Is Brady Clutch? Great Article

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

    Re: Is Brady Clutch? Great Article

    In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Mighty2013's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ricky12684's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    3 super bowl's and tied for most post season wins in NFL history... why can't brady win every game and every super bowl? maybe because he's human and we live in reality

    [/QUOTE]

    LOL.  This sums it up nicely.

    [/QUOTE]

    I still think this a flawed argument, the question people are asking is what has changed that he won those games in the early 2000s, but does not anymore. I don't expect him to win every game and every Super Bowl. I am asking what is different about this team that they went from winning as underdogs to losing as favorites? 

    The "most postseason wins" stats is bogus. How much of that is a function of simply being on a good team, and being the starting QB for now his 11th season (subracting the year he missed). Eight of those seasons he had top ten defense on the other side of the ball. Five of those seasons the defense was rank as high or better than the offense. In three of those seasons, the Patriots won the Super Bowl. 

    For as good as Tom Brady is (and I do believe he is one of the all-time top 5 QBs), he has not won anything accept regular statistical categories when the offense is better than the defense.

    Let's look at the years:

    2002 - Off 10th - Def 17th : missed playoffs

    2005 - Off 4th - Def 9th : lost divisional round

    2007 - Off 1st - Def 4th : lost Super Bowl

    2010 - Off 1st - Def 8th : lost divisional round

    2011 - Off 3rd - Def 15th : lost Super Bowl

    2012 - Off 1st - Def 15th : ??? (currently .500)

    Too summarize. In years where the offensive is better, Tom Brady in the playoffs is 5 - 4.

    In years, where the defense was as good or better, Tom Brady in the playoffs is 11 - 2.

    [/QUOTE]


    You realize that you are proving what you are arguing against. Brady has gotten better, the defense has gotton worse. Which of those two points is most likely the cause of the Pats no longer winning superbowls?

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

    Re: Is Brady Clutch? Great Article

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Get back to us when you determine if the sacks on the crucial drive in all 3 losses were great O-line play or not.

    [/QUOTE]


    Did you not read what I said. If Brady has time to go through all his progression (which in some cases, not all, he did) then the OL did their job. They can't hold indefinitly they are only suppose to hold long enough for a QB to go through their progressions, anything past that is gravy. hence why QB's are told if the play isn't there just get rid of the ball and reload, don't try to draw it out . Brady has said this! So, to answer your question sometimes it's Brady's fault sometimes it's the OL's fault it all depends how much time the ball is in Brady's hands. Is it in long enough to go through his progressions and has a chance to get rid of it instead of extending a broken play or does he not even have enough time to get set before the D is on him

    [/QUOTE]

    Did you not read what I said? Get back to us with your conclusions as to whether those sacks were Brady's fault. He has a reputation as a savvy QB so the onus is on you.

    [/QUOTE]


    See bold, I made it easier for you to read

    [/QUOTE]


    Define "sometimes". Because I believe the wide world agrees sacks are a strong majority of the time due to blocking breakdown within a reasonable timeframe rather than some excessive time consumed by the QB with no attempt to escape the situation on his part.. It is OCCASIONALLY due to excessive looking by the QB, but a veteran like Brady well knows when the time is up and he has to be making provisions to bail on the play in some way. In Brady's case I think he is very well respected in his ability to either make a play within  a reasonable amount of blocking time, or get rid of the ball.

     

    In other words, I'm saying you are using a flimsy excuse to try to discount the fact Brady has been sacked in the final crucial drive in all 3 losses. Typical attempt to spin the obvious by you.

     

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

    Re: Is Brady Clutch? Great Article

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    He no longer has a defense that guarantees he will be within a fg of a tie or a win.  That was the Brady magic. 

    [/QUOTE]


    More of your nonsense agenda trying to prop up the Forehead. I have already proven the Colts' defense was better than the Pats' defense nearly as many times as the Pats' defense was better than theirs. But facts don't even put a dent into your Manning sycophant-ism.

