State of balance.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    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]

     I'd like to see a single fact that shows Ridley vs BJGE is the sole reason why things have improved

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you of the mind that Benny is as good a runner as Ridley?

    [/QUOTE]

    Nope but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking for a fact that the change in philosphy to a more balanced system hasn't added benefit to the running game. You have stated that the additional 1-2 carries don't matter:

    "You're trying to sell us that 1 play in 20 of more run has made all the difference?

    Your contention Seems rather flimsy."

    and that when you run doesn't make a difference:

    "I can believe when you run has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with overall balance"

    so then the only difference is the RB's. I'm asking for you to so one piece of evidence that swithcing the backs is the sole reason why the running game is more effective

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I just provided you facts that show Ridley is a better runner than Benny.

    Can you provide a fact that shows running one more time in 20 has nade the run game more effective?

    [/QUOTE]

    You haven't you have shown that he's gotten more yards but haven't presented a fact that that's the sole reason for the increase for the running game and that offensive philosphy shift wasn't a factor that enhanced Ridley's running ability

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    LMAO

    So now we're reduced to saying "balance" isn't actually balance but rather "unpredictability".

    That's one big reason I enjoy this place. The level of ridiculous that is practiced to at all costs refrain from admitting being wrong is extremely entertaining.

    Then Rusty chimes in to tell us how passer rating is a worthless measure of performance and we should just go by his opinion instead. LMAO@him

    [/QUOTE]


    Babe, you have consistently made the "balance" argument a numbers argument.  I admit I have too at times.  You have stated that the Pats' O running a few times more a game hardly constitutes a sea change.  The stats may show that the run/pass splits are not dramatically different, but some of Brady's best throws this year have come off of play action when defenders had to respect the run game.  Play action has been set up by a consistent commitment to the running game, moreso than in the past and especially in situations where Brady would have thrown the ball in the past (3rd and short, drives at the end of the game to kill the clock).  So yes, unpredictability has more to do with making this offense work than any concerted effort to make sure that there is an even number of throws/runs.  In the past, defenses could stymie the Pats' O by dropping seven guys back into coverage.  Look what the Pats have done to teams that have tried that this year.  To me, it has never really been all about the number of passes versus carries. 

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

    Re: State of balance.

    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]

     I'd like to see a single fact that shows Ridley vs BJGE is the sole reason why things have improved

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you of the mind that Benny is as good a runner as Ridley?

    [/QUOTE]

    Nope but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking for a fact that the change in philosphy to a more balanced system hasn't added benefit to the running game. You have stated that the additional 1-2 carries don't matter:

    "You're trying to sell us that 1 play in 20 of more run has made all the difference?

    Your contention Seems rather flimsy."

    and that when you run doesn't make a difference:

    "I can believe when you run has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with overall balance"

    so then the only difference is the RB's. I'm asking for you to so one piece of evidence that swithcing the backs is the sole reason why the running game is more effective

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I just provided you facts that show Ridley is a better runner than Benny.

    Can you provide a fact that shows running one more time in 20 has nade the run game more effective?

    [/QUOTE]

    You haven't you have shown that he's gotten more yards but haven't presented a fact that that's the sole reason for the increase for the running game and that offensive philosphy shift wasn't a factor that enhanced Ridley's running ability

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, it is a fact that Ridley gained more per carry last season than this with its new "philosophy".

     

    You didn't answer my question.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]



    Well, it is a fact that Ridley gained more per carry last season than this with its new "philosophy".

     

    You didn't answer my question.

    [/QUOTE]

    You didn't answer mine, you haven't shown any proof yet that it's solely Ridley for BJGE and nothing else. YPC can be affected by offensive game plan, everyone but you admits that so show proof that it was solely Ridley and not an offensive shift that have contributed to the improved running game. BTW Ridley played a different role last year so you can't compare the two years

    BTW you still haven't proven I have lied once. Finding it difficult to come up with that proof? Remember the burden of proof is on you since you made the statement

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

    Re: State of balance.

    The Pats are getting great running from every RB (Ridley, Vereen, Woodhead, and even Bolden). Teams can't through out the nickel and dime packages and assume Brady will throw every play; and more teams/players will bite on play action fakes. In essence, a good run game does what it usually does it keeps opposing Ds honest. An ancilliary benefit is that the Pats aren't turning the ball over.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to themightypatriots' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I've explained that a number of times. BB likes to promote inexperienced yes men instead of hiring the best in the game because they would rightly demand their share of power. BB is a bit paranoid from all indications.

