Excellent proposal: reduce the complexity of the offense

[Patspsycho]

Your posts all season long have spoken for themselves, don't begrudge me for having a memory. And spare me the attitude.

Like I said, speak for yourself. I defended a player who I thought was a solid contributor, and you are reading too much into that.

I've been a fan of this team before you were even old enough to wet your bed, so I think I'm used to the fact that players come and go.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Brady said he played like crap b/c that's the Patriot way. It wasn't his best game, but he did more than enough to win, and again - the passing offense performed well in that game. Both INTs were good plays by the defenders; the miss to Gronk was the big mistake in the game.

Stop just looking at the box score.

As for the rest of your post, it's hard to conjure up a serious response to a barrage of childish rhetorical questions, I suppose to you that's your idea of winning this argument.

But, of course I don't deny the hole the offense put the defense in with the safety. But it was bend don't break that led to such horrible field position. The safety, ultimately, really only cost them 2 points. The 7 that came after are on the defense.



Sure, if Welker catches it, they win. But doesn't that imply the offense played well enough to win? And the defense would have too, before that final drive.

Here's some rhetorical questions back for you: on the flip side, can't we point to just about any 3rd down in the game and say if the defense stops the Giants and forces a punt, we win? Can't we say if Chung was a step earlier on the Manningham throw, we win? If Mayo turns his head and snatches the pass to Cruz and takes it to the house, don't we win? If any defenders grab those fumbles, don't we win? If there weren't twelve men on the field, don't we win?

The thing that you're not grasping is that - long-drives, yielded by our defense, deprive the offense of possessions, which is points. Both in SB42 and SB46 there were less possessions than the norm; and it put the onus on the offense to pitch a perfect game. The offensive productivity of the team in SB46 on a pure possession or per time basis was pretty much the norm for the season. The game was shrunk, and there wasn't room for error.

Intrinsically, you're asking the offense to play a completely perfect game. And you're assuming that the only way the defense can make mistakes comparable to things such as a drop or an interception is to give up a touchdown. Both of these things are overly-simplistic, as is your entire view on the game, and apparently on football.

My god, you are making the "run the ball" dummy in this thread look like Einstein.

Ofcourse you can't conjure up any serious responses.

You have none. So don't try. Just quit while your behind.

It's the Patriot way.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

My god, you are making the "run the ball" dummy in this thread look like Einstein.

Ofcourse you can't conjure up any serious responses.

You have none. So don't try. Just quit while your behind.

It's the Patriot way.

You are so arrogant along with your buddy sandy johnson. Something in the pittsburgh water? There's a reason why people around the league don't like steeler fans. Hint: it's not the steelers team, but more the people from that town.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Your posts all season long have spoken for themselves, don't begrudge me for having a memory. And spare me the attitude.

Don't worry, he and candy johnson think they own the board.

 

[Arrington Planet]

What's NOT "complimentary" about the opponent not scoring for over half the game until they get a FG following an INT and a short field?

That's false. That pick was inside the Giants' 10 yard line, and if I'm not mistaken, the following NYG drive ended with a punt.

(And it was a clear evidence that Brady isn't Manning. Everybody knows that if Eli threw that pass it would have been a miraculous catch.)

Although, I agree with you about Brady's performance in the AFCCG. He didn't play well, missed open receivers (sometimes for clear TDs) and forced the two picks. It's obvious that for Mark Sanchez it would have been a career day, but we can ask Tom a little more .

 

[BradyManny]

My god, you are making the "run the ball" dummy in this thread look like Einstein.

Ofcourse you can't conjure up any serious responses.

You have none. So don't try. Just quit while your behind.

It's the Patriot way.

A whole lotta insults, not much thought or content. That seems to be your typical post in this thread.

 

[BradyManny]

Like I said, speak for yourself. I defended a player who I thought was a solid contributor, and you are reading too much into that.

I've been a fan of this team before you were even old enough to wet your bed, so I think I'm used to the fact that players come and go.

If that's really what you think your posts have conveyed, then I see this conversation isn't going to go far. The majority of reasonable posters on this board thought BJGE was a solid contributor. No one really argued whether or not he was solid. That was not your contention, otherwise it wouldn't have caused the discussions it led to.

Your ironically childish remarks on our age underscore the fact that your posts have become occassionally hostile, stubborn and contrarian in the face of overwhelming evidence that some of your strongly-held opinions - namely the tie between this team's success and its running game - are off the mark. You have a gift of football insight that only a few others here on the board have. Please don't misuse it or take it for granted.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

That's false. That pick was inside the Giants' 10 yard line, and if I'm not mistaken, the following NYG drive ended with a punt.

(And it was a clear evidence that Brady isn't Manning. Everybody knows that if Eli threw that pass it would have been a miraculous catch.)

