Easterbrook is an idiot, but he made a good point here. - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

bpeter17 · 03-02-2008, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Yeah, Easterbrook is so right--I guess that's why Tom Brady completed 92% of his passes against the Jaguars

Quote:

the NFL's passing yardage leader has never gone on to win the Super Bowl in the same season.

seems "so right" to me.

DocE · 03-02-2008, 11:22 PM

The passing offense didn't fail, the entire offense failed. The Patriots lost because the Oline got their ass kicked all game long. It wasn't like receivers were not open, it's just that Brady had no time to get it to them. The other major issue was the Oline's inability to run block in the Super Bowl as Maroney was swallowed up at or behind the line of scrimmage more often that not.

The way the Pats would have won that game with the line playing as poorly as it was, would have been to spread the field even further. 5 wide/empty backfield with Brady making quick decisions on short drop backs before the rush could get to him.

eom · 03-02-2008, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RayClay

Easterbrook is an idiot

correct....

primetime · 03-03-2008, 05:26 AM

If Rodney Harrison knocks the ball out of David Tyree's hand, this article is never published. Seriously, they lose by 3 points after the first 18-0 start in NFL history and suddenly the fact that Brady had such a good year caused them to lose. Bull.

dhamz · 03-03-2008, 05:56 AM

The stat might be interesting but a little more research invalidates the theory he uses it to prove. And when I say a little, I mean very little research.

Sure Drew Brees led the NFL in yards and didn't win the Super bowl in 2006. Peyton Manning who missed leading the NFL in yards by 21 yards did.

In 1999, Kurt Warner was second in yaards and the Rams won it all - less than 100 yards separated him from the leader.

There are other similar cases. While the stat is interesting, it is more coincidence than anything else these days. You look back over the last 20 years or so and you will find a lot of teams that featured high powered passing games (Indy, Stl, GB, SF) that have been champions.

DarrylStingley · 03-03-2008, 06:40 AM

The point is moronic.

Players concentrate more on defense during the playoffs?

And offensive skill players just play with themselves?

Please.

The Pats passed like demons in the Jags game and Brady was less healthy in the next two games.

This stat is an oddity and it proves NOTHING.

Easterbrook thinks everything he says or writes is some priceless, thought provoking gem.

RayClay · 03-03-2008, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by primetime

If Rodney Harrison knocks the ball out of David Tyree's hand, this article is never published. Seriously, they lose by 3 points after the first 18-0 start in NFL history and suddenly the fact that Brady had such a good year caused them to lose. Bull.

Updated: January 8, 2008, 1:53 AM ET

RayClay · 03-03-2008, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhamz

The stat might be interesting but a little more research invalidates the theory he uses it to prove. And when I say a little, I mean very little research.

Sure Drew Brees led the NFL in yards and didn't win the Super bowl in 2006. Peyton Manning who missed leading the NFL in yards by 21 yards did.

In 1999, Kurt Warner was second in yaards and the Rams won it all - less than 100 yards separated him from the leader.

There are other similar cases. While the stat is interesting, it is more coincidence than anything else these days. You look back over the last 20 years or so and you will find a lot of teams that featured high powered passing games (Indy, Stl, GB, SF) that have been champions.

More research doesn't change anything.

Sure, the Rams won once with an unbalanced offense, but the Colts in 2006 averaged 151 yards rushing in the playoffs, second most to the 154 of the Eagles.

We only used the examples most favorable to your argument and one out of two doesn't make your point at all.