positions.  And the O-line continues to struggle against athletic D lines as it has for a decade. 

     

    I still am optimistic that the rookie receivers will contribute, but I see troubling signs with Thompkins' hands, and Dobson and Boyce really haven't shown all that much yet.  Amendola looked mediocre today (I think that injury is still affecting him), Edelman showed his limits as a receiver with drops and the inability to win battles for the ball, and the rest of the skill positions out there--Hoomanwanui, Develin, Bolden, and Blount--are just back-up quality.  When Gronk, Ridley, and Vereen come back, things should improve . . . but you have to worry about all three of those given their injuries. Can Gronk stay healthy?  How bad is Ridley's knee?  And will Vereen be able to take the pounding without further injury?  

     

    Meanwhile, in Denver, the too expensive Welker continues to make plays . . . 

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: Brady playing old?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Well his age is going to catch up with him sooner or later. I know it was raining, but I've never seen the ball come out of his hand like it did today. I've seen him play plenty of times in those conditions and his ball handling skills are usually top notch - there was a game against the Ravens 6 or 7 years ago that was like a monsoon and I don't remember the ball ever getting away from him like it did today. And I don't remember ever seeing him throw behind receivers as much as I've seen him over the last five games. Now maybe the talent around him is the reason for it - and it probably is - but I am starting to wonder. Truthfully even playing like he is right now, he is still better than 90% of the quarterbacks out there.

    I wonder if some of those huge hits off play action messed with him early? There just seemed to be no rythem in his play today...he didn't look confident and he didn't look like he knew where the ball needed to go. It was just kind of all over the place today. He would focus on Amendola for a while, force it, etc. He didn't even look Dobson's way until late - forcing things to Amendola and Edelman is not going to cut it...neither of those guys are Welker. 

     



    I think he is very tentative with these new receivers. He looks like he is fearing them to break the wrong way on every play. Until there is some continuity of the personnel and a rapport develops I'm afraid this tenuous feel to the passing game will remain.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Pffft. It's like throwing to Larry, Moe and Curly.

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

    Re: Brady playing old?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    The first time I saw Brady play like he was old was near the end of last year's AFC championship game.  That was the first time it struck me that Brady was not merely frustrated (as he sometimes has been throughout his career when things have gone bad) but completely dispirited.  I wonder if his heart's into it anymore.  I think he knew in the AFC championship that that offense without Gronk didn't really have the firepower to win.  I think he feels the same now.  Is he too old to be good anymore?  I doubt it.  But can he keep his enthusiasm up when he looks around him and sees a bunch of guys who really aren't very good and are a longshot to win?  That I'm not sure of anymore. 

     

    The fact is, the current offense is just plain bad. The lack of serious attention (for several years) to the wide receiver position and the loss of both Gronk and Hern at TE, and also the loss of Vereen and Ridley at RB have left it very thin in the skill positions.  And the O-line continues to struggle against athletic D lines as it has for a decade. 

     

    I still am optimistic that the rookie receivers will contribute, but I see troubling signs with Thompkins' hands, and Dobson and Boyce really haven't shown all that much yet.  Amendola looked mediocre today (I think that injury is still affecting him), Edelman showed his limits as a receiver with drops and the inability to win battles for the ball, and the rest of the skill positions out there--Hoomanwanui, Develin, Bolden, and Blount--are just back-up quality.  When Gronk, Ridley, and Vereen come back, things should improve . . . but you have to worry about all three of those given their injuries. Can Gronk stay healthy?  How bad is Ridley's knee?  And will Vereen be able to take the pounding without further injury?  

     

    Meanwhile, in Denver, the too expensive Welker continues to make plays . . . 

     

     

     

     




    The TOO EXPENSIVE, Welker has more TD's than the whole NE offense, combined.

    Pathetic

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

    Re: Brady playing old?

    Playing Old ?   is that the reason why on his numbers this seaon are not great ?

    Here's a thought Peyton Manning is a year older , just recently came back from missing a full season with some thinking injury, operations were career ending .  Why is he throwing for 400 yards a game ? Answer is simple. Nothing to do with age, nothing to do with decline ,  it has a whole lot to do with whom is on the field and the plays they're calling with that offense.    It's that or Manning is finding his inner Benjamin Button.

    p.s. didn't read the whole thread in case someone else brought this up.

