Brownfan80

Pointing out that you have a long history of anger issues is troublemaking? Sorry, I don't see it that way. History is what it is NEM, regardless of what you'd like to remember.

pats1

17,372 and every one of your posts gets better, NEM, I must say.

tombonneau

Thanks for derailing an otherwise good post, guys. In future, I would appreciate if you kept your schoolyard namecalling to PMs.

TIA.

Back to topic ... someone mentioned that all they need to do is look at game log and zone in on turnovers to see who won the game. This is pretty spot-on.

I would take it one step further and say there is about a 95% correlation to whoever wins the POTO battle (Points Off Turnovers) wins the game.

It is not enough to simply get more turnovers than the other team, you must capitalize on said turnovers. This is why the Pats were able to sneak by the Bears: even though they turned the ball over more, they were able to to more with their turnovers than Chicago did with theirs.

But yes, if Pats clean up the TOs, they have a solid chance for #4.

Seneschal2

Patsox, I'm with you completely on maintaining peace and harmony but you know what? AJ starts an interesting and worthy topic and the very first response I read is this insulting garbage:

---

This type of post deserves no support whatsoever. I'm offended just reading it.

And this guy has the nerve to call someone else a "troublemaker of the highest degree"?!

SoonerPatriot

The problem with AJ and his ilk is that there is no room for middle ground with them. You either love EACH and EVERYTHING the team and organization does, or you hate each and everything they do. In fairness, NEM is the yin to his yang. Both are extremists.

For instance, I don't have a whole lot of issues with the play calling. I'm becoming pretty enthusiastic about Caldwell. Dillon has got his role and Maroney his.

The defense is gritty as hell. We're a little banged up, but Rodney will be back when it matters. The D-Line is second to none. LBs are solid, but a little thin now.

There are some things I don't like, for instance our turnover and penalty epidemic. Having been around a lot of coaches in my day, I've yet to meet one who would be content with turning the ball over 8 times in two weeks. I've yet to find one who is happy with a 10 penalty game. So in that sense, we have some real problems that probably should be dealt with before the playoffs.

We can't help the injuries. I believe BB did his best before the season to field the deepest team possible. I'm not sure if this is something that as fans, we should be doing a lot of hand wringing over.

This is pretty middle of the road viewpoint (something a lot of other members of this board shown me the value of recently). In AJ's book, if you think 5 turnovers and 10 penalties in a sloppy win over a 2-10 team is a problem, you're manic depressive.

__________________
Celebrating the wonders of the ignore list.

AndyJohnson

Wow. I cant wait to get some time to respond to the posts in this thread. So much to respond back to. Hopefully soon.

AndyJohnson

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyJohnson
I consider the last 2 games GOOD wins for the Pats. I certainly don't expect the general opinion of this board to agree with this, but I seem to have a different critieria than the "manic-depressive crowd". (The manic depressive crowd is that group of fans who overreact positively to good days---runing the table talk was common a week ago--then overreact negatively to winning, if it isn't a dominant effort. My favorites are the post that CONCLUDE faliure in the playoffs based on a win they didn't like, and the 'if this didnt happen, we could have lost, or if we were playing someone else we would have lost)


Sorry, but that's a lot of crap. It is offensive to those who, while enjoying the win, are able to see both sides of the coin, the good with the bad. Calling them "manic depressive" is insulting to all of them, including myself. And, quite frankly I find it to be completely out of order, moreso coming from an, alleged, moderator of this forum. It is demeaning to many people who have views, and opinions, that although different than yours, are very welcome.

IF YOU DONT SEE THIS OVERALL TONE OF THIS BOARD AS MANIC-DEPRESSIVE (WHICH IS WHAT I SAID, NOT THAT INDIVIDUALS ARE) YOU ARENT PAYING ATTENTION. THE OVERALL TONE IS TOO POSITIVE OR TOO NEGATIVE, SWINGING WILDLY FROM GAME TO GAME.

My critieria in calling these good wins is very simple. Over the first 9 weeks of the season, we went 6-3, and lost 3 games that in past years it would have seemed we should have won. The #1 characteristic of the Champion Pats teams was making plays in the clutch, and KNOWING HOW TO WIN. After the 6-3 start the primary thing I felt this team lacked was that it hadn't learned how to win. Every team, every season needs to learn that. Some start closer than others because of returning core players who do know how to win, but every year has turnover to every team.
Lost on the media is that a TEAM is the sum of its parts. I bristle every time I hear "professional analysts" rate a team by naming their 3 best players, and conclude that is why they will win. Nothing could be further from the truth. The 20th-22nd best player (worst 3 starters) ultimatley has more to do with determining championships than the 3 best. (And by that I mean the gap between how good your 20-22nd is vs the other team) "Knowing how to win" isn't a function of your best players, it is a function of your 53 man roster.

These last 2 weeks, the Patriots have shown me that this version now seems to have learned how to win. When it comes down to Championships, the ability to win close games, regardless of the quality of the opponent correlates much more to success than blowing people out.

We see it every year. When the Pats are in the playoffs, we look at the opponent and one of the first analyses is have they beaten anyone good. i never remember ANYONE critiquing an opponent for ONLY beating team X by 7 points.