    It's not like McD in general or BB as a HC have been other than a failure without Brady in the picture.

     [/QUOTE]


    Proving my point that you're a BB hating troll.  Probably the same person as Rusty. Can't wait for the ignore button to return.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yeah, let's hope the ignore button returns. With your whole 3 weeks of posting it must be quite an ordeal for you.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    BTW you still haven't proven I have lied once. Finding it difficult to come up with that proof? Remember the burden of proof is on you since you made the statement

    [/QUOTE]

    Already proved you are dishonest 3 times, not to mention having done it numerous times in the past. Go back and read them.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     I'd like to see a single fact that shows Ridley vs BJGE is the sole reason why things have improved

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you of the mind that Benny is as good a runner as Ridley?

    [/QUOTE]

    Nope but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking for a fact that the change in philosphy to a more balanced system hasn't added benefit to the running game. You have stated that the additional 1-2 carries don't matter:

    "You're trying to sell us that 1 play in 20 of more run has made all the difference?

    Your contention Seems rather flimsy."

    and that when you run doesn't make a difference:

    "I can believe when you run has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with overall balance"

    so then the only difference is the RB's. I'm asking for you to so one piece of evidence that swithcing the backs is the sole reason why the running game is more effective

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ummm. How about the fact that Ridley's YPC was higher than NE's average and BJGEs last season too (5.1).

    Sooooooo, were they "mixing it up" extra special .... but only when Ridley was carrying the ball???????

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Ummm. How about the fact that Ridley's YPC was higher than NE's average and BJGEs last season too (5.1).

    Sooooooo, were they "mixing it up" extra special .... but only when Ridley was carrying the ball???????

    [/QUOTE]

    You're arguing with a bunch of know-nothing trolls, just FYI

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

    Re: State of balance.

    Babe and ZB. Two points I reiterate the O Line has done a great job despite some injuries. And both Talib and Gregory look like quality acquisitions that help the secondary. As stated the running game looks as good as its been since the Dillion era. More importantly the D is making plays (eg: turnovers) and one of the big arguments on this board was that the Pats did not have playmakers on D. IMO you can't be in the top 3 in TOs and not have playmakers on D. Wilson, Fork, Gregory, McCourty, Spikes, Mayo and Talib have all made big plays. It's not the dominant 2001 D, but a turnovers-based D that makes plays in the ball.

     

    As long as the Pats effectively run the ball (Ridley, Vereen, Woody, Bolden) I don't much care where the production comes from.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to JohnHannahrulz's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe and ZB. Two points I reiterate the O Line has done a great job despite some injuries. And both Talib and Gregory look like quality acquisitions that help the secondary. As stated the running game looks as good as its been since the Dillion era. More importantly the D is making plays (eg: turnovers) and one of the big arguments on this board was that the Pats did not have playmakers on D. IMO you can't be in the top 3 in TOs and not have playmakers on D. Wilson, Fork, Gregory, McCourty, Spikes, Mayo and Talib have all made big plays. It's not the dominant 2001 D, but a turnovers-based D that makes plays in the ball.

     

    As long as the Pats effectively run the ball (Ridley, Vereen, Woody, Bolden) I don't much care where the production comes from.

    [/QUOTE]


    They have been making big plays on D, but are bottom end in most passing categories on D. And they have been running effectively, but not consistently so. Of course they made quite a few big plays on D last year as well, just none in the SB.

    These are two crucial areas that are likely culprits for a defeat in the post-season. Endgame collapses of the D and a running game that vaporizes at that crucial time have been THE hallmarks of our SB fails of recent years respective to each side of the ball.

    Unfortunately, these are still a concern.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    When we drafted Ridely and Vereen I stated that both were going to be pretty special, this was met with the same negative Nancy, Belichick can't draft nonsense that one can expect here.  

    Now most of the same people including the leader of the "BB isn't a good GM" movement (Babe) are here cheering on Ridley... brilliant.  I also stated this year that Bolden was going to be just as good as Ridely, also correct...

    I don't need to be told that Ridely is better than Law Firm, I said that before he set foot on the field.

    You can sit there and knock Law Firm but it doesn't explain if Ridely is so good why they didn't ride him through the playoffs all last season or why he only got 87 carries if he was so much better than Law Firm?  Why is Ridely's average last year so much better than Law Firms, how about because he only rushed 87 times.  In 2010 Law Firm averaged 4.4 yards per carry or about what Ridely is averaging now.