     

     

     

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

    Re: Brady playing old?

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

     

    Again, that is because Gomer runs his offense better than Brady runs ours. You've already been exposed on this.

    Welker is also not obsessively targeted 10 times per game, minimum.

    Get it?  

    Amendola has a TD today if BRady doesn't miss him WIDE OPEN at the 3 yard line for it to turn into a circus catch.  Brady sucked, Manning has not sucked.  Simple. If your QB blows missing Edelman and Dobson deep vs TB for example, things like that, he's going to not be throwing TDs for us, he's going to be inexplicably playing like crap and not reading his progressions like he should be.


    Welker had a couple drops again today, too. lmao

    He;s good at that.

     




    NO, Genius. It's because Gomers's offense is 100 x's better than Brady's.

     

    No, Larry, No Moe and No Curly.  NO converted QB's and no body with their balls taped to their legs and TE's that can actually catch. An O line that can actually block and real NFL RB's.

    BB= FAIL

     

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

    Re: Brady playing old?

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    The first time I saw Brady play like he was old was near the end of last year's AFC championship game.  That was the first time it struck me that Brady was not merely frustrated (as he sometimes has been throughout his career when things have gone bad) but completely dispirited.  I wonder if his heart's into it anymore.  I think he knew in the AFC championship that that offense without Gronk didn't really have the firepower to win.  I think he feels the same now.  Is he too old to be good anymore?  I doubt it.  But can he keep his enthusiasm up when he looks around him and sees a bunch of guys who really aren't very good and are a longshot to win?  That I'm not sure of anymore. 

     

    The fact is, the current offense is just plain bad. The lack of serious attention (for several years) to the wide receiver position and the loss of both Gronk and Hern at TE, and also the loss of Vereen and Ridley at RB have left it very thin in the skill positions.  And the O-line continues to struggle against athletic D lines as it has for a decade. 

     

    I still am optimistic that the rookie receivers will contribute, but I see troubling signs with Thompkins' hands, and Dobson and Boyce really haven't shown all that much yet.  Amendola looked mediocre today (I think that injury is still affecting him), Edelman showed his limits as a receiver with drops and the inability to win battles for the ball, and the rest of the skill positions out there--Hoomanwanui, Develin, Bolden, and Blount--are just back-up quality.  When Gronk, Ridley, and Vereen come back, things should improve . . . but you have to worry about all three of those given their injuries. Can Gronk stay healthy?  How bad is Ridley's knee?  And will Vereen be able to take the pounding without further injury?  

     

    Meanwhile, in Denver, the too expensive Welker continues to make plays . . . 

     

     

     

     

     



    There is no way you followed our team pre 2007. NO way.

    I will take Edelman and what he does, which is awfully close to what Welker does, his punt returning, etc for field position at 5 million less so we can have an Amendola in here to HELP our offense be less predictable and you can go be a Broncos fan ang get giddy with a stats hound QB against a crap Dallas D and wittle Welkie, pretending that's what wins SBs.

    When I watch Denver, I think of the old Colts. I think of our teams in recent years where our QB didn't care about helping our D or being methodical. If Romo wasn't a moron, people are asking how on earth Elway could ignore not upgrading that awful Denver D and be so irresponsible in the offeason?

    Denver's D sucks so bad, yet you think paying 6 million for what we get for 1 is a good thing?    When Denver doesn't win the SB and we kick their asz in November with their befuddled crap LBs and Safeties trying to figure it all out and Talib locks down Thomas, Dennard on Decker, and we gameplan to take Julius Thomas out of the game, with Arrington eliminating Welker with years of experience in doing it in practice on him, you will be sitting up in that crappy, distant balcony in Foxborough thinking about this post of yours and my comments back to you.

    BB can;t win with you. Why do you still have season tickets and waste thousands upon thousands of dollars on flights in there if you are this dumb when it comes to analyzing what actually wins football games?  A bad QB can't win you a football game. Period.