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

    Re: Is Brady Clutch? Great Article

    Sorry, I don't need to read any articles to determine of Brady is "clutch". Recent history gives the facts. "Would a's", "could a's", and "shiuld a's" need not be qualifiers or mentioned. To use Uncle Joe Biden's numerology science and methods, I can sum up the answer to this thread question in a single word: :Not Any Longer.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is Brady Clutch? Great Article

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Get back to us when you determine if the sacks on the crucial drive in all 3 losses were great O-line play or not.

    [/QUOTE]


    Did you not read what I said. If Brady has time to go through all his progression (which in some cases, not all, he did) then the OL did their job. They can't hold indefinitly they are only suppose to hold long enough for a QB to go through their progressions, anything past that is gravy. hence why QB's are told if the play isn't there just get rid of the ball and reload, don't try to draw it out . Brady has said this! So, to answer your question sometimes it's Brady's fault sometimes it's the OL's fault it all depends how much time the ball is in Brady's hands. Is it in long enough to go through his progressions and has a chance to get rid of it instead of extending a broken play or does he not even have enough time to get set before the D is on him

    [/QUOTE]

    Did you not read what I said? Get back to us with your conclusions as to whether those sacks were Brady's fault. He has a reputation as a savvy QB so the onus is on you.

    [/QUOTE]


    See bold, I made it easier for you to read

    [/QUOTE]


    Define "sometimes". Because I believe the wide world agrees sacks are a strong majority of the time due to blocking breakdown within a reasonable timeframe rather than some excessive time consumed by the QB with no attempt to escape the situation on his part.. It is OCCASIONALLY due to excessive looking by the QB, but a veteran like Brady well knows when the time is up and he has to be making provisions to bail on the play in some way. In Brady's case I think he is very well respected in his ability to either make a play within  a reasonable amount of blocking time, or get rid of the ball.

     

    In other words, I'm saying you are using a flimsy excuse to try to discount the fact Brady has been sacked in the final crucial drive in all 3 losses. Typical attempt to spin the obvious by you.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    There is no spin. I have seen Brady take sacks instead of throwing it away when he should have thrown it away. He's human and makes mistakes Babe. That doesn't make him any less the a top 3 all-time QB. I hate to tell you but you spin everything that doesn't fit your argument even if facts are different right in your face. Sacks on the last drive are not just on the OL or just on the QB but it can be on both and that's the answer depending on specific situation. In this 1 year Brady has been sacked once in the final drive where taking the sack wasn't the right move to keep the clock running if there was no play to be made and Brady didn't have enough time to get set. So once in the 3 losses on the final drive the OL gave up a sack that was completely out of Brady's control and in a place where they wanted the clock stopped.

    This is how you spin it Babe, you make a general statement and then as evidence comes in to contradict you, you just keep on narrowing down your requirements until it suits your argument then you use it to justify your broad statement. It doesn't work this way. Either make your argument specific from the beginning or learn to except general answers for general statements, because in most of your broad statements there is no one answer

    BTW it's funny how in the other thread you called me a liar and then once someone came in verifying my account you abandoned your attempt to discredit me because you were wrong.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is Brady Clutch? Great Article

    Brady this and Brady that...  what about overall team play?  If there is one thing I have noticed more and more these last couple years, the play calling on offense would change tremendously from what was working earlier in a game to plays that just make you scratch your head.  The Seattle game is a case in point.  Look at how many runs they attempted late in the 4th quarter versus earlier in the game.  Seattle wasn't stopping the pass and stuffing the run.  So the Pats try and run the ball late?  Is that Brady's fault?  I understand the frustration to see the offense's inability to keep putting points on the board late.  At some point the offense has to think it can trust the D to keep the opponent from scoring late when it has been successful most of the game.  2 TDs by Seattle in the later half of the 4th when all they got was 10 points in the first 50 minutes??!!  That had to be frustrating for the O to see happen.  IMHO, I believe Brady's ineffectiveness late in games is more a function of play calling than his play overall.  He runs the plays from the bench.   