    It doesn't change the fact that you don't stop running unless you want to become a pass happy predictable mess.  In Antwoine Smiths last season he averaged 3.5 yards per carry, they still piled the carries on him in the post season because running matters.  The Giant's didn't run particularly well all last year, they still ran in the playoffs, even in the Super Bowl when they were less effective than us... that's how they won the time of possession battle.

    Also another thing that Hannah pointed out, the entire team is running the ball better, everybody; if Josh McDaniel and his play calling have nothing to do with that than who does... Brady?

    Lastly I love these BS stats you keep alluding to that kind of prove your point if you look at them in the right light...

    Last year we ranked 17th in rushing attempts, this year we're ranked #2; just continue to ignore this FACT and pretend like nothing's changed.  

    But this is the reason we're an offensive juggernaut, we have many more ways to beat you; balance, unpredictability call it what you will...

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    When we drafted Ridely and Vereen I stated that both were going to be pretty special, this was met with the same negative Nancy, Belichick can't draft nonsense that one can expect here.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Good call.

    But I don't think any have really said BB "can't draft". But he certainly has a ton of suspect picks on defense. Far too many misses on that side of the ball.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Lastly I love these BS stats you keep alluding to that kind of prove your point if you look at them in the right light...

    Last year we ranked 17th in rushing attempts, this year we're ranked #2; just continue to ignore this FACT and pretend like nothing's changed.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    "Ranking" is simply a comparison to what the other teams are doing. We have run many more plays than other teams this year so using ranking as a measure is a false indicator of our magnitude of change.

     

    I simply have compared us this year to us last year and have shown we are only running one more time every 20 plays.

    2011 - we ran 40% of the time.

    2012 - we run 45% of the time.

    5% is one play in 20. That's just not some huge adjustment to balance.

    And of course, BB said he would run it more if it was more effective, and it has been.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    Compared to last year we were among the bottom teams in the NFL in rushing. (17th)

    This year only one team has rushed the ball more than us. (2nd)

    Paint that any way you like, those are the facts.

    And I think I'll take NY-Pats advice and stop arguing.  You refuse to accept logic which makes this comparable to peeing into the wind.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Compared to last year we were among the bottom teams in the NFL in rushing. (17th)

    This year only one team has rushed the ball more than us. (2nd)

    Paint that any way you like, those are the facts.

    And I think I'll take NY-Pats advice and stop arguing.  You refuse to accept logic which makes this comparable to peeing into the wind.

    [/QUOTE]


    The facts are we rushed the ball more often last season than the average team.

    The facts are also we rush the ball one time more per 20 plays this year than last.

    The facts are we pass the ball just as often per game this year as last.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    Ridley fumbled away his chance to start. It, IMO, was a big mistake by the Pats' brass. He had the fumble in the Buffalo game, then another against Denver. Then he was deactivated. 

    It's not really rocket science ... figuring out why they dumped him over Benny. But it was a mistake. He instantly changes how teams have to defend this offense. So doesn't Vereen now that there is more film of him. I think HE could have been a difference maker in the following games. Though I would have rather Gronk had just not gotten injured. I think that would have been enough.  

    I think people scratched their head on the Ridley pick because they had just drafted Vereen. But it is apparent, in hindsight (and then to some of us) that BJGE was not something BB and company saw as a long term option at RB for the New England Patriots. I don't think anyone questioned NE picking up Vereen, except people who wanted a different running back than him or the people who thought for some reason that BJGE was good, when he wasn't.

    I for one have zero qualms when BB drafts offensive players lately ... who is on a run like this guy in the NFL at picking offensive players (Solder, Vollmer, Vereen, Ridley, Gronk, Hernandez, even Edelman) ... and everyone he gets rid of for them goes on to mediocrity... I was howling when he grabbed Dowling though ... and was unfortunately proven right. I just don't trust the way BB and his scouts evaluate DB talent right now. They are missing too often with too many high picks.  

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to JohnHannahrulz's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe and ZB. Two points I reiterate the O Line has done a great job despite some injuries. And both Talib and Gregory look like quality acquisitions that help the secondary. As stated the running game looks as good as its been since the Dillion era. More importantly the D is making plays (eg: turnovers) and one of the big arguments on this board was that the Pats did not have playmakers on D. IMO you can't be in the top 3 in TOs and not have playmakers on D. Wilson, Fork, Gregory, McCourty, Spikes, Mayo and Talib have all made big plays. It's not the dominant 2001 D, but a turnovers-based D that makes plays in the ball.

