ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
That's unfortunate you don't remember seeing him talking to all his defenses during games over they years with EVERY D coach...it's happened so many times...
You may be right...the fact that I don't remember doesn't make it a fact. Perhaps the TV just highlights it more nowadays. Having said that MP has it easy if BB is doing the bullwork. Is he truly the DC or a glorified clip board holder?
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
I realize that replacing Matt Patricia isn't the hottest of topics, but here's why I think the Pats should do this:
1. Have you ever read or heard anyone say that Matt Patricia is a great coordinator? I assume the answer is no. There's no positive buzz about this guy. Brady can't say enough about Josh and yet defensive players never talk about Matt. Means something, I think.
2. As the season wore on, we saw more of BB than ever with the D during games. That shot of him coaching the D and just looking up at a Pats TD during the Texans game was cool, as it showed how focused Bill is, but it also was a commentary on Bill's level of involvement with the D, while a good thing in some respects, was more than we might have expected given that he's the HC.
3. Patricia is a younger guy who may not be able to challenge Bill.
4. Tom E Curran has alluded many times on the radio during WEEI interviews that Patricia is not a great communicator. Tom is loathe to criticize, probably partially for fear of losing access, so maybe this means something. I think Tom is a smart guy and knows his Pats stuff.
5. Romeo is available. Eric is available. Both would bring an element back to the team. I'd prefer Romeo. By a lot. But it's clear from hearing Eric on the radio that he knows his stuff and maybe he and Bill have buried the hatchet or will. Winning means more than keeping up a feud, even though Eric did a ridiculous thing.
6. While the D improved last year, it still had many flaws. All the 20 yard plays. All the yards. A fresh voice might help avoid some of those things.
So there you have it. My reasons for wanting Patricia out of his current position.
Thoughts?
The old adage "you can't make chicken salad out of chicken ****" should be your guide. With no cover guys after Talib went down we were toast. There is a reason that before Talib it was the same putrid defensive secondary and after he went down, it reverted to same. Attempting to compensate for a woeful secondary brings the rest of the team to it's knees trying to catch up. The only way to do that is through the air and the other team has only to defend the pass.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And to this I respond: Any great offense has a flaw. This team's is getting mugged at the line and smashed in the mouth in the run. If receivers can't get open, timing is off, which in turn causes incompletions or for extra time for the rush to hit home.
The Rams looked unstoppable until they were stopped in the Super Bowl by the Pats, no?
At least the Rams scored 17....during a more defensive era. NE has averaged 13.5 points under Josh in the two games mentioned.....during the golden era of offense.
I'm just trying to identify a flaw in their formula and the 3rd down data screams they have no faith in their own line on critical downs and are willing to declare to defenses via the permanent shot gun formation that they concede the LOS, thus, a one dimensional look on 3rd down
Changing the Polian rule for the playoffs is maddening. We are built with smurfs to use this rule on offense. It makes me suspicious, normally I don't care for conspiracy theory.
Changing the Polian rule for the playoffs is maddening. We are built with smurfs to use this rule on offense. It makes me suspicious, normally I don't care for conspiracy theory.
I don't understand why it was changed.
Agreed. The rules should not change. The irony that the Pats were beaten while playing more like the Colts is pretty rough.
Patricia wasn't the problem. The problem was that, with Talib and Jones hurt, we had neither the pass rush nor the corner talent to stop their passing attack. The game didn't get out of hand until the Ravens figured this out, went almost exclusively with the shotgun, and put the ball in Flacco's hands. He was trying to coordinate a defense that was atrociously short on talent. There isn't a coach in the league who could have fixed that mess.
Should he be replaced? Who knows - it could happen. But last weekend's game wouldn't be the reason why, if he is.
Patricia wasn't the problem. The problem was that, with Talib and Jones hurt, we had neither the pass rush nor the corner talent to stop their passing attack. The game didn't get out of hand until the Ravens figured this out, went almost exclusively with the shotgun, and put the ball in Flacco's hands. He was trying to coordinate a defense that was atrociously short on talent. There isn't a coach in the league who could have fixed that mess.
My post/theory isn't just focused on the Baltimore game, though.
I realize that replacing Matt Patricia isn't the hottest of topics, but here's why I think the Pats should do this:
1. Have you ever read or heard anyone say that Matt Patricia is a great coordinator? I assume the answer is no. There's no positive buzz about this guy. Brady can't say enough about Josh and yet defensive players never talk about Matt. Means something, I think.
Please let me know how often defensive players have been interviewed and asked, specifically, about Patricia. One of the reasons that Brady was so effusive about McDaniels was all the controversy that McDaniels got himself into while in Denver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrylStingley
2. As the season wore on, we saw more of BB than ever with the D during games. That shot of him coaching the D and just looking up at a Pats TD during the Texans game was cool, as it showed how focused Bill is, but it also was a commentary on Bill's level of involvement with the D, while a good thing in some respects, was more than we might have expected given that he's the HC.
