SD's Last 10 Games - Page 29 - New England Patriots Forums

Patriotic Fervor · 01-08-2007, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SadThePatriots

i'll cut you some slack, you obviously haven't seen the raiders play before. sifting through the numbers isn't going to give you an accurate depiction of how they play on the field. you are suggesting that teams will run on them and so they don't have to pass on them. but if you looked at their secondary, you'd see another reason why you'd want to run instead of pass. the raiders might have a better secondary than the patriots...

Well, I'm not going to cut you any slack on what is obviously a very misinformed post.

The Raiders finished exactly where they did for exactly one reason - they stunk! They stunk up and down. That is a team that has so many problems, you don't know where to start.

They can Art Shell, who did the team a huge favor by agreeing to coach them - when no one else wanted to! You wait and see how difficult it is for them to fill that post. There isn't enough money in Fort Knox to provide adequate compensation for that hapless, hopeless morass of a job.

And here, in an astounding display of FFL logic, you state, "you are suggesting that teams will run on them and so they don't have to pass on them. but if you looked at their secondary, you'd see another reason why you'd want to run instead of pass". So teams were so afraid to pass on this team, they ran...and ran...and ran...and ***** - they didn't stop! Why, if you guys could have played them every week, that running back you have could have rushed for 3,000, and you QB could play till he was 50!

Let's take a closer look at that alleged "powerhouse" you guys are bragging about.

In looking at strength of schedule, I see that against approximate .500 teams (that includes 9-7s and 7-9s), 11 of your 16 opponents fit into this category (4 teams at 8-8, 2 teams at 7-9, 5 teams at 9-7). Further, you played the redoubtable Oakland Raiders (2-14) twice, a 5-11 Arizona team (that shredded you for 356 yards in the air) once, and a 4-12 Cleveland team once.

You faced 6 teams with winning records, but only one with double-digit wins (Baltimore, at 13-3, who, incidentally, beat you!).

Your opponents win percentage was .457.

Not bad.

The Pats break down like this: 7 of their 16 opponents were in the approximate .500 category (4 teams at 8-8, 2 teams at 7-9, 1 team at 9-7). While we did face 4 teams with a 6-10 record (going 3-1), we faced 5 teams with winning records (2-3), 4 of these were of the double digit variety (2-2). We faced only one true stink team, Detroit at 3-13.

Our opponents win percentage was .496.

So here's my point....you guys have looked spectacular against a plethora of .500 teams. The one team of any repute (and any reputable defense), on your schedule beat you.

Now, you have beat the people the schedule maker puts in front of you, yes, and you have done that quite well. It's just that we have, too - and it appears we've done it a little better against a better quality schedule.

So, to quote your Marty Schottenheimer before last year's game, I like our chances.

I like them very much....

abyzmul · 01-08-2007, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriotic Fervor

Well, I'm not going to cut you any slack on what is obviously a very misinformed post.

The Raiders finished exactly where they did for exactly one reason - they stunk! They stunk up and down. That is a team that has so many problems, you don't know where to start.

They can Art Shell, who did the team a huge favor by agreeing to coach them - when no one else wanted to! You wait and see how difficult it is for them to fill that post. There isn't enough money in Fort Knox to provide adequate compensation for that hapless, hopeless morass of a job.

And here, in an astounding display of FFL logic, you state, "you are suggesting that teams will run on them and so they don't have to pass on them. but if you looked at their secondary, you'd see another reason why you'd want to run instead of pass". So teams were so afraid to pass on this team, they ran...and ran...and ran...and ***** - they didn't stop! Why, if you guys could have played them every week, that running back you have could have rushed for 3,000, and you QB could play till he was 50!

Let's take a closer look at that alleged "powerhouse" you guys are bragging about.

In looking at strength of schedule, I see that against approximate .500 teams (that includes 9-7s and 7-9s), 11 of your 16 opponents fit into this category (4 teams at 8-8, 2 teams at 7-9, 5 teams at 9-7). Further, you played the redoubtable Oakland Raiders (2-14) twice, a 5-11 Arizona team (that shredded you for 356 yards in the air) once, and a 4-12 Cleveland team once.

You faced 6 teams with winning records, but only one with double-digit wins (Baltimore, at 13-3, who, incidentally, beat you!).

Your opponents win percentage was .457.

Not bad.

The Pats break down like this: 7 of their 16 opponents were in the approximate .500 category (4 teams at 8-8, 2 teams at 7-9, 1 team at 9-7). While we did face 4 teams with a 6-10 record (going 3-1), we faced 5 teams with winning records (2-3), 4 of these were of the double digit variety (2-2). We faced only one true stink team, Detroit at 3-13.

Our opponents win percentage was .496.

So here's my point....you guys have looked spectacular against a plethora of .500 teams. The one team of any repute (and any reputable defense), on your schedule beat you.

Now, you have beat the people the schedule maker puts in front of you, yes, and you have done that quite well. It's just that we have, too - and it appears we've done it a little better against a better quality schedule.

So, to quote your Marty Schottenheimer before last year's game, I like our chances.

I like them very much....

sadly you seem extremely misinformed. the patriots don't belong on the same field as the chargers. merriman and company will pound the ground with tom brady and you will have the entire off season to cry about it.