Although, I agree with you about Brady's performance in the AFCCG. He didn't play well, missed open receivers (sometimes for clear TDs) and forced the two picks. It's obvious that for Mark Sanchez it would have been a career day, but we can ask Tom a little more .

The Super Bowl was dicey without Gronk. It's fustrating but it also should be recognized that along with an excellent team,a good deal of luck is required.

It's unfortunate but.....it was simply not as good an offense without a healthy Gronk.

As such, the moves already taken this offseason should minimize this in 2012.

I don't think there is much more that can be done to make the team "Bernard Pollard" proof.

Time to move on.......and part of that is to dispense with nonsense that can only be proved with some alternate sense of reality.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Don't worry, he and candy johnson think they own the board.

Needless to say, Andy and I aren't exactly expecting you and your soulmate at the next Mensa meeting.

 

[pherein]

My god, you are making the "run the ball" dummy in this thread look like Einstein.

Ofcourse you can't conjure up any serious responses.

You have none. So don't try. Just quit while your behind.

It's the Patriot way.

Look, you can say my name its ok,lol. But I don't understand why you don't see everyone in the world has different points of views, and sometimes we are all right. Its fun to debate. I come here just to post and clear my mind sometimes to get a different perspective, and then think about if Im wrong or not.
I dont post back a lot or get into spats because I have found the answer I am looking for. Im not trying to win anything.
IF the moderators would kindly post a $50 bounty to anyone that wins an argument in forum, I would hit more

But in the end personal attacks take away from discussions, and make both sides say facts and things they don't even care about to compete, or save face. So, the underlining thought is lost, and others that care about the topic lose interest or get confused. You are obviously very competetive

and Im not here to coach you, but there it is.

Funny thing is my dog is now drinking a beer I spilt as I write this and can't stop laughing.

 

[ScottieC]

They need to do something with that offense - It's awful. I'm so sick of going to the Super Bowl. :bricks:

Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[Patspsycho]

If that's really what you think your posts have conveyed, then I see this conversation isn't going to go far. The majority of reasonable posters on this board thought BJGE was a solid contributor. No one really argued whether or not he was solid. That was not your contention, otherwise it wouldn't have caused the discussions it led to.

Your ironically childish remarks on our age underscore the fact that your posts have become occassionally hostile, stubborn and contrarian in the face of overwhelming evidence that some of your strongly-held opinions - namely the tie between this team's success and its running game - are off the mark. You have a gift of football insight that only a few others here on the board have. Please don't misuse it or take it for granted.

The topic isn't BJGE or the running game, but you somehow thinking you're qualified to speak for other people.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Look, you can say my name its ok,lol. But I don't understand why you don't see everyone in the world has different points of views, and sometimes we are all right. Its fun to debate. I come here just to post and clear my mind sometimes to get a different perspective, and then think about if Im wrong or not.
I dont post back a lot or get into spats because I have found the answer I am looking for. Im not trying to win anything.
IF the moderators would kindly post a $50 bounty to anyone that wins an argument in forum, I would hit more

But in the end personal attacks take away from discussions, and make both sides say facts and things they don't even care about to compete, or save face. So, the underlining thought is lost, and others that care about the topic lose interest or get confused. You are obviously very competetive

and Im not here to coach you, but there it is.

Funny thing is my dog is now drinking a beer I spilt as I write this and can't stop laughing.

"Attacks" most often become "personal" when they are spot on. In nothing else works....go victim.

The thread is a discussion on the Lombardi article pertaining to his views on the sophistication of the Patriots offense with relation to the wide receivers.

During the discussion, Victim 1 opined that the Patriots cannot win because of the defense and running game.

1.) Super Bowl XLVI has been played and is a matter historical fact. During the course of events that was Super Bowl XLVI it is a matter of historical fact that the victory "could" have been achieved with a Brady to Welker completion. Not only "could" this have happened, but the correct intuitive interpretation is a victory "would" have happened.

As such, to opine that what happened "can't" happen is diametrically opposed to the reality of what "actually" happened.

2.) The specificity of the article should make it quite clear of the subject of the thread. Furthermore, it should noted that the most important factor of a passing offense is the actual passing offense......which is the topic of the article and thread.

The ground attack and overall proficiency of the defense are critical issues regarding the overall potential success of the franchise. As such, these are most worthy topics for discussion for a fanbase and deserve to be discussed (in other threads).

However, as was noted, the most important factor relating to the pass offense is........the pass offense. Based on it's importance, it need not be readily accepted that all evaluations need be traced back to less relavent areas like the defense.

The sad reality is that this continues to happen time after time within the course of various threads not because of relavence but due to a perculiar fixation spawned from a curious willful need of unrealisitc evaluation.