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is Brady Clutch? Great Article

    In response to Bunker Spreckels' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Get back to us when you determine if the sacks on the crucial drive in all 3 losses were great O-line play or not.

    [/QUOTE]


    Did you not read what I said. If Brady has time to go through all his progression (which in some cases, not all, he did) then the OL did their job. They can't hold indefinitly they are only suppose to hold long enough for a QB to go through their progressions, anything past that is gravy. hence why QB's are told if the play isn't there just get rid of the ball and reload, don't try to draw it out . Brady has said this! So, to answer your question sometimes it's Brady's fault sometimes it's the OL's fault it all depends how much time the ball is in Brady's hands. Is it in long enough to go through his progressions and has a chance to get rid of it instead of extending a broken play or does he not even have enough time to get set before the D is on him

    [/QUOTE]

    Did you not read what I said? Get back to us with your conclusions as to whether those sacks were Brady's fault. He has a reputation as a savvy QB so the onus is on you.

    [/QUOTE]


    See bold, I made it easier for you to read

    [/QUOTE]


    Define "sometimes". Because I believe the wide world agrees sacks are a strong majority of the time due to blocking breakdown within a reasonable timeframe rather than some excessive time consumed by the QB with no attempt to escape the situation on his part.. It is OCCASIONALLY due to excessive looking by the QB, but a veteran like Brady well knows when the time is up and he has to be making provisions to bail on the play in some way. In Brady's case I think he is very well respected in his ability to either make a play within  a reasonable amount of blocking time, or get rid of the ball.

     

    In other words, I'm saying you are using a flimsy excuse to try to discount the fact Brady has been sacked in the final crucial drive in all 3 losses. Typical attempt to spin the obvious by you.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    There is no spin. I have seen Brady take sacks instead of throwing it away when he should have thrown it away. He's human and makes mistakes Babe. That doesn't make him any less the a top 3 all-time QB. I hate to tell you but you spin everything that doesn't fit your argument even if facts are different right in your face. Sacks on the last drive are not just on the OL or just on the QB but it can be on both and that's the answer depending on specific situation. In this 1 year Brady has been sacked once in the final drive where taking the sack wasn't the right move to keep the clock running if there was no play to be made and Brady didn't have enough time to get set. So once in the 3 losses on the final drive the OL gave up a sack that was completely out of Brady's control and in a place where they wanted the clock stopped.

    This is how you spin it Babe, you make a general statement and then as evidence comes in to contradict you, you just keep on narrowing down your requirements until it suits your argument then you use it to justify your broad statement. It doesn't work this way. Either make your argument specific from the beginning or learn to except general answers for general statements, because in most of your broad statements there is no one answer

    BTW it's funny how in the other thread you called me a liar and then once someone came in verifying my account you abandoned your attempt to discredit me because you were wrong.

    [/QUOTE]


    DO you think Babe is GIselle? hahaa

    What drives me nuts about Brady is how he's so infatuated with throwing, he's now has defenses knowing he'll never run or roll out of the pocket to make a play. I get he's not nimble at all, but his decisions when it's not a perfect pocket for 5-7 seconds with him all cozy in that pocket, scannign the field, have been abysmal in the shotgun spread base.

    I would love it if he just took a sack once in a while or just ran forward through the line for 2 yards, taking time off the clock. He acts like he can't do those things, I think it's partyl due his 2008 injury.

    The days of Brady juking Urlacher in 2006 are sadly long gone.  Run the ball, please Tom.

