Wisdom of Solomon: There’s no room to second-guess Belichick

[Deus Irae]

...Even the anti christ of Patriots football who has never slurped BB gets this and only dimwit pseudo football fans will perpetually fail to.

Yeah, that must be why the starters, who are so hyper-competitive, play every single down in the exhibition season.

 

[Clonamery]

Welker's injury was a football injury. It happened because he was playing football and making a play. The so-called "fluke" injury is one of the reasons you rest players during 'meaningless' games.

It was meaningless?

 

[Deus Irae]

It was meaningless?

It depends on who you ask, as a perusal of the board will show. That's why I put it in quotation marks.

 

[BadMoFo]

Not true, but that is the classic loser response when criticism doesn't stand up under contextual scrutiny.

So, let me get this straight, a Brady-and-Belichick-led Patriots team can lose every game from here on out until they are both out of football and never win another Super Bowl, but it would be fine by you and you'd never criticize them because of what they have already given to the Patriots fanbase.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

So, let me get this straight, a Brady-and-Belichick-led Patriots team can lose every game from here on out until they are both out of football and never win another Super Bowl, but it would be fine by you and you'd never criticize them because of what they have already given to the Patriots fanbase.

Let's simplify:

When you come up with a critique that isn't sophmoric and ******ed, you will be treated with respect.

The rest vs play theory has been playing out for the past several years. History has shown that the "rest" theory is a loser. That doesn't mean the "play" theory infallible. Obviously, every decision runs risks and the coach is not a clairvoyant.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

It depends on who you ask, as a perusal of the board will show. That's why I put it in quotation marks.

A blanket concept of meaningless is exemplified in your parade of posts.

Meaningless refers to standings and entry into the playoffs.

Meaningful refers to maintaining offensive continuity and getting players experience in high stakes situational football. Considering the loss of Neal in SB XLI and various players in Indy 2007; it can be very meaningful.

 

[The Dynasty]

Welker's injury was a football injury. It happened because he was playing football and making a play. The so-called "fluke" injury is one of the reasons you rest players during 'meaningless' games.

I disagree, Welker's injury wasnt because of a hit, like you said he was making a play. This could have happened in practice when he was making a cut. Should players not practice because of the risk they might get hurt makiing a cut? It was a "fluke" injury that could have happened to anyone. I defend BB's decision to play the starters in this game, it also wasnt like it happened in the 2nd half, it happened on the 3rd play of the game. Rarely do you see coaches not play their starters at all in a game, usually they have them play atleast a quarter. Even if BB did this Welker's injury could not have been prevented.

 

[Deus Irae]

A blanket concept of meaningless is exemplified in your parade of posts.

Meaningless refers to standings and entry into the playoffs.

Meaningful refers to maintaining offensive continuity and getting players experience in high stakes situational football. Considering the loss of Neal in SB XLI and various players in Indy 2007; it can be very meaningful.

Actually, a disdain for people shading their answers is exemplified in my parade of posts. One look at the inactive list was sufficient to figure out that the team wasn't looking at the game with the same level of "must win" intensity as the previous games.

That's actually been one of my points all along. Bodden, Faulk and Maroney didn't see a single snap. Welker should have been in the same situation.

 

[Sicilian]

That's actually been one of my points all along. Bodden, Faulk and Maroney didn't see a single snap. Welker should have been in the same situation.

I would agree with you, except that this offense (particularly the passing game) has been nothing if not inconsistent all year. That being the case, I think they wanted to take one more opportunity, at least in the first quarter or two, to let the offense gel a bit more. It's unfortunate that Welker got hurt, but there was no real obvious reason to sit him out over anyone else.

Maroney and Faulk probably got the game off because they were the only two RBs who had played every game thus far. Bodden I don't really know, except maybe to give the young DBs more time? Not sure though.

 

[BadMoFo]

I would agree with you, except that this offense (particularly the passing game) has been nothing if not inconsistent all year. That being the case, I think they wanted to take one more opportunity, at least in the first quarter or two, to let the offense gel a bit more. It's unfortunate that Welker got hurt, but there was no real obvious reason to sit him out over anyone else.

Maroney and Faulk probably got the game off because they were the only two RBs who had played every game thus far. Bodden I don't really know, except maybe to give the young DBs more time? Not sure though.

Yeah, because Brady can't ever seem to find Welker on passing downs. They really needed to get on the same page.

 

[Clonamery]

Actually, a disdain for people shading their answers is exemplified in my parade of posts. One look at the inactive list was sufficient to figure out that the team wasn't looking at the game with the same level of "must win" intensity as the previous games.

That's actually been one of my points all along. Bodden, Faulk and Maroney didn't see a single snap. Welker should have been in the same situation.

Shoulda coulda woulda, lovely.

 

[BadMoFo]

Actually, a disdain for people shading their answers is exemplified in my parade of posts. One look at the inactive list was sufficient to figure out that the team wasn't looking at the game with the same level of "must win" intensity as the previous games.

That's actually been one of my points all along. Bodden, Faulk and Maroney didn't see a single snap. Welker should have been in the same situation.

He had to save Maroney for the playoffs. Who else are we going to blame when the offense sputters.