    Amendola was "mediocre"? Mediocre with a bad QB, huh?   I think that's pretty good if you can be mediocre with bad QB playing, don't you?

    DO you realize he has his 1st TD as a Pat today if Brady doesn't throw so poorly to him WIDE OPEN?

    Do you realize this?  We are talking about the D outstanding again and Brady looking like Jay Cutler hopin Gronk changes things, but only Brady can fix Brady, which is what Ive said here for years.

    Winning a SB is not about collecting stats during the year.

    I'll be happy to take your bet on as well.  Denver ain't winning a SB with that D. Their team is poorly built because their run game is every average and as the weather turns, that wobbly Gomer ball will become worse and worse just like last year.

    Denver might be worse on D than they were last year.  

    I kinda like our chances.   I just don't know if our QB is capable of realizing how to win games that are on the table for the taking anymore.

     



    Wow, you sound exactly like BB. You will take Edelman over welker for 5m less so you can have an injured Danny for the difference. That's called a 2fer. Brilliant. Why have 1 superior when you can have 2 inferior. I vote Rusty to be the Pats new GM. 

    Yes, The D has been playing very well. It's about time after 5 years, 40 draft picks and tons of FA money. 

    Bb didn't have to blow the offense up. All he needed was a perimeter receiver better than Lloyd and we would have been just fine With welker, Gronk, hern, Edelman.

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

    Re: Brady playing old?

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    The first time I saw Brady play like he was old was near the end of last year's AFC championship game.  That was the first time it struck me that Brady was not merely frustrated (as he sometimes has been throughout his career when things have gone bad) but completely dispirited.  I wonder if his heart's into it anymore.  I think he knew in the AFC championship that that offense without Gronk didn't really have the firepower to win.  I think he feels the same now.  Is he too old to be good anymore?  I doubt it.  But can he keep his enthusiasm up when he looks around him and sees a bunch of guys who really aren't very good and are a longshot to win?  That I'm not sure of anymore. 

     

    The fact is, the current offense is just plain bad. The lack of serious attention (for several years) to the wide receiver position and the loss of both Gronk and Hern at TE, and also the loss of Vereen and Ridley at RB have left it very thin in the skill positions.  And the O-line continues to struggle against athletic D lines as it has for a decade. 

     

    I still am optimistic that the rookie receivers will contribute, but I see troubling signs with Thompkins' hands, and Dobson and Boyce really haven't shown all that much yet.  Amendola looked mediocre today (I think that injury is still affecting him), Edelman showed his limits as a receiver with drops and the inability to win battles for the ball, and the rest of the skill positions out there--Hoomanwanui, Develin, Bolden, and Blount--are just back-up quality.  When Gronk, Ridley, and Vereen come back, things should improve . . . but you have to worry about all three of those given their injuries. Can Gronk stay healthy?  How bad is Ridley's knee?  And will Vereen be able to take the pounding without further injury?  

     

    Meanwhile, in Denver, the too expensive Welker continues to make plays . . . 

     

     

     

     

     



    There is no way you followed our team pre 2007. NO way.

    I will take Edelman and what he does, which is awfully close to what Welker does, his punt returning, etc for field position at 5 million less so we can have an Amendola in here to HELP our offense be less predictable and you can go be a Broncos fan ang get giddy with a stats hound QB against a crap Dallas D and wittle Welkie, pretending that's what wins SBs.

    When I watch Denver, I think of the old Colts. I think of our teams in recent years where our QB didn't care about helping our D or being methodical. If Romo wasn't a moron, people are asking how on earth Elway could ignore not upgrading that awful Denver D and be so irresponsible in the offeason?

    Denver's D sucks so bad, yet you think paying 6 million for what we get for 1 is a good thing?    When Denver doesn't win the SB and we kick their asz in November with their befuddled crap LBs and Safeties trying to figure it all out and Talib locks down Thomas, Dennard on Decker, and we gameplan to take Julius Thomas out of the game, with Arrington eliminating Welker with years of experience in doing it in practice on him, you will be sitting up in that crappy, distant balcony in Foxborough thinking about this post of yours and my comments back to you.

    BB can;t win with you. Why do you still have season tickets and waste thousands upon thousands of dollars on flights in there if you are this dumb when it comes to analyzing what actually wins football games?  A bad QB can't win you a football game. Period.