     

    As long as the Pats effectively run the ball (Ridley, Vereen, Woody, Bolden) I don't much care where the production comes from.

    [/QUOTE]

    Good points, all. 

    I worry about the "turnover defense." New England has had that for a few years now. But they never generate them when  the game is close and lowscoring. It's always in shootouts, it's always zone-exchange or zone-blitz. In short, BB leverages the fact that other teams are forced to pass like crazy to keep up with his offense against the tendency of Qbs to make mistakes when they are forced to pass.

    The problem is, when teams are not forced to pass, they don't have to rush their plays, and they have an open playbook, the defense is suscseptible to people dominating it with a long slow bleed (see Giants twice, Steelers, Ravens, et al). It's worriesome how much trouble they've had in the past getting off the field on 3rd and long, and it's not bend-but-don't-break, because the metrics on all of BB's earlier defenses on 3&outs and 3rd down proficiency were elite. It's not tactical, and you can see the exasperation on BB's face quite often out there. 

    That said, the fact that this latest explosion came after Talib got here, Dennard was inserted full time, and McCourty moved to safety bodes well. To me, that looks like the trick they needed. 

    If Ne goes on to win a Superbowl, or even actually stop one crucial drive in the playoffs late in a game, Talib will have to be recalled as one of BB's savviest pickups. 

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to CaptainZdeno33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Neal Page's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CaptainZdeno33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     You just don't want to admit you were wrong about balance and are now trying to spin it to make it seem like you were right all along

    [/QUOTE]

    Look in the mirror. You're talking about yourself.

    A 1 play in 20 change to the running game is not a major adjustment.

    A nearly 25% improvement in the production of the lead back is substantial though.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think that goes without saying. 

    Who would seriously argue that if Ridley were creeping along with a 3.7 YPC that BB would be giving him extra carries?

    The fact that he earns carries makes that happen. I mean, really, there is actually a QUOTE from Bill HIMSELF discussing this. He says point blank .... we would have given more carries last season if the RBs were more productive with their carries.

    How is this even a debate?!??!?!?!

    [/QUOTE]


    It is a debate because people have notions chiseled in stone that 1000 tons of dynamite called facts and common sense cannot budge.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's not even about facts or common sense. 

    Bill Belichik ANSWERED the QUESTION. To the MEDIA. It's out there. I'm not even going to look for it. 

    He literally was like "I haven't seen Corey Dillon out there."

    [/QUOTE]


    This is what I don't get about these posters....They put all the blame on O'Brien for not running the ball more. Ultimately its BB's call! Why continue to ignore this?

    [/QUOTE]


    BB is no the OC, so you're wrong.  He can stop what he doesn't like or interject, sure. But, he doesn't call the plays. The OC does.

    Now, BB as a defensive coach, is more heavily involved with the D, yes. We see it plenty on the sidelines every game.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Thats the point I was trying to make. If it was such a problem and indeed cost them a Super Bowl as many here claim then why didn't he step in? I don't want to hear the he doesn't micro manage argument, it was the SB.

    [/QUOTE]


    You must not remember the images of Bill Belichick crouched down, red in the face screaming at the defense after every series. i remember it well. The truth of the matter is that he might not be able to manage every aspect of the game. He was counting on his 2 30 year old coordinators to do something.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ridley fumbled away his chance to start. It, IMO, was a big mistake by the Pats' brass. He had the fumble in the Buffalo game, then another against Denver. Then he was deactivated. 

    It's not really rocket science ... figuring out why they dumped him over Benny. But it was a mistake. He instantly changes how teams have to defend this offense. So doesn't Vereen now that there is more film of him. I think HE could have been a difference maker in the following games. Though I would have rather Gronk had just not gotten injured. I think that would have been enough.  

    I think people scratched their head on the Ridley pick because they had just drafted Vereen. But it is apparent, in hindsight (and then to some of us) that BJGE was not something BB and company saw as a long term option at RB for the New England Patriots. I don't think anyone questioned NE picking up Vereen, except people who wanted a different running back than him or the people who thought for some reason that BJGE was good, when he wasn't.

    I for one have zero qualms when BB drafts offensive players lately ... who is on a run like this guy in the NFL at picking offensive players (Solder, Vollmer, Vereen, Ridley, Gronk, Hernandez, even Edelman) ... and everyone he gets rid of for them goes on to mediocrity... I was howling when he grabbed Dowling though ... and was unfortunately proven right. I just don't trust the way BB and his scouts evaluate DB talent right now. They are missing too often with too many high picks.  