    [/QUOTE]

    Suppose running for over 500 yards in 2 games isn't running the ball...HMMMMM what's the big difference between the 2 prior games and the Seattle game? Well I don't know if you had noticed but the running game wasn't quite as effective against Seattle in fact some would say it was rendered useless. Why can't you get that, I can't believe you come on this forum and call people every insulting name on the board and then you can't comprehend something as simple as : the runnning game was null against the seahawks and therefore they had to up the passing. I'll admit I wasn't pleased with the level the passing went up to, i also wasn't pleased with the vital drops, I also wasn't pleased with the D giving up 2 relatively long TDs in the 4th quarter. You can come on here and say Brady this and Brady that but that's just your own personal vendetta...he wasn't a better QB before 06 he was worse look at all the stats if we havn't been running it's because we has a bargain shelf running back as a starter and before that maybe the worst bust in pats history. I'll just reiterate my point to conclude. YOU CAN'T CONTINUE TO RUN THE BALL IF IT ISN'T WORKING!!

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

    Re: Is Brady Clutch? Great Article

    In response to Bunker Spreckels's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kjfitone's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    That's right I am calling out the QB.. He's just as much to blame as anyone else. Nobody is above anyone else on the team. You completely missed my point so I will make it more simple for ya. Brady and many other guys had a bad game, they have had them in the past. I said it here but I won't go on and on and on and on and on about how badly they played or that the offense or defense can't get out of its own way. Time to move on and support the team. If you don't support the team it's cool to but don't consider yourself a fan.

    [/QUOTE]


    Every one is supporting their team cliffy.  We just don't see blasting a HOF QB and holding him responsible for the losses when he is carrying one of (if not the) worst defenses in NFL history and has been for years.

    [/QUOTE]

    Dear Dummy, err, I mean Pezzy,

    Go look at where the Saints, Packers and Giants Ds "ranked" when they won their SBs.

    I'll take an opportunistic D and concede yards any day of the week in this era.  You're simply daft thinking this is 1984 or even 2004.  Get over it. If you want to write a letter to Tagliabue telling him how you miss the old days or write to all 32 owners telling them how you don't like what their agenda is, go ahead. Have at it.   I don't disagree, but you and I aren't changing it.

    Paul Tagliabue is LONG gone, son.  The Chuck Rule was a point of emphasis in the comp. committee meetings since 2003. Goodell agrees that offense is the key to driving ratings and revenue and for him to get investors in Europe. The owners agree because they know what gets people to come to games and to watch on tv, especially females. Points. Action.

    It's no differrent than roids and homeruns for BUd Selig and why he turned his head for so long, knowing those guys were pumping roids. It's good for business, so it's good for ol' Rogie Goodell.

    Deal with it. I am a tradionatlist with this game myself, but you're as dumb as a door knob pining for a clutching and grabbing kind of Ty Law/Rodney Harrison D in 2012.  Our entire D would be penalized for 200 yards per game if they played that way now.

    Law, Harrison, Bruschi, etc, couldn't cover jack squat right now in this league if they were in their primes.   It's comical to hear them so arrogantly babbled about what is good D and what isn't.  The game has changed. They know it, too.

    Every NFL team has to deal with this issue of offenses being favored, so it's how well you deal with it.  Unless, of course, you're a moron franchise like the Jets who think it's stll 2004 where you can have a game manager at QB and build a good D with big bucks and cross your fingers. LMAO

    The one way for this D to be even more consistent in terms of being good throughout an entire game is for BB to get more pass rushers. He needs to get more up to speed so he can increase his rotation. This will help the back end a lot.  A rookie mistake by Tavon Wilson doesn't mean the whole D stinks. But, I'll wait YET AGAIN until December when BB has this D playing well, hopefully at full health, so they're ready again to be opportunisitc and follow his gameplans to a T, waiting on Tom Brady to not mess it up. 

    You're childish behavior, amongst others here, is beyond annoying to this point.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    "The owners agree because they know what gets people to come to games and to watch on tv, especially females. Points. Action."

    Go sell that to fans or teams with good and great defenses over a period of time. Like, the Steelers, Bears, Ravens of 2000, Dungy's Bucs, even Dolphins of the 70's. No one paid to see the Bears on offense, epecially when Payton was just about done as a player. They came to see "da Bears" defense. The Steel Curtain was IT for a long time. Who was the record breaking/shattering QB's of the Ravens and Bucs when they were on top of the football world? I don't recall either of their feature backs winning the rushing championship either. These defenses could actually score, which creates excitement. These teams didn't have offenses running up an avg of 35 PPG.