The Dude · 01-08-2007, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SadThePatriots

sadly you seem extremely misinformed. the patriots don't belong on the same field as the chargers. merriman and company will pound the ground with tom brady and you will have the entire off season to cry about it.

you almost lost to the raiders

fleabassist1 · 01-08-2007, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SadThePatriots

pardon me. when people say "i'm not in school anymore" they usually mean that they've graduated. suffice to say you were technically correct since you're on a vacation.

A long term vacation, yes. For at least a year.

I am in the process of being hired for a Police Dispatcher for my local sheriffs department. If I am there for 6 months, they will put me through Cadet school free of charge, where I will be able to become a deputy. After that, I will be able to transfer to a different part of the country (or state) where I may or may not pick school back up again.

fleabassist1 · 01-08-2007, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob R

Funny thread. I only had to read about 2-3 pages to get the drift.

So, let's sum this up.

The Chargers have the better:

Running Game
Front Seven
Pass Rushers
Red Zone Offense

Did I leave any thing out? We don't belong on the same field, do we?

Other than, that's the way we like it.

Poor, underdog Pat's.

heh, heh, heh ......

Pat's 24
Dolts 17

And the pats have a better:

Running Defense
Red Zone Defense
Quarterback
Recievers.

Patriotic Fervor · 01-08-2007, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SadThePatriots

sadly you seem extremely misinformed. the patriots don't belong on the same field as the chargers. merriman and company will pound the ground with tom brady and you will have the entire off season to cry about it.

You guys have a lot of experience with that, don't you?

tkayo · 01-08-2007, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boltssbbound

I think our secondaries are quite similar. We have one guy who's played phenomenal this year, Quentin Jammer, a solid yet sometimes inconsistent CB on the other side, one solid, vet safety, McCree, and a good run guy who struggles a bit in coverage, Kiel. Sounds alot like Samuel, Hobbs, Harrison and Hawkins to me.

Rivers' struggles have correlated directly with injuries to our WRs. McCardell has been struggling with a calf injury, and Parker's been out. When McCardell, Parker and Jackson have been close to 100%, Rivers has been fine. He was 19/24 against the Cards with 2 TDs with everyone healthy, and the game before when our receivers were healthy we put up 48 on the Broncos.

If your looking for a big weakness on the Chargers, you won't find one. The secondary is probably our weakest unit, but they are far from weak. Our defense is much better than the unit that held Brady and Co. to 17 last year in NE and shut them out in the 2nd half. And your receivers aren't as good as last year's.

It seems the only argument for winning the game that Pat fans have is, "We turn it up in the playoffs." Well, it seems I heard alot of that last year before you went into Denver and lost. And the Chargers are a much better team than the '05 Broncos.

Saying SD's secondary is are as good as NE's is a lot like saying NE's OLBs are as good as SD's. But thanks for admitting its the weakest unit.

I agree, that SD's WR position has been beat up, but the production to Gates has gone down. NE's WR's aren't has fearsome as years before, most notably because of the loss of Branch, but in the BB era, the WR position has either been undersized or less than top tier talent.

I'm not going to argue for winning either way. I am a lifetime Pats fan living in SD, who follows the Boltz and goes to many of the games. I think the could be SD's year in terms of talent and momentum, but the Pats hold the intangebles (coaching, Brady). Personally, I'm not going to enjoy this game as much as watching the Boltz beat Denver, or the Pats beat Indy.

fleabassist1 · 01-08-2007, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SdChargeHer

LOL no man... just no. ok do you realize the previous 2 seasons the Chargers have finished # 1 in run defense and the only reason they didnt this year is because of injuries? Better receivers? I'll take our core over yours any day. Gates Mccardell Parker and Jackson are much better than Graham Caldwell Gafney and others. Better QB this season? Hey I give props to brady he is damn good. But your not going to convince any charger fan or pro bowl voter that Brady has had a better year. Red zone defense? I don't rememeber us being terrible. Perhaps yours is better I don't know but I do know there are a hell of alot of things in the Chargers favor this week.

Sure, why not? The Pat's have been excellent stopping the run this year. You can't say "The only reason they didn't this year is because of injuries" - anyone can say that. Excuses. The pats had something like 45 different starters a few years ago... learn to work around your injuries.

Also, Brady is a better quarterback, period. This year? Maybe his numbers have slumped a little, but honostly - out of any QB today, who would you want to lead your offense to a last minute win? I would personally pick Tom Brady (Which, I guess could be bias.) You keep on saying that your pro bowl QB is better this year - yeah well, who gives a $h1t about the pro bowl? The pro bowl is only a popularity contest. Who is the most popular. Most people look at passing yards, or TD's, or QB Raiting - they don't look at all the other factors in play.

TheBostonStraggler · 01-08-2007, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SadThePatriots

short response: no.

long response:

when you have the #1 scoring offense, your defense will inherently have more opportunities to score

I have heard that somewhere before. I think it was the same thing the Colts and their high powered offense were saying about their own defense the past few years. There is of course another line of thought that seems more applicable imho. Teams score if your defense allows them..........

***Michael*** · 01-17-2007, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 17Rocks

Don't count on Brady having all day to throw against the best front seven in football...

Stop believing everything your homers are feeding you.