Would they hire Weis now if it was an emergency? - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

Pujo · 12-20-2009, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr3putt

I am at a loss as to why some members on this board refuse to admit the endless predictability of this offense
Week after week we as fans can look at the down and distance, view our offensive set, and know exactly where the ball is going

Please Santa
All I want is Charley Weis for Christmas

Eh? The Colts have basically 20 plays that they run on offense, but good luck stopping them. Nobody cares how predictable an offense is as long as they exectute. I'll take execution over fake punts.

dhamz · 12-20-2009, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PATSYLICIOUS

It's too late now IMO. But I do hope they pursue him for next season, he was a great OC for us and despite the talent you never saw these many 3 and outs ... hard to see us having these struggles with him.

Say what? The Pats won a ton of games during the Weis years exactly the way they won today. In 2003 for example, they won games scoring 17 (twice), 19, 9, and 12 (twice).

Somehow Charlie's career is only remembered as the 2004 season.

RayClay · 12-20-2009, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emoney_33

'04 was the only year that Weis was here that they averaged more points/game (0.5 more) than they are this year.

Brady missed all of last year, Brady is battling various injuries including a RIB injury, the o-line has been hurt and struggling mightily at times, we are extremely thin at receiving threats after Moss/Welker.

When do they give out the average points award? Before or after the super Bowl? Maybe during the all important Pro Bowl.

Do we get an extra win for pouring it on against total stiffs like Tampa and Tennessee?

PATSYLICIOUS · 12-20-2009, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

Actually, go back and look at the 2003 season, the Pats had tons of 3 and outs. In fact, converting 3rd downs was a huge problem that year. That is why the Pats won a lot of games that year 9-3 or 12-0. If the Pats did not have the best defense in Patriots' history that year, they wouldn't have gone 14-2 and won the Super Bowl.

That offense had some less than stellar efforts, but I don't remember them looking as dismal as this year's offense has in the 2nd half of losses, and that's with much less talent. When we struggled, it always seemed Charlie would dial up some screens/quick throws that at least got us a few first downs. We struggled yes but eventually that offense could come through with SOMETHING... this one can't get it going in crunchtime period.

PATSYLICIOUS · 12-20-2009, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhamz

Say what? The Pats won a ton of games during the Weis years exactly the way they won today. In 2003 for example, they won games scoring 17 (twice), 19, 9, and 12 (twice).

Somehow Charlie's career is only remembered as the 2004 season.

A few of those games were dealing with significant weather elements too let's not ignore that. Weather has not been a factor this year except MAYBE 2nd half of Carolina, but that's not one that was a struggle.

emoney_33 · 12-20-2009, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RayClay

2001 we won a Super Bowl, 2007 we didn't.

Sure we had more talent in 2007, we have more now.

Would i rather have less talent utilized to the max, than more talent poorly used?

Well, I'd rather win than lose. How is this offense in the second half? Against good teams?

How often are receivers wide open, or even open at all?

Yeah, I'm nuts.

None of this makes any sense to me. You think the 01 offense would be winning a superbowl this year? I mean I guess the offense was responsible for the special teams play against the Steelers and the defense against the Rams...

***Deus Irae*** · 12-20-2009, 03:46 PM

No. Not only that, but hell no.

emoney_33 · 12-20-2009, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RayClay

When do they give out the average points award? Before or after the super Bowl? Maybe during the all important Pro Bowl.

Do we get an extra win for pouring it on against total stiffs like Tampa and Tennessee?

You live in a fantasy world of revisionist history. The 01 team had many things go their way, but they were not the most talented or best team that year. The offense was not the unit responsible for winning the superbowl in 2001.

The fact of the matter is this offense is better than the 2001 offense, by a lot. Every year is different and every game is it's own entity. You have some fantasy idea about what goes into a superbowl season.

RayClay · 12-20-2009, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

Do you remember the 2001 season. It was an offense that basically was only responsible for not making mistakes and letting the defense win games. That offense was the 19th ranked offense (sixth in points scored).

It was a very efficient offense with very little above average talent that moved the chains, didn't make mistakes and won games in the clutch.

If Weis was here now, we wouldn't have to reacquire Fred Coleman, Weis would get to work with Moss, Welker, Faulk (a much better Faulk now) and some young receivers as good or better than the bench then.

The point is that team maximized it's potential.

Are we getting the best out of our offense? Are our receivers wide open? Is our play selection confusing defenses and setting them up for a wide open play when we need it?

Let's get real here.

***Deus Irae*** · 12-20-2009, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RayClay

It was a very efficient offense with very little above average talent that moved the chains, didn't make mistakes and won games in the clutch.

If Weis was here now, we wouldn't have to reacquire Fred Coleman, Weis would get to work with Moss, Welker, Faulk (a much better Faulk now) and some young receivers as good or better than the bench then.

The point is that team maximized it's potential.

Are we getting the best out of our offense? Are our receivers wide open? Is our play selection confusing defenses and setting them up for a wide open play when we need it?

Let's get real here.

Living in the past again, I see.