    Offense is nice, but paying fans want to see their team win, any way, any how, at all costs. Only folks going to NFL games to "be seen" don't care, as long as there are a gazillion points scored. Heck! They don't even care if the opposing team scores 1 point more than their own (home) team! And you think team owners want to market to that?

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is Brady Clutch? Great Article

    In response to Bunker Spreckels' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It wasn't quite as effective?  How can run the ball out of a shotgun spread base?

    WHY DON'T YOU GET THAT??? Are you this daft? Running draws 15% of the time isn't establishing a run game on the road.

    Jesus. Learn the game, please.  You don't see a problem with 2 games in a row, albeit against bad run Ds with over 200 yards rushing and the fact we never genuinely tried to do it in the first half vs Seattle?

    Make sense much?

    Ridley is a "bargain shelf" RB?  Bolden looks very good so even if he's not healthy last week, don't change what you do well simply because you don't get the ultra perfect personnel choices to run your offense.

    Our offenses under Weis were chameleons. Every player did everything well and generally speaking, so do these players on offense.

    They should have kept Fells in line with Gronk and hammered that rock with Ridley to get the Seattle D to be responsible for that later in the game. We should do this (generally speaking) EVERY GAME IN THE FIRST HALF.

    EVERY GAME.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Come on man you know i wasn't talking about Ridley, I was talking about BJGE and Maroney respectively. We didn't run draws from the shotgun with Ridley in because we never do it's always Woodhead the same way it was always BJGE last year...the play calling is terrible the constant subbing is terrible. Honestly and I don't know if you agree but i feel it's got to the point where the team in vital games is out thinking itself the subbing of the running backs for perfect match is one fine example of this. In regards to establishing the run in this game I think it's more a case of the passing game being quite efficient early on and when they turn to the run to kill the game it doesn't work out. The team threw for alot of first down early on whilst the running game was averaging 2 yards a carry. This isn't meant to be insulting merely a question of your opinion, do you think that the Pats should run the ball even if it's ineffective in order to establish the running game even if they could throw the ball and march down the field?

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is Brady Clutch? Great Article

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Get back to us when you determine if the sacks on the crucial drive in all 3 losses were great O-line play or not.

    [/QUOTE]


    Did you not read what I said. If Brady has time to go through all his progression (which in some cases, not all, he did) then the OL did their job. They can't hold indefinitly they are only suppose to hold long enough for a QB to go through their progressions, anything past that is gravy. hence why QB's are told if the play isn't there just get rid of the ball and reload, don't try to draw it out . Brady has said this! So, to answer your question sometimes it's Brady's fault sometimes it's the OL's fault it all depends how much time the ball is in Brady's hands. Is it in long enough to go through his progressions and has a chance to get rid of it instead of extending a broken play or does he not even have enough time to get set before the D is on him

    [/QUOTE]

    Did you not read what I said? Get back to us with your conclusions as to whether those sacks were Brady's fault. He has a reputation as a savvy QB so the onus is on you.

    [/QUOTE]


    See bold, I made it easier for you to read

    [/QUOTE]


    Define "sometimes". Because I believe the wide world agrees sacks are a strong majority of the time due to blocking breakdown within a reasonable timeframe rather than some excessive time consumed by the QB with no attempt to escape the situation on his part.. It is OCCASIONALLY due to excessive looking by the QB, but a veteran like Brady well knows when the time is up and he has to be making provisions to bail on the play in some way. In Brady's case I think he is very well respected in his ability to either make a play within  a reasonable amount of blocking time, or get rid of the ball.