The amount that BB was coaching up the D was normal. Something that should ring huge bells for you is that BB never took control of the defensive play-calling unlike when Mangini was the DC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrylStingley
3. Patricia is a younger guy who may not be able to challenge Bill.
When would we ever know about this? You seem to be under the misguided impression that we hear about everything that goes on with the team. Particularly in game planning sessions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrylStingley
4. Tom E Curran has alluded many times on the radio during WEEI interviews that Patricia is not a great communicator. Tom is loathe to criticize, probably partially for fear of losing access, so maybe this means something. I think Tom is a smart guy and knows his Pats stuff.
Where have you been? Curran has been on the outside looking in for several years now. He hasn't been a good beat reporter since he went to the national scene and flopped, returning with his tail between his legs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrylStingley
5. Romeo is available. Eric is available. Both would bring an element back to the team. I'd prefer Romeo. By a lot. But it's clear from hearing Eric on the radio that he knows his stuff and maybe he and Bill have buried the hatchet or will. Winning means more than keeping up a feud, even though Eric did a ridiculous thing.
What, exactly, would Mangini or Crennel bring to the team. You said they'd bring an element. What element? And, considering it wasn't just BB that Mangini burned bridges with, but the entire organization (read Bob Kraft), it's unlikely that Mangini will work for the Pats again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrylStingley
6. While the D improved last year, it still had many flaws. All the 20 yard plays. All the yards. A fresh voice might help avoid some of those things.
So there you have it. My reasons for wanting Patricia out of his current position.
Thoughts?
The D improved last year as the season progressed. You seem to be over-looking the fact that the Pats had 4 rookies starting on Defense at one point.
Never a good sign when during the game the HC is off the sidelines and back on the bench coaching up the defense....we saw that on NUMEROUS occasions especially late in the season. NOT good!!
Why is this not good? He's always done that every season since he's been here, including the Crennel years. It's what BB does. His "specialty" always has been working with defense, especially linebackers.
Another ignorant thread that should be practice squad bound.
__________________
Beware ... The Patriot Attack Parrot!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Please let me know how often defensive players have been interviewed and asked, specifically, about Patricia. One of the reasons that Brady was so effusive about McDaniels was all the controversy that McDaniels got himself into while in Denver.
The amount that BB was coaching up the D was normal. Something that should ring huge bells for you is that BB never took control of the defensive play-calling unlike when Mangini was the DC.
When would we ever know about this? You seem to be under the misguided impression that we hear about everything that goes on with the team. Particularly in game planning sessions.
Where have you been? Curran has been on the outside looking in for several years now. He hasn't been a good beat reporter since he went to the national scene and flopped, returning with his tail between his legs.
What, exactly, would Mangini or Crennel bring to the team. You said they'd bring an element. What element? And, considering it wasn't just BB that Mangini burned bridges with, but the entire organization (read Bob Kraft), it's unlikely that Mangini will work for the Pats again.
The D improved last year as the season progressed. You seem to be over-looking the fact that the Pats had 4 rookies starting on Defense at one point.
Yes, they gave up 1 more passing TD, but they also reduced the number of rushing TDs by 3.
Some people would rather just complain than look deeper and understand what's going on.
Your post is unnecessarily harsh and I think you're wrong on a number of points.
1. I have not heard people complain about Patricia, true. But it's telling that we've never once heard a player praise Patricia. Over the course of two seasons, you'd think that at least one defensive player, if not more, would have done so. Conclusive? No. But indicative? Yes, I think.
2. The amount of time that BB was involved with the D was, in my view, unusual. I don't recall Bill spending that amount of time during games with the D during the SB years. Sure, there were times he was there. "In Cuts! In Cuts! That's the game!" Who could forget that awesome quote during the first Rams game in 2001? I just think he spent more time this year and I don't recall seeing him over there so consistently while the Pats were on offense.
3. Several members of the Boston media have noted over time that Bill no longer has older guys on the staff who are in a position to challenge hm as much. They've noted that guys like Rome and Charlie were older and had been colleagues with Bill earlier. That's where I'm getting it. It makes some sense to me.
4. Your comments re Curran are way off. He is around the team all the time. Whether he has a TV show on Comcast or writes for a newspaper is of no moment. The fact is that he's in press conferences and I regularly hear him asking questions of Bill in that context. I regularly see him interviewing players on Comcast. He's in the Pats media world.
5. Romeo was with the Pats when they won 3 SBs. He, as contrasted with Patricia, was constantly praised by the players as being a key guy in the Pats success. Guys referred to both his tactical skills and his almost fatherly style personality and coaching. Romeo's element is pretty clear to see. I agree that Mangini is a tougher sell. He sounds very smart and insightful to me on radio interviews. But I have much less confidence that Mangini adds a missing element.
6. True that the D improved and was young. But I am not arguing that the D is terrible or that Patricia is hopeless. I just wonder if the D can be better and Bill can be freed up if we have Romeo (or Mangini or someone else better than Patricia).
Last, the purpose is more about discussing it. Maybe the Pats are better off with staying with Matt and continuity is really important. I tend to think not...
49Likes
Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia
Perhaps the TV just highlights it more nowadays. Having said that MP has it easy if BB is doing the bullwork. Is he truly the DC or a glorified clip board holder?
Linear Mode
