Great Offenses and Flashy WRs Do Not Win Championships

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Great Offenses and Flashy WRs Do Not Win Championships

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    Stout D + elite QB = greatly enhanced chances of winning it all.

    Been saying this for over 10 years.

     




    We don't have an elite QB in the playoffs, though. We do have a very stout Run D and one that causes a lot of turnovers.

     

    Pass D is average. 

     




    when it counts-really matters-ur pass D is awful

     

    and the evidence is mounting

    you would think the "greatest gm" in the history of the world would have that D rebuilt by now and at the very least a competent pass rush by now-especially in a such a qb driven league

     



    Nah. The pass rush was good last year and got better this year.  NE's red zone pass D is good, the 3rd down D improved dramatically this year as compared to 2011.

     

    Injuries happen. Carter got hurt and he was their best pass rusher last year, obviously. Jones sprained an ankle and it apparently never improved enough for him to impact the AFC title game.

    I agree on the pass rush, but that has nothing to do with the secondary.  The secondary doesn't rush the passer, Gunty.

    Take away Aldon Smith, take away Pierre Paul, take away any lead pass rusher and the secondary of that team will look worse.

    Put it this way, if our secondary was as awful as Dallas's with Ware on our front 7, you'd be correct.

    It isn't.   At some point, if you can't change and dictate over 4 qtrs, the D can be susceptible to the other team's offene making plays, which is what Balit's offense did.

    Why? Because our offense turned it over 2x in the second half in a close game. Down 14-13 in the 4th is not offensive to me as a fan. Not at all.

    Using a word "awful" is where you get caught and caught badly.

     



    well i said when it counts-really matters

    ie: game on the line, closing minutes, need one stop, etc...

    and in that respect i will stick with awful

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Great Offenses and Flashy WRs Do Not Win Championships

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

         As we've seen with our own eyes over the past 5 years, stud WRs and high powered offenses do not win championships, without the support of a good defensive unit. True...the Patriots have come tantalizingly close in 2007 and 2011. But, on each occasion, their offense failed to materialize in the Big Game, and their defense could not close out those games. In 2009, 2010 and 2012, the vaunted Pats' offense grossly underachieved in the play-offs...resulting in the Patriots getting spanked on their home field.

         Folks...Wes Welker is an outstanding receiver. But, he's never going to be the focal point of a championship team. Stellar QB play and strong line play (OL and DL) usually tell the tale when the elite teams meet in the play-offs. So...as much as we all would love to see Wes remain a Patriot...unless the Pats can resign him at a reasonable price (no more than $7-8mil. per season), the team is best off letting him walk. Ditto for the NY Giants, who have difficult contract decisions to make relating to star WRs, Akeem Nicks and Victor Cruz.

         Here's a great article on the subject of great offenses, WRs, and winning championships: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/big-tease-2012-new-england-patriots-and-nfls-history-offensive-failures/21442/         




    I would put the blame on game planning and being out coached rather then saying high powered offenses can't win a SB.  The 2 SB's lost to the giants the D held them to fairly low scores, they got burned at the end though and again, that blame can go to the coaching.


    The Pats open up the offense during the regular season and play to win then seem to play to not lose instead of playing to win during the playoffs and SB's. 

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

    Re: Great Offenses and Flashy WRs Do Not Win Championships

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    In response to UD6's comment:

     

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    In response to UD6's comment:

     

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

     

    To me, blaming Welker for the Patriots failure to win Super Bowls is like Texans fans blaming Arian Foster because they stink in the playoffs. Paralysis by overanalysis.

    He's a great player, it isn't his decision to run the offense through him.  How about using Vereen more?  How about a receiver that can get open other than Welker?  

    They needed Gronkowski to be healthy, and they needed Talib to stay in the game. 

    It's about winning playoff games and playing your best in the end games. The Ravens got hot, they're not a great team on offense or defense. Same with the Giants in 2011.

    By the way, is Torrey Smith flashy? Victor Cruz? I'll take those guys, flashy or not.

     



    Its way too easy to point to a single moment in a game and define that game by that moment.  IMO, about the only time that makes any sense is if a FG kicker is set to kick a game winning or tying FG, and even then doing so diminishes what happened in the previous 60 minutes of the game. 

    RESPONSE: What are you talking about? No one here is blaming Welker for the loss to the Ravens. This thread isn't about Welker costing the Pats that playoff game. If you read my initial post to start this thread, you would know that. 

    In the pats playoff loss this year, the offense produced nearly 22 points (63%) below its regular season average.  By contrast, the defense gave up 7 points (25%) above its average.

    RESPONSE: Which jives with the article I posted above. 

    Not a fan of cold hard football facts.

    RESPONSE: Yes...yes. After all these years, we know how adverse you are to cold, hard facts...LOL!!

    All they do is mash already created stats and attempt to call them advanced metrics.  I do, however, give the creator/former food and beverage writer for the boston herald props for his success.  He's a great american story.

    RESPONSE: What are you babbling about now, Dog(ggggg)??

    Ultimately, my point is that I am not even sure the great patriots defenses of the early 00's could have produced a win given the pats poor offensive output.  The best defense in the NFL by pts allowed this year still gave up an average of more than 15 points per game.

    RESPONSE: This is because you do not understand the game. 

    Blame the D if you like, but if an organization has an offense that is supposed to produce and doesn't, it probably doesn't matter how great the d is.

    RESPONSE: Again...why don't you read my initial post before popping off. I blamed the loss primarily on poor line play (DL and OL), and poor red zone play. 

     

     



    TP - LOL you are so arrogant.

    RESPONSE: Arrogant??? For calling you on your BS?? 

    I wasn't responding to your post.  I was responding to Muzwell's.  I was agreeing with him, and then I was providing my further reasoning.

    RESPONSE: Your reasoning??? What did you do...cut and paste a couple of Rusty's posts???  

    On the other hand, yes I did mention my distaste for the website coldhardfootballfacts.com but you can spin as you like.

    RESPONSE: Spin?? While here, you have consistently ignored facts, and, by your own admission, misrepresented, misdirected, and flat out lied in past posts. Is it any wonder why you have no credibility?

     

      

    The amusing thing is that you agree with my BS or you agree with the article that agrees with my BS  (see above).  

    Just curious.  If, by association, you agree with me and think I don't know football, doesn't that mean that all of those things you say about me apply to you as well?  I think it does. 

    Carry on. 

    RESPONSE: Yeah...um...yeah...LOL!!! Of all the babbling BS posts you've authored, this one takes the cake. Maybe one of your fellow Martians can explain how you came to the conclusion that I agree with you.

    Your second paragraph above is even more amusing...as it seems you're relying on the ol' 2nd grade standby..."I know you are but what am I"...LOL!!!!!  

    Carry on, Fido. 

    /QUOTE]


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

    Re: Great Offenses and Flashy WRs Do Not Win Championships

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

    well i said when it counts-really matters

    ie: game on the line, closing minutes, need one stop, etc...

    and in that respect i will stick with awful




         Yes, the Pats have had their problems producing when "it really counts". Maybe their should hire Billy Beane to be their GM??

         LOL!!!

     

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

    Re: Great Offenses and Flashy WRs Do Not Win Championships

         Based on what I've read, the showing of some of the speedy WRs at the Combine have wetted the appetite of several posters. Though the Pats certainly could use a game breaking, stretch the field type WR, they would be crazy to spend their first round pick on one. OL (especially if they let C-Bass walk), DL, and CB (depending on the Talib and Arrington situations) is where the Pats' should direct their attentions.    

     

Share