    [/QUOTE]


    How dare you question Bill Belichick....

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

    Re: State of balance.

    ZB, I worry more about the D getting tired by the 4th and Brady and the O getting into field position/ Time of Possession game than teams racking up yardage when they're down by two TDs. Personally I'd like to see BB use Hightower in more of those blitz packages (something we might see with Cunningham out). I still think this D is only capable of playing two good-great quarters and teams that play keep-away with Brady (TOP) will have some success. That said with Dennard, Talib, and McCourty at FS in the secondary the D looks noticably better than last year and this D has not peaked, yet. Still a fairly young D. Personally think we need an upgrade at DT (not named Wilfork).....maybe next draft?

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Nobody here will address why a 21 year old signal caller got the job first in 07' before many much older, more tenured coaches ahead of him...  could it be natural talent and attention to detail?  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I've explained that a number of times. BB likes to promote inexperienced yes men instead of hiring the best in the game because they would rightly demand their share of power. BB is a bit paranoid from all indications.

    It's not like McD in general or BB as a HC have been other than a failure without Brady in the picture.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    By all accounts by people in the Patriots organization this is absolutely wrong.  But, why research those accounts of people with first hand knowledge of the inner workings of the Pats when you can just make stuff up when you have zero knowledge of the inner workings?  Mcdaniels was 30 in 2007.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Nobody here will address why a 21 year old signal caller got the job first in 07' before many much older, more tenured coaches ahead of him...  could it be natural talent and attention to detail?  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I've explained that a number of times. BB likes to promote inexperienced yes men instead of hiring the best in the game because they would rightly demand their share of power. BB is a bit paranoid from all indications.

    It's not like McD in general or BB as a HC have been other than a failure without Brady in the picture.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    By all accounts by people in the Patriots organization this is absolutely wrong.  But, why research those accounts of people with first hand knowledge of the inner workings of the Pats when you can just make stuff up when you have zero knowledge of the inner workings?  Mcdaniels was 30 in 2007.

    [/QUOTE]


    Lets see the birth certificate on this one...sounds fishy to me.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Nobody here will address why a 21 year old signal caller got the job first in 07' before many much older, more tenured coaches ahead of him...  could it be natural talent and attention to detail?  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I've explained that a number of times. BB likes to promote inexperienced yes men instead of hiring the best in the game because they would rightly demand their share of power. BB is a bit paranoid from all indications.

    It's not like McD in general or BB as a HC have been other than a failure without Brady in the picture.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    By all accounts by people in the Patriots organization this is absolutely wrong.  But, why research those accounts of people with first hand knowledge of the inner workings of the Pats when you can just make stuff up when you have zero knowledge of the inner workings?  Mcdaniels was 30 in 2007.

    [/QUOTE]


    Oh goodness. My bad then. I thought McD, OB and Mangini had ZERO coordinator experience when BB promoted them to those positions. I'll have to read up on that and see how I could possibly have been mistaken. Thanks for the heads up.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Nobody here will address why a 21 year old signal caller got the job first in 07' before many much older, more tenured coaches ahead of him...  could it be natural talent and attention to detail?  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I've explained that a number of times. BB likes to promote inexperienced yes men instead of hiring the best in the game because they would rightly demand their share of power. BB is a bit paranoid from all indications.

    It's not like McD in general or BB as a HC have been other than a failure without Brady in the picture.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    By all accounts by people in the Patriots organization this is absolutely wrong.  But, why research those accounts of people with first hand knowledge of the inner workings of the Pats when you can just make stuff up when you have zero knowledge of the inner workings?  Mcdaniels was 30 in 2007.

    [/QUOTE]


    Oh goodness. My bad then. I thought McD, OB and Mangini had ZERO coordinator experience when BB promoted them to those positions. I'll have to read up on that and see how I could possibly have been mistaken. Thanks for the heads up.

    [/QUOTE]

    That doesn't make them yes men, which is what you said.  Parcells had zero coordinator experience before he became a coordinator.  BB had zero coordinator experience before Parcells made him coordinator, does Parcells only like yes men?  It's a silly argument, the nature of promotion is to get a job that is better than the one you had.  Every coordinator, HC and Position coach at one time had zero experience in the specific titles, but all of them had years of experience before they got those jobs.  

     

    Its like saying nobody should ever have sex with virgins...

     

Share