    Amendola was "mediocre"? Mediocre with a bad QB, huh?   I think that's pretty good if you can be mediocre with bad QB playing, don't you?

    DO you realize he has his 1st TD as a Pat today if Brady doesn't throw so poorly to him WIDE OPEN?

    Do you realize this?  We are talking about the D outstanding again and Brady looking like Jay Cutler hopin Gronk changes things, but only Brady can fix Brady, which is what Ive said here for years.

    Winning a SB is not about collecting stats during the year.

    I'll be happy to take your bet on as well.  Denver ain't winning a SB with that D. Their team is poorly built because their run game is every average and as the weather turns, that wobbly Gomer ball will become worse and worse just like last year.

    Denver might be worse on D than they were last year.  

    I kinda like our chances.   I just don't know if our QB is capable of realizing how to win games that are on the table for the taking anymore.

     

     



    Wow, you sound exactly like BB. You will take Edelman over welker for 5m less so you can have an injured Danny for the difference. That's called a 2fer. Brilliant. Why have 1 superior when you can have 2 inferior. I vote Rusty to be the Pats new GM. 

     

    Yes, The D has been playing very well. It's about time after 5 years, 40 draft picks and tons of FA money. 

    Bb didn't have to blow the offense up. All he needed was a perimeter receiver better than Lloyd and we would have been just fine With welker, Gronk, hern, Edelman.

    [/QUOTE]


    Hern?????????????????

     

    What ton of FA money?

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

    Re: Brady playing old?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    I don't know if he is. It's very hard to tell with the mess BB has left the supporting cast in.

    This team has struggled in all but one of its 5 games against teams with a combined 8-14 record.

    Face it. It is possible, even likely that your freakin little homer party is over. As BB has squandered the years with poor decision after poor decision, the ace in the hole has been withering. And too many of you have sat on your homer hands and whistled through the graveyard through it all without even making a peep.

    Of course, those of us with a clue have known the party was over for a while and the only thing keeping us viable was Brady. Even those days may be gone, because this guy can't build champions.

     

     



    He's probably a little past his peak. But I think it's more the supporting cast at the skill positions. And that was a tough D today. And, quite frankly, part of what occurred today can be attributed to the weather. What did the Cinn O do?

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Brady2Moss07. Show Brady2Moss07's posts

    Re: Brady playing old?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    I don't know if he is. It's very hard to tell with the mess BB has left the supporting cast in.

    This team has struggled in all but one of its 5 games against teams with a combined 8-14 record.

    Face it. It is possible, even likely that your freakin little homer party is over. As BB has squandered the years with poor decision after poor decision, the ace in the hole has been withering. And too many of you have sat on your homer hands and whistled through the graveyard through it all without even making a peep.

    Of course, those of us with a clue have known the party was over for a while and the only thing keeping us viable was Brady. Even those days may be gone, because this guy can't build champions.

     



    I thought it was the younger generation that complained about everything, but you prove otherwise. Dude, you complain about everything. Call people homers because they support Brady and BB who have been part of 3 sb wins, 5 appearances and I believe 10 winning seasons in a row. What more do you want to be happy? Why do you come on here to just bi%ch?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Brady2Moss07. Show Brady2Moss07's posts

    Re: Brady playing old?

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    I don't know if he is. It's very hard to tell with the mess BB has left the supporting cast in.

    This team has struggled in all but one of its 5 games against teams with a combined 8-14 record.

    Face it. It is possible, even likely that your freakin little homer party is over. As BB has squandered the years with poor decision after poor decision, the ace in the hole has been withering. And too many of you have sat on your homer hands and whistled through the graveyard through it all without even making a peep.

    Of course, those of us with a clue have known the party was over for a while and the only thing keeping us viable was Brady. Even those days may be gone, because this guy can't build champions.

     

     



    He's probably a little past his peak. But I think it's more the supporting cast at the skill positions. And that was a tough D today. And, quite frankly, part of what occurred today can be attributed to the weather. What did the Cinn O do?

     

     



    Of course he is. He's 36 but he thinks it's 2007 still. This is the problem. He thinks it's about him.

