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!
With Brady still playing we'd be 5-0, averaging 35+ points per game giving the D the opportunity to play with a lead, and with opponents knowing that they were likely to lose before ever stepping foot out onto the field.
With Cassel playing, we're lucky to be 3-2, it's an oddity that we'll score more than 19 points per game, the Pats D is tired from being out on the field so long because the O is so inept, and opponents believe they are going to beat us before they even step foot out onto the field.
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 disagree, i think the Pats would be 5-0 with Brady. The reason the defense is getting lit up so much is because we have a quarterback who can't consistently sustain point scoring drives. Another issue is the fact that this team really isn't capable of making a comeback in a game without Brady.
right, the defense is just great.
its all Cassel's fault.
againsat both Miami and San Diego the defense was absolutely HORRIBLE.
there is no way you can pin that on Cassel.
with Brady, playing like this, the Patriots would still be 3-2.
You were doing great until the last line. That's just assinine and proves you don't know what you are talking about.
BB took the Cleveland Browns from being a crappy team to the play-offs. Their final year in Cleveland, the team gave up after the announcement that the team was moving to Baltimore and that many of the players weren't going to be kept.
I also find it interesting that you make no mention of how the front 7 hasn't gotten consistent pressure on the QB. I also question whether you understand that its impossible to judge the drafting of Wheatley and Wilhite until they've been around while. And there is no quarantee that Antoine Cason or Aqib Talib would be playing any better in the Pats system. As for Lito Sheppard, what is to say he'd be doing any better here? Not to mention that the Eagles wanted insane compensation for him.
People keep talking about "quality" veteran QB, but again, who was there to get? Joey Harrington? Chris Simms (who is on the street again)? Seriously.
Not sure who the Pats could have taken for their O-line who would be helping right now, except maybe Zuttah. But other than that, who would you have had them get?
Garcia wasn't available, and he's struggled when placed in systems that aren't in the "West Coast Offense" mold.
__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius
Yes, we knew that we were screwed without Brady. Perhaps that "fact" had something to do with the DECISION that Belichick and Pioli made to have two backups (choosing among three) who hadn't ever started an NFL game, and a #2 that hadn't started a game since high school. The FO decision was NOT only the one made after Brady was hurt. That decision has been the decision that the team has made for a couple of years.
That being said, we might still be 3-2 with Brady. HOWEVER, we would be very confident of the playoffs and be still looking to compete for the bye, even at 3-2. We'd be waiting for some increased health at DB and RB, and looking for some help once Neal and Ross are available. And yes, we still might be considering adding a CB and LB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Pa Patriot
I think BB knew what every one of us know .. If Brady goes down, we are pretty much screwed anyway.. Cassel at least knows the offense. Well Brady is out and we are pretty much screwed.. We would be 4-1 right now.. I think we would have beat miami... Cassel is what he is a back up QB.. will win us 3 games , lose us 3 games
As far as the D goes I'm in the "no pressure" camp. Our secondary historically under belichick has only played as well as the front seven puts the rush on. I feel like this is something that will get better as the season goes on though. As far as the offensive line, its mind boggeling, I wanted to puke when Dan Koppen got pushed back 3 yards right into Morris. In the passing game Cassel holds the ball too long and often is just staring down the rush, the 4th down attempt was case in point last night, he looks to run far too often.
With Cassel playing, we're lucky to be 3-2, it's an oddity that we'll score more than 19 points per game, the Pats D is tired from being out on the field so long because the O is so inept, and opponents believe they are going to beat us before they even step foot out onto the field.
The D should have felt pretty rested after the SF game. The offense had the ball for 2/3rds of the game.
The o-line is crap right now, but Brady at least gives the offense a chance to move the chains and allow the d to rest.
With TfB, the O doesn't always settle for FG attempts, especially inside the 5.
With TfB, opposing offenses have to play more efficiently, as they know they can't rely on a Cassel led offense to stall every time. On the flip side, opposing defenses have to cover more options than just the 2 Cassel can read.
Nothing's totally Cassel's fault, but the presence of Brady does change how the games would be played, even when he's not on the field. Opposing offenses can play differently with the lead, especially knowing a Cassel led offense is not currently capable of piling it on in a hurry.
On the flip side, this team is in trouble because the core on both sides of the ball is not playing well. The o-line is getting schooled repeatedly, and it stems back to last year.
The D-line isn't doing much better. No pressure on the qb whatsoever, leaving the secondary to cover for way too long.
Idk if they'd be 5-0 with Brady, but it sure wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility.
Through games like yesterday I'm almost glad Brady wasn't in, because the O-line would have just embarassed him. He would've done better than Cassel, but there was just too much pressure. I seriously doubt he would have made enough of a difference to win.
Yes, we knew that we were screwed without Brady. Perhaps that "fact" had something to do with the DECISION that Belichick and Pioli made to have two backups (choosing among three) who hadn't ever started an NFL game, and a #2 that hadn't started a game since high school. The FO decision was NOT only the one made after Brady was hurt. That decision has been the decision that the team has made for a couple of years.
That being said, we might still be 3-2 with Brady. HOWEVER, we would be very confident of the playoffs and be still looking to compete for the bye, even at 3-2. We'd be waiting for some increased health at DB and RB, and looking for some help once Neal and Ross are available. And yes, we still might be considering adding a CB and LB.
I have been saying and thinking this, although I do think we would be at least 4-1, but as you say, even at 3-2 we would expect the team with brady to compete for a first round bye
Re: Pats might still be 3-2 if Brady were playing
Linear Mode