     

    In other words, I'm saying you are using a flimsy excuse to try to discount the fact Brady has been sacked in the final crucial drive in all 3 losses. Typical attempt to spin the obvious by you.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    There is no spin. I have seen Brady take sacks instead of throwing it away when he should have thrown it away. He's human and makes mistakes Babe. That doesn't make him any less the a top 3 all-time QB. I hate to tell you but you spin everything that doesn't fit your argument even if facts are different right in your face. Sacks on the last drive are not just on the OL or just on the QB but it can be on both and that's the answer depending on specific situation. In this 1 year Brady has been sacked once in the final drive where taking the sack wasn't the right move to keep the clock running if there was no play to be made and Brady didn't have enough time to get set. So once in the 3 losses on the final drive the OL gave up a sack that was completely out of Brady's control and in a place where they wanted the clock stopped.

    This is how you spin it Babe, you make a general statement and then as evidence comes in to contradict you, you just keep on narrowing down your requirements until it suits your argument then you use it to justify your broad statement. It doesn't work this way. Either make your argument specific from the beginning or learn to except general answers for general statements, because in most of your broad statements there is no one answer

    BTW it's funny how in the other thread you called me a liar and then once someone came in verifying my account you abandoned your attempt to discredit me because you were wrong.

    [/QUOTE]

    LMAO. Evidence? WHAT evidence have you provided? Your SPIN that the sacks Brady took may have been his fault isn't "evidence'! Prove to us all that they were his fault. Otherwise you might as well zip it because your point is moot.

     

    I'll tell you what is funny....

    I had one reply to you that I posted in error. Replied to the wrong post, and the "verifier" you mention stated it was mistaken identity. So you fashion me as calling you Rusty "on more than one occasion" because I did once by mistake and apologized for the error? How typically dishonest of you.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Is Brady Clutch? Great Article

    In response to Bunker Spreckels' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to danemcmenamin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Bunker Spreckels' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It wasn't quite as effective?  How can run the ball out of a shotgun spread base?

    WHY DON'T YOU GET THAT??? Are you this daft? Running draws 15% of the time isn't establishing a run game on the road.

    Jesus. Learn the game, please.  You don't see a problem with 2 games in a row, albeit against bad run Ds with over 200 yards rushing and the fact we never genuinely tried to do it in the first half vs Seattle?

    Make sense much?

    Ridley is a "bargain shelf" RB?  Bolden looks very good so even if he's not healthy last week, don't change what you do well simply because you don't get the ultra perfect personnel choices to run your offense.

    Our offenses under Weis were chameleons. Every player did everything well and generally speaking, so do these players on offense.

    They should have kept Fells in line with Gronk and hammered that rock with Ridley to get the Seattle D to be responsible for that later in the game. We should do this (generally speaking) EVERY GAME IN THE FIRST HALF.

    EVERY GAME.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Come on man you know i wasn't talking about Ridley, I was talking about BJGE and Maroney respectively. We didn't run draws from the shotgun with Ridley in because we never do it's always Woodhead the same way it was always BJGE last year...the play calling is terrible the constant subbing is terrible. Honestly and I don't know if you agree but i feel it's got to the point where the team in vital games is out thinking itself the subbing of the running backs for perfect match is one fine example of this. In regards to establishing the run in this game I think it's more a case of the passing game being quite efficient early on and when they turn to the run to kill the game it doesn't work out. The team threw for alot of first down early on whilst the running game was averaging 2 yards a carry. This isn't meant to be insulting merely a question of your opinion, do you think that the Pats should run the ball even if it's ineffective in order to establish the running game even if they could throw the ball and march down the field?

    [/QUOTE]


    No, I didn't know what you meant. I also thought maybe you were referring to Woodhead too.

    Regardless, Antowain Smith was no better than BJGE and he's no more gifted than Ridley.

    The point is, we didn't sub in Kevin Faulk just to run shotgun spread plays from 2001-2004. We would just use each a Smith or a Faulk as a lead back, running plays as we would like to run them with balance.

    This is the difference. Now, we sub in a specific skill set from the RB position, telling Ds what we want to do.