     

    And that Cincy D played well, sure, but unless you missed the game, you can't tell me NE's offense, mostly with bad decisions by Brady or poor throws, didn't leave a bunch of points on the board.

    We couldn't even move the offense past mid field in the first half.

    This isn't anything too knew for us either.  We've seen our offense do this before andf it's always when we stop running the ball. Once the D sees that, we're cooked.

    Brady then starts to think he can do it all with his arm, and very clearly, he cannot. Not many QBs, if any, can completely ignore the concept of a run game.

    The playaction call on the second play of the entire game, was a dark warning sign for me.

    Brady is behind Gomer's TD total so he has to catch up, right? lmao

    [/QUOTE]

    2 top rb's are out sort of hurts your run game. 1600 posts in 1 mos=get a hobby

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Brady playing old?


    How come the pats only ran the ball 5 times in the second half?

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

    Re: Brady playing old?

    Babe I wouldn't read too much into it. The o-line was spotty at best, four sacks and so on, offensive weapons diminished due to injuries and Belichick rolling dice on youth and Scrubs. There were also some drops. 

    Brady wasn't on today that's for sure and he probably isn't the guy he was three years ago but I would wait a bit more for deciding. 

    If we have healthy running backs he doesn't have to do as much anyhow. Plus, the D looked good. 

    I understand the concerns for sure but I think we need to ride this one out a bit more. 

    This was the first game where the absence of Welker hurt them also. Amendola didn't look right....

    The D played terrific which is a bright spot...

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

    Re: Brady playing old?

    In response to UD6's comment:


    How come the pats only ran the ball 5 times in the second half?




    How come your here?

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

    Re: Brady playing old?

    The O-Line sucked today against a superior D just like they always do.

    Brady was sacked 4 times, hit 8 more times and hurried all day.  Only 4 years ago Brady played a good portion of the season with 3 fractured ribs and a broken finger. He is tough as nails but yeah he's getting older.

    All the more reason why the Pats should have made better efforts to surround him with more reliable weapons. 

     

     

     
  19. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Brady playing old?

    In response to stillgridlocked's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The O-Line sucked today against a superior D just like they always do.

    Brady was sacked 4 times, hit 8 more times and hurried all day.  Only 4 years ago Brady played a good portion of the season with 3 fractured ribs and a broken finger. He is tough as nails but yeah he's getting older.

    All the more reason why the Pats should have made better efforts to surround him with more reliable weapons. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE

     

    How about a running game?

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

    Re: Brady playing old?

    One loss and the divide between the camps becomes ever more evident.  

    It's a team game, the team is 4-1. That's pretty good even if they played mediocre competition. They lost a winnable game today, mostly because the offense was poor. But it was good last week, and had been improving. Took a step back today, I expect them to play a lot better next week, against a far better team. An unbeaten team. And I expect them to win.

    There are no power ranking or style points. If there were, the Ravens wouldn't have made the playoffs last year, or the Giants the year before that, or the Packers the year before that. 

    If you've watched any football this year besides the Patriots, you know there are a lot of teams that have a whole lot less talent than New England does. Seattle is a fine team, but they got beat up and down the field today. Are their fans freaking out?

    Denver gave up 48 points. Is that what championship teams do? I may be wrong, but I can't remember a Patriot defense giving up 48 points. If the Patriots won 51-48 today, half of you would still be freaking out about how awful the defense is. Denver's defense was awful today. 

    This team is a lot like the early BB era teams. Solid defensively, conservative/average offensively. In 2001, they started 2-3, found their footing and about ran the table. In 2003 they were 2-2, and then didn't lose another game. They're 4-1. The team you saw today is not the team that will finish the season. 

    I see a team that has as much chance of winning the AFC as any team in this conference. If you don't see that, I really have no idea what you could be looking at. There are no super teams. You'll see that next week. This team is right there with any of them. If you want to crown Denver, be my guest. I see nothing in that team that scares me. 

    The Pats tried the fine tuned offense approach and they came up short. Now it's a team that plays defense, punts the ball and will be in a lot of close games. I'm fine with that. You don't need to win every game, just the last one.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Brady playing old?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    I don't know if he is. It's very hard to tell with the mess BB has left the supporting cast in.