Victim 2 displayed another perculiar trait that seems to rear itself with more and more regularity- selective evaluation.

A football game is designed to play out over 60 minutes with each play individually contributing to the overall outcome. As such, evaluation of units and players need to be performed within a holistic framework that combines to produce a final outcome.

As such, it's not commendable nor should it be encouraged that evaluations selectively omit pertinant yet damaging events that do not support opinions that are preconcieved nor should it ever be accepted that justification for such events be based on matters which have minimal or zero bearing.

 

[BradyManny]

As such, it's not commendable nor should it be encouraged that evaluations selectively omit pertinant yet damaging events that do not support opinions that are preconcieved nor should it ever be accepted that justification for such events be based on matters which have minimal or zero bearing.

I listed about half a dozen plays the defense failed to make, that likewise would have made a difference in the game, and it garnered no response. I made several points about time of possessions, number of possessions, and offensive & defensive efficiency and it likewise, garnered no response.

At this point, I'm not even sure what you're arguing other than the importance of the Brady-Welker misfire, which no one here denies. In you're laughably simplistic view of the game, you have taken all blame off of the defense.

If you are going to attack people - which you have been doing from the getgo, at least bring some level of objectivity to the table. I'm really not sure I've seen a poster with as undeserved a self-righteousness as you're displaying in this thread. Which says something.

 

[BradyManny]

The topic isn't BJGE or the running game, but you somehow thinking you're qualified to speak for other people.

Again, your posts over the last season speak for themselves. If you think I am misrepresenting them, then I do apologize.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I listed about half a dozen plays the defense failed to make, that likewise would have made a difference in the game, and it garnered no response. I made several points about time of possessions, number of possessions, and offensive & defensive efficiency and it likewise, garnered no response.

At this point, I'm not even sure what you're arguing other than the importance of the Brady-Welker misfire, which no one here denies. In you're laughably simplistic view of the game, you have taken all blame off of the defense.

If you are going to attack people - which you have been doing from the getgo, at least bring some level of objectivity to the table. I'm really not sure I've seen a poster with as undeserved a self-righteousness as you're displaying in this thread. Which says something.

"I'm not even sure what you're arguing......you're laughably simplistic view...."

If you can't understand simple things.....just say so.

 

[BradyManny]

"I'm not even sure what you're arguing......you're laughably simplistic view...."

If you can't understand simple things.....just say so.

No, I understand your simple viewpoint.

But I don't know why you are in here arguing and insulting people.

What you are arguing doesn't tie to the point of this thread. If you want to make a really weak argument about why we lost the Super Bowl, sure, that's fine, you have done that. But not even you are willing to tie it back to the thread, and apply the one play that you are harping on towards coming to a conclusion about this team going forward.

So why are you still here?

 

[Mystery Pats Fan]

They need to do something with that offense - It's awful. I'm so sick of going to the Super Bowl. :bricks:

Stupid is as stupid does.

Its like saying that I will bring my car in for repairs tomorrow in case I have an accident later. If it aint broke..... well, we all know the rest.

What they have done thus far this off season is not to fix it but to add to what already is working making it better.

 

[Off The Grid]

If that's really what you think your posts have conveyed, then I see this conversation isn't going to go far. The majority of reasonable posters on this board thought BJGE was a solid contributor. No one really argued whether or not he was solid. That was not your contention, otherwise it wouldn't have caused the discussions it led to.

Your ironically childish remarks on our age underscore the fact that your posts have become occassionally hostile, stubborn and contrarian in the face of overwhelming evidence that some of your strongly-held opinions - namely the tie between this team's success and its running game - are off the mark. You have a gift of football insight that only a few others here on the board have. Please don't misuse it or take it for granted.

Brother Manny, just want to say that you're a Class Act.

I don't even agree with a word you're saying, regarding Green, who's departure I celebrate every hour on the hour...But your unceasing graciousness in the face of bewilderingly persistent crass behavior is truly admirable.

 

[captain stone]

Look, you can say my name its ok,lol. But I don't understand why you don't see everyone in the world has different points of views, and sometimes we are all right. Its fun to debate. I come here just to post and clear my mind sometimes to get a different perspective, and then think about if Im wrong or not.
I dont post back a lot or get into spats because I have found the answer I am looking for. Im not trying to win anything.
IF the moderators would kindly post a $50 bounty to anyone that wins an argument in forum, I would hit more

But in the end personal attacks take away from discussions, and make both sides say facts and things they don't even care about to compete, or save face. So, the underlining thought is lost, and others that care about the topic lose interest or get confused. You are obviously very competetive

and Im not here to coach you, but there it is.

Funny thing is my dog is now drinking a beer I spilt as I write this and can't stop laughing.

What beer does your dog prefer?