 

[JMarr]

I disagree, Welker's injury wasnt because of a hit, like you said he was making a play. This could have happened in practice when he was making a cut. Should players not practice because of the risk they might get hurt makiing a cut? It was a "fluke" injury that could have happened to anyone. I defend BB's decision to play the starters in this game, it also wasnt like it happened in the 2nd half, it happened on the 3rd play of the game. Rarely do you see coaches not play their starters at all in a game, usually they have them play atleast a quarter. Even if BB did this Welker's injury could not have been prevented.

This would be a non-issue and we'd be talking about the genius of drafting Edelman in the late rounds, if

BB wasn't under unprecedented media scrutiny this season (even more so than usual--think 4th and 2, "late-gate" etc.),

the Colts hadn't tanked against the Jets and Bills, and come out smelling like roses injurywise--we'll see how well it works for them in the playoffs, AGAIN) and,

messageboard posters weren't blaming BB for everything every adversity that has come this team's way since Cassell, Vrabel and Seymour were traded (Randy Moss as scapegoat only got traction for a brief period of time).

 

[ATippett56]

He had to save Maroney for the playoffs. Who else are we going to blame when the offense sputters?

The offensive coordinator.

 

[Deus Irae]

I would agree with you, except that this offense (particularly the passing game) has been nothing if not inconsistent all year. That being the case, I think they wanted to take one more opportunity, at least in the first quarter or two, to let the offense gel a bit more. It's unfortunate that Welker got hurt, but there was no real obvious reason to sit him out over anyone else.

Maroney and Faulk probably got the game off because they were the only two RBs who had played every game thus far. Bodden I don't really know, except maybe to give the young DBs more time? Not sure though.

Well, here's where we disagree. The Brady-Welker connection was the only combo for the Patriots that was clicking at about 100%, and Edelman could have been started in his place. Welker takes the biggest beating of all the receivers, and he'd already missed games earlier in the year due to injury. It was the perfect time to sit him down, since the team was already making Bodden, Faulk & company inactive.

Moss is different, so I understand playing him. He and Brady haven't been quite as sympatico this season, and a chronic bad back condition isn't going to get better just by sitting out one game. When you toss in the sad reality that there's really not a backup for Moss (Slater?), having him out on the field made a lot more sense to me than having Welker out there.

1-2 series with Brady/Edelman/Aiken/Moss followed by Brady and Moss hitting the bench for the rest of the game is how the team should have played it. I'd have preferred just the 1 series, myself.

 

[The Dynasty]

That's actually been one of my points all along. Bodden, Faulk and Maroney didn't see a single snap. Welker should have been in the same situation.

Going by your logic every starter shouldnt have played. There is only a roster of 54 players, not over 100. There just arent enough players on a roster to rest every player for a whole game. Brady is reportedly playing with broken ribs and a broken finger, should he have been inactive too? Our OL has been banged up all year, should they have all been inactive?

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Actually, a disdain for people shading their answers is exemplified in my parade of posts. One look at the inactive list was sufficient to figure out that the team wasn't looking at the game with the same level of "must win" intensity as the previous games.

That's actually been one of my points all along. Bodden, Faulk and Maroney didn't see a single snap. Welker should have been in the same situation.

When did you join the Pats medical/training staff? Again, how exactly do you specifically know their physical condition?

Maybe you are on the coaching staff and know for sure that nothing meaningful was being worked on.

Maybe you live another life beyond site clown.

 

[Deus Irae]

Shoulda coulda woulda, lovely.

This is a message board. It's tough to talk about things happening before the fact if we're not in the "war" room to discuss them with BB and company during the planning stages. However, if it makes you feel better, Mgteich posted about it prior to game time, and I'm confident that he's not the only person who discussed resting players prior to the game.

 

[Deus Irae]

When did you join the Pats medical/training staff? Again, how exactly do you specifically know their physical condition?

Maybe you are on the coaching staff and know for sure that nothing meaningful was being worked on.

Maybe you live another life beyond site clown.

Wait.... are you trying to claim that Bodden, Faulk and Maroney were out due to injury?

 

[Sicilian]

Well, here's where we disagree. The Brady-Welker connection was the only combo for the Patriots that was clicking at about 100%, and Edelman could have been started in his place. Welker takes the biggest beating of all the receivers, and he'd already missed games earlier in the year due to injury. It was the perfect time to sit him down, since the team was already making Bodden, Faulk & company inactive.

Moss is different, so I understand playing him. He and Brady haven't been quite as sympatico this season, and a chronic bad back condition isn't going to get better just by sitting out one game. When you toss in the sad reality that there's really not a backup for Moss (Slater?), having him out on the field made a lot more sense to me than having Welker out there.

1-2 series with Brady/Edelman/Aiken/Moss followed by Brady and Moss hitting the bench for the rest of the game is how the team should have played it. I'd have preferred just the 1 series, myself.

It's a good point, and I can understand that viewpoint, but keep in mind that Moss and Welker feed off of each other about as much as any WR duo can in this league. Welker doesn't see the same cushion underneath without Moss drawing coverage, and Moss I'm sure will see different looks now, especially on 3rd down. Getting Brady on the same page with Moss without Welker wouldn't have been as big a help I don't think.

Of course, now that's exactly what we're facing.