    This team has struggled in all but one of its 5 games against teams with a combined 8-14 record.

    Face it. It is possible, even likely that your freakin little homer party is over. As BB has squandered the years with poor decision after poor decision, the ace in the hole has been withering. And too many of you have sat on your homer hands and whistled through the graveyard through it all without even making a peep.

    Of course, those of us with a clue have known the party was over for a while and the only thing keeping us viable was Brady. Even those days may be gone, because this guy can't build champions.

     




    Well said.  Brady is still effective but BB has turned into Schottenheimer with a God complex.  4 rings with Brady at the helm would have been nice, but that ship sailed a long time ago.  Playoffs again?  Sure.  SB win?  No. 

    The only real excuse I'l accept for this dismal performance is giving credit to Cincy's aggressive D, taken right out of  "The Ravens/Jets/Giants How to beat TB/BB Offense" = freak him out; he loses his rhythm; and BB never has answers for adjustments. 

    Oh, and don't worry.  Game winning drives WERE the thing of young QB in a system built to be efficient, not put up fantasy numbers.

    But, for those who disagree, get in touch with Positive Polly aka Not-A-Sack aka NAS.  He'l explain why it was everyone else's fault except Brady's.

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

    Re: Brady playing old?

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    I don't know if he is. It's very hard to tell with the mess BB has left the supporting cast in.

    This team has struggled in all but one of its 5 games against teams with a combined 8-14 record.

    Face it. It is possible, even likely that your freakin little homer party is over. As BB has squandered the years with poor decision after poor decision, the ace in the hole has been withering. And too many of you have sat on your homer hands and whistled through the graveyard through it all without even making a peep.

    Of course, those of us with a clue have known the party was over for a while and the only thing keeping us viable was Brady. Even those days may be gone, because this guy can't build champions.

     

     



    He's probably a little past his peak. But I think it's more the supporting cast at the skill positions. And that was a tough D today. And, quite frankly, part of what occurred today can be attributed to the weather. What did the Cinn O do?

     

     



    Of course he is. He's 36 but he thinks it's 2007 still. This is the problem. He thinks it's about him.

     

    And that Cincy D played well, sure, but unless you missed the game, you can't tell me NE's offense, mostly with bad decisions by Brady or poor throws, didn't leave a bunch of points on the board.

    We couldn't even move the offense past mid field in the first half.

    This isn't anything too knew for us either.  We've seen our offense do this before andf it's always when we stop running the ball. Once the D sees that, we're cooked.

    Brady then starts to think he can do it all with his arm, and very clearly, he cannot. Not many QBs, if any, can completely ignore the concept of a run game.

    The playaction call on the second play of the entire game, was a dark warning sign for me.

    Brady is behind Gomer's TD total so he has to catch up, right? lmao

    [/QUOTE]

    There was only one drive in the 4th that they didn't run the ball.... I love your revisionist history.  Come on man.... the whole offense played bad.  Brady had a bad game but don't start just changing the facts... they kept trying to run the ball through out the game.  The only time in the game where running may have been called for was on goal line.  The O.C, subbed in the personnel for the goal line O, so take up the play calling there with him, right or wrong.

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

    Re: Brady playing old?

    In response to MoreRings' comment:

    In response to stillgridlocked's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The O-Line sucked today against a superior D just like they always do.

    Brady was sacked 4 times, hit 8 more times and hurried all day.  Only 4 years ago Brady played a good portion of the season with 3 fractured ribs and a broken finger. He is tough as nails but yeah he's getting older.

    All the more reason why the Pats should have made better efforts to surround him with more reliable weapons. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE

     

    How about a running game?



    Take that up with coaches.  I mean he dialed up one of the worst game i have seen.  They didn't even attempt to pass it in the rain to Brady's strength which is short to intermedate timing routes over the middle.  The didn't use TE in and realistic way and BB did his benching of  todays best runner over a fumble.  Going for the long ball all day in the rain on first down was stupid... play action was getting Brady killed... lets do it again.  The screen almost worked.. . lets never call another one all game.  

     

Share