Other random thoughts.
Amazing that we criticize play calling when we score 28 points. That same criticism comes along with criticism of how plays are set up by the previous calls. To me, if you add up all of the play calls in the game, and they total 28 points, you did a good job. I could care less about the plays that didnt work so well if they set up others that got us 28 points. (and it would have been more without the turnovers)

You stilldont get it, and never will, because you let personalities get in the way of common sense. Sure, we scored 28 points, sure we won, but it came down to a couple of minutes at the end of the first half and a couple of minutes at the end of the fourth quarter... and we were constantly in a position where one mistake, one more mistake by our offense would have caused us to be in deeper than we were. And, that has happened far too often.

NEM, YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF HERE. YOU CONSTATNLY TALK ABOUT HOW PLAYS ARE AFFECTED BY WHAT IS CALLED BEFORE, ONLY IN A NEGATIVE SENSE, BUT TOTALLY IGNORE THAT GOOD PLAYS HAVE BEEN SET UP BY THE ONES THAT CAME BEFORE AS WELL.
BOTTOMLINE, IF YOU TELL AN HC HIS OFFENSIVE COORDINATOR IS GOING TO CALL A GAME THAT RESULTS IN 28 POINTS AND A WIN, THE HC WILL NOT NEED TO ASK A SINGLE QUESTION BEFORE SAYING HE WILL TAKE THAT EVERY TIME.


Youjust dont get it. No one is complaing about homw many points we score, or if we win...it is that, on many occasions, games should not have been as close as they were , when one error could have meant defeat instead of a win... and that play calling had most of the reason we were in a slow cooker far too many times.You need to get a grasp on reality because you certainly dont have it, as of now. You have played out your little game making people believe that you know more than you really know, far too long and people are now beginning to get wise to you.

YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING THROUGH 3 SB TITLES THIS SAME TIRED LINE. I COULD CARE LESS IF THE WINS WERE EASIER, ONLY THAT THEY ARE WINS.
YOU WILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE LAST PART TO ME. HOW DO I MAKE PEOPLE BELIEVE I KNOW MORE THAN I DO IF I DONT KNOW IT. AM I A SVENGALI? WHO EXACTLY IS 'GETTING WISE' TO THIS FACT YOU JUST MADE UP?


I have read doom and gloom posts about how the D played this week. We allowed ONE TOUCHDOWN. That makes 14 in 12 games.
Somehow those doom and gloom posters point to our own turnovers as a reason for our imminent failure, yet give our defense no credit for forcing 5. Personally, I am fine with allowing less than 3 ypc to the other RB, having the other QB pass for 300 yards, but getting 3 picks, a fumble on a sack and allowing ONE TOUCHDOWN.

For the most part, people in here have given lots of credit to the defense, including myself. But, facts are, in the last game, Mike Martz completely outguessed or DC, time after time... and that happens to be a straight fact..and why shold nt posters say so...IT HAPPENED. PERIOD.


WE ALLOWED ONE TOUCHDOWN. IF ITS ALL ABOUT OC'S MARTZ WAS THE FAILURE ON SUNDAY, BECAUSE HE GOT ONE TD.

A curious question: It was mentioned many times during the game how the Lions have spent all season losing close games. If a team loses a lot of close games, why is it expected that you blow them out? Why wasnt a close win pretty much what was expected? There are very few blowouts in the NFL. If you wish to judge your team by their blowouts, go ahead, but you probably should root for the Colts from September to December, then shift over to the Pats in January.

Who did they lose these close games too? Teams far lesser than the Patriots, and they also LOST to the Cardinals.

WHY DOES THAT MATTER? MY POINT IS THAT LOSING A LOT OF GAMES DOESNT MEAN YOU DO OR SHOULD LOSE THEM BY A LOT. IF YOU LOSE TO A 2-10 TEAM YOU ARE DOING WORSE THAN EVERYONE ELSE, IF YOU BEAT THEM YOU ARE DOING WHAT EVERYONE ELSE DOES AND HOW MUCH YOU BEAT THEM BY IS PRETTY MEANINGLESS.

You are not quite as correct as you seem to think you are, and you are denegrating the opinons of a lot of people in here..... than you DOCTOR.

PUZZLING AGAIN. YOU IMPLY I THINK I AM MORE CORRECT THAN OTHER PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE WITH THEIR OPINIONS. HOW DO I DENGRATE ANYONES OPINION? THIS IS YOUR MOST TIRED LINE. WHEN YOU HAVE NO ANSWER YOU TELL PEOPLE THEY DONT ACCEPT OTHER PEOPLES OPINION. I NEVER DID THAT, I GAVE MINE, BUT APPARENTLY YOU DONT ACCEPT MINE. VERY ODD.

AndyJohnson

I am not pigeon holing anyone, I am talking, as I made clear about the overall tone of the board.
I have no problem with talking about good and bad. I have a problem with extremes, especially when they change week to week.
I can see and discuss and accept every negative of that game. But the positives outweighed the negatives because it resulted in a win. My biggest issue is when CONCLUSIONS are drawn, such as when Kevin Jones gained 30 yards on a screen it proved we cant win a championship.

AndyJohnson

Im not even sure its the same people, but the naysayers dominate the board when there is anything to complain about, and the positive people dominate when things go well for a week or 2.
There may be no manic depressive posters on the board, but the board as a whole is bipolar.

AndyJohnson

Good comeback.
I keep wondering who all of these people are that agree with NEM. He keeps citing them, but I havent figured out who they are. Perhaps we could have a roll call?
I am sure my opinions offend anyone who agrees with NEM point of view. Please let me know who I am offending.