Am I the only one who thinks the Pats looked terrible? - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

***Deus Irae*** · 08-11-2007, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

"Am I the only one who thinks this thread is terrible" ?

That's what this should have been named. Give me a *****ing break, first preseason game, half the team wasn't there, most of the starters were out after a quarter. Worst thread I've read in a while.

I've got to disagree with you a little here. I'd say the "What about the O.C.?" thread evaluating him on the basis of a press conference was worse. It's a close call, though.

PonyExpress · 08-11-2007, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PF1996

The fact that it's a preseason game makes winning/losing irrelevant but I thought the play of the Pats 1st team O/D was mediocre to terrible. The "backups" weren't any better. It reminded me of the Pats horrible play against average-good teams last year. The Dline got shoved around, the LBs as a group looked like crap and were always on the ground or behind the play and the best that can be said about the DBs is that they made the tackle...after the catch. The Oline still seems unable to pick up a blitz or keep Dlinemen from disrupting the play. Welker screwed up a blocking play causing the RB to get tackled early. Meriweather looks too small to be safety and whiffed badly on a tackle. The only bright spots I saw were Washington/Gaffney/Faulk. The rest of the team looked as slow and overmatched as they were last year against good teams. Please don't use the "it's only preseason" excuse because I've watched other preseason games and no team, not even those that lost, has looked as slow and overmatched as the Pats.

If you choose to have faith in any coach and organization in pro sports, BB and the Pats are a good place to start. There is a method to the madness. The team is laden with veteran talent, and possibly only 1 rookie will make the final roster. The key this preseason is shepherding the squad through as healthy as possible. Everything else is secondary (I mean that literally).

BradyManny · 08-11-2007, 06:03 PM

LOL, yeah has anyone checked to see what effect last nite's game had on our odds of winning the Super Bowl in Vegas?

Crazy Patriot Guy · 08-11-2007, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PF1996

The fact that it's a preseason game makes winning/losing irrelevant but I thought the play of the Pats 1st team O/D was mediocre to terrible. The "backups" weren't any better. It reminded me of the Pats horrible play against average-good teams last year. The Dline got shoved around, the LBs as a group looked like crap and were always on the ground or behind the play and the best that can be said about the DBs is that they made the tackle...after the catch. The Oline still seems unable to pick up a blitz or keep Dlinemen from disrupting the play. Welker screwed up a blocking play causing the RB to get tackled early. Meriweather looks too small to be safety and whiffed badly on a tackle. The only bright spots I saw were Washington/Gaffney/Faulk. The rest of the team looked as slow and overmatched as they were last year against good teams. Please don't use the "it's only preseason" excuse because I've watched other preseason games and no team, not even those that lost, has looked as slow and overmatched as the Pats.

PF1996, I think most here would agree with what the players are saying about this game: We have plenty to work on. That's it. There's nothing about last night's game that should have people worried, only that we need to improve, and we will.

Think back to Week 1, 2004. We played Indy and won when Willie sacked Peyton, forcing a longer FG and Vanderjagt missed. Other than that key sack and some timely turnovers, our defense was absolutely dominated in that game, the Colts did what they wanted to us. 202 yards rushing for 4.8 ypc. 446 yards allowed total, more than any game in 2003. Even though it was the Colts, people were still concerned. Was it a mistake letting Hamilton and Ted Washington go? Is our D going to look like it did back in 2002?

By the end of the 2004 season: 9th in total yards allowed, 6th in rushing yards and 2nd in points.

Better example: 31-0 loss to Buffalo in Week 1 of 2003. Every aspect of the team looked beyond awful. We then went 17-1 the rest of the way.

Again, it's just a matter of the players needing to keep working. It isn't time to panic.

PatsSteve1 · 08-11-2007, 06:06 PM

Well I guess this means wait until next year...I didn't think the run D looked good and saw LB's 1st move be the wrong one too often. There will never be a game where the other team doesn't complete passes and the Patriots DB's end up making tackles after the catch. Be glad they made the tackle. The O was missing it's starting RB, probable 2 starting WR's and thier 3 top TE's. So how was the O supposed to look? what I saw was a capable, A Smith like backup RB, backup Wr's that as backup WR's looked OK. And a new TE that may be a backup that didn't look bad either. It's very unlikely the Patriots will have to play a game with all those backup guys on the field at the same time. But if 1 or 2 have to play a lot due to injury with the real starters they should be fine. And I have seen other preseason games and the Bills didn't look very good either. I may watch the Raiders today and see what a really bad team looks like.

PATRIOTSFANINPA · 08-11-2007, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradyManny2344

LOL, yeah has anyone checked to see what effect last nite's game had on our odds of winning the Super Bowl in Vegas?