    I agree it's over-thinking.  Why are you lecturing me on this when you agree with me?  You're barking up the wrong tree here. I've been on this since LAST year when we had a 21-3 lead in Buffalo, about to go up 24 or 28-3 and Brady is still throwing, staring down people in a shotgun spread.

    You tell me how that makes sense.

    And yes, I think the Pats should run the ball even if it's ineffective, because in the second halves (see last year's Jets game as an example or any win v.s. Baltimore as another example to this), the mere fact you ran makes Brady better, gives McDaniels more options in the playbook and gives the opponent that small little idea that MAYBE, just MAYBE, this could be a run on any given play in the second half.

    If you don't run at all with Brady under center, you also can't use his lethal playaction. The team can keep games close by giving an RB, a lead RB like Ridley and or Bolden (they can be used the same way which is GREAT), say 8-10 carries in the first half ever week (not both, but combined or one or the other).

    Don't sub the RBs on a drive and get Brady under center. I am telling you, we will not lose a game the rest of the year, the D will look much better than people give it credit for, and they're a 2 (at worst 3 seed) seed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm lecturing you because you pin it all on Brady when I don't believe it's all his fault. I think he constantly puts us in positions to win games which his team mates can't take advantage of. I mean why can we not run the ball still in the 2nd half even though we've thrown on nearly every down in the 1st half surely this will open the running lanes? I had a bad feeling Sunday in fact it's a feeling I get every game in which we don't blow out the opponent, I had it against Denver until we stopped the bleeding! My point is do you not think that if a QB puts 25-30 points on the board at the start of the 4th quarter the game should be over the other players on the team i.e. RB's and defense should be able to preserve it from there and they can't for this team and I don't know why. He put up 23 points against Seattle...that's not the 25-30 point that i stated but it should be enough in this game it was a 2 score game with 7.40 ish on the clock...they didn't even have to win an onside kick to win this game I mean what on earth happened. We've been playing like the raiders in close 4th quarters and it has to stop

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

    Re: Is Brady Clutch? Great Article

    In response to MasterHess-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Brady's best days are in his rear view mirror-I think we can all agree to that. Arguably one of the best in the history of the game. After the Seattle game everybody wanted to blame the DB's but Brady definatly contributed to the loss. @ huge picks and 2 grounding penalties./

     

     He first started getting softer after marrying Giselle and was too busy out in Califarnia to join his teammates over the off season for the OTA's. Ever since then it's been all down hill for Brady

    I will say this about him though. I am glad that he doesn't pound his fist on the ground while looking at the ref to throw the flag any time a defender glances up against him. I guess somebody from the organization got in his ear about that. I mean ...come on it's football and you are going to get every now again there pretty boy.

    [/QUOTE]


    Really? Amazing how he has a 97 passer rating right now and from 2001 through 2006 he had a lower one. Looks like the facts show his worst days are behind him. Dead wrong much?

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

    Re: Is Brady Clutch? Great Article

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MasterHess-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Brady's best days are in his rear view mirror-I think we can all agree to that. Arguably one of the best in the history of the game. After the Seattle game everybody wanted to blame the DB's but Brady definatly contributed to the loss. @ huge picks and 2 grounding penalties./

     

     He first started getting softer after marrying Giselle and was too busy out in Califarnia to join his teammates over the off season for the OTA's. Ever since then it's been all down hill for Brady

    I will say this about him though. I am glad that he doesn't pound his fist on the ground while looking at the ref to throw the flag any time a defender glances up against him. I guess somebody from the organization got in his ear about that. I mean ...come on it's football and you are going to get every now again there pretty boy.

    [/QUOTE]


    Really? Amazing how he has a 97 passer rating right now and from 2001 through 2006 he had a lower one. Looks like the facts show his worst days are behind him. Dead wrong much?

    [/QUOTE]


    I agree with this. Brady is a much better QB now then early in his career, but because he's older you can see it starting to take a toll and they need to start complimenting him to win instead of relying on him like they did earlier in his career

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share