Go back and read my post,I got the latest Vegas odds for you...get your dollars down now if you want some cash

I heard the Patriots have as good a chance as winning the Super Bowl as Charlie Weis has of fitting in pants with a size 34 waist,or as good a chance as BB wearing a disco shirt and showing some chest hair on the sidelines this year.

mac · 08-11-2007, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PF1996

The fact that it's a preseason game makes winning/losing irrelevant but I thought the play of the Pats 1st team O/D was mediocre to terrible. The "backups" weren't any better. It reminded me of the Pats horrible play against average-good teams last year. The Dline got shoved around, the LBs as a group looked like crap and were always on the ground or behind the play and the best that can be said about the DBs is that they made the tackle...after the catch. The Oline still seems unable to pick up a blitz or keep Dlinemen from disrupting the play. Welker screwed up a blocking play causing the RB to get tackled early. Meriweather looks too small to be safety and whiffed badly on a tackle. The only bright spots I saw were Washington/Gaffney/Faulk. The rest of the team looked as slow and overmatched as they were last year against good teams. Please don't use the "it's only preseason" excuse because I've watched other preseason games and no team, not even those that lost, has looked as slow and overmatched as the Pats.

I know we are in the vast minority, but I saw the game the same way you did with many of the same concerns/questions. Perhaps my expectations wee unrealistic because the team has been so hyped. I hope, therefore, that pre-season games are meaningless.

PF1996 · 08-11-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsox23

This is ridiculous. The starting OL did VERY WELL in pass protect and were blocking for Faulk and Morris in an incredibly vanilla scheme, intended to show NOTHING. Meanwhile the DL was missing ALL THREE STARTERS except for two plays that Warren was in for.

Try knowing what you're talking about and your criticisms will go over far better. The vast majority of "vets" here at patsfans have NO PROBLEM criticizing and complaining when things are actually bad. Last night is not an example of that.

I must not have been watching the same starting OL as you. The one I watched didn't gain much yardage in the running game and they certainly weren't "pass protecting" very well when Brady had to throw quickly on a 3 and short and couldn't come up with the first down.

It also must not have been the same DL I watched because Wilfork (that's #75) was part of the team playing on the field in the game I watched.

Let me know when you've actually watched the Tampa Bay/NE preseason game as it's quite apparent you watched some other game. Also, a little advice: please make sure you have your facts straight before commenting about what others know. Would make you look a litte less stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsox23

There are few things as ridiculous as your on-the-ledge take re: last night's FIRST PRE-SEASON GAME, in which Belichick never ever ever shows anything but vanilla schemes - AND in which he often calls plays for the primary purpose of putting certain guys in certain situations to see how they will respond. However...in your follow-up posts, when you should've been simply cringing at NOT BEING AWARE of what I've just had to explain to you, you freakin' newbie rook, you have managed to make yourself look even worse.

Congrats. Now sing me your alma mater fight-song.

The fact that "vanilla schemes" were being run isn't an excuse for the DL and LBs to get shoved around. Most, if not all, teams run "vanilla schemes" during the preseason but not all of them were getting pushed around like the Pats were last night. What have you explained to me? You've ranted a lot but I have yet to see a rational or relevant "explanation" in any of those rants.

The strawman posts and idiotic attempt to equate credibility with "amount of posts on a messageboard", while mildly entertaining, have failed to address or refute any of the points of my original post. Makes me all the more concerned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nordberg

I don't care if the Pats lost 100-0...PRESEASON means absolutely nothing. I was watching the game last night...and on the computer, and I don't bother to post...because the observations that WE make are most likely a 180degrees off of what the coaches are seeing on the game film. To even comment on a meaningless preseason game is just silly IMHO.

Just curious - did you also make this comment in the other threads about a "meaningless preseason game" and isn't your post itself a comment and thus a contradiction of your point???

***BelichickFan*** · 08-11-2007, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mac

Perhaps my expectations wee unrealistic because the team has been so hyped.

A lot of the "hype" wasn't there. Moss. Stallworth. Watson. Maroney. Seymour. Seau. Samuel.

Heard of those guys ? Not there.

patsox23 · 08-11-2007, 06:15 PM

Man, there is a WHOOOOOLE lot of stupid going on here.

1) Belichick INTENTIONALLY calls a vanilla "game plan" in pre-season.

2) It's the first game of pre-season.

3) Belichick is more concerned with putting guys in certain situations and seeing how they react than anything else, ESPECIALLY in the first game.

4) They simply weren't that BAD.

5) Please stop being naive. This site is a bit more "vet" than the crap you people are spewing.

6) Go back to writing PFW and asking them what the difference is between a 4-3 and a 3-4.

7) Go FAST.