10 most important x-factors who will impact the 2012 season

[gobesmug]

LOL......you took the comments backwards. It was wishing that the pats did not have to count on brady so much that was the point.

any team that succeeded with an older QB did so because the QB was THE MAN. Elway was THE MAN in name only as it was terrell davis (the league MVP at the time) that was the difference for that team.

God....you are such an idiot

The last season John Elway played in, the Broncos went 14-2 and won the superbowl.

The next season, they go 6-10. Yeah Elway had nothing to do with the Broncos success.

 

[Rob0729]

The last season John Elway played in, the Broncos went 14-2 and won the superbowl.

The next season, they go 6-10. Yeah Elway had nothing to do with the Broncos success.

When people talk about Terrell Davis getting Elway over the hump, they talk about how Elway brought three fairly average talent teams to the Super Bowl and lost and only could win when they gave him some real weapons. It wasn't like people think that Elway wasn't talented enough to win the Super Bowl without one of the greatest RBs of all time (at least for a very short period before injuries killed his career). People thought he wasn't talented enough to bring teams devoid of talent to actually win a Super Bowl.

 

[IllegalContact]

The last season John Elway played in, the Broncos went 14-2 and won the superbowl.

The next season, they go 6-10. Yeah Elway had nothing to do with the Broncos success.

LOL.....I'm sure losing terrell davis (league MVP) for the season had nothing to do with it

is that an eyeroll? or are you doing your damned good impression of being down-syndrome?

 

[patfanken]

LOL.....I'm sure losing terrell davis (league MVP) for the season had nothing to do with it

is that an eyeroll? or are you doing your damned good impression of being down-syndrome?

That was in bad taste and completely uncalled for. Now after embarrassing your self for close to a week, you cap it off by being an asshat. Nice work. :rolleyes; How do you like MY impression....jerk.

 

[IllegalContact]

That was in bad taste and completely uncalled for. Now after embarrassing your self for close to a week, you cap it off by being an asshat. Nice work. :rolleyes; How do you like MY impression....jerk.

shaddup......here's a hankie


LOL.....you're from Canton, too

I didn't know we had idiots like you around here

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

shaddup......here's a hankie


LOL.....you're from Canton, too

I didn't know we had idiots like you around here

So what is your plan? What should the Pats do that would give them a better chance to win the SB? Rely more on the run; bench Brady? I'm curious to hear, after all of this back-and-forth, what you see as our biggest problem and propose the solution.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

The next X-factor

 

[Deus Irae]

....

7.) Defensive "coordinator":

Does BB take less of a hands on approach, and how does that impact that defense?...

It didn't take long for movement on this one.....

Matt Patricia has been named defensive coordinator

Patriots announce position responsibilities for 2012 coaching staff and addition of two new coaches

 

[gobesmug]

LOL.....I'm sure losing terrell davis (league MVP) for the season had nothing to do with it

is that an eyeroll? or are you doing your damned good impression of being down-syndrome?

Terrell Davis started the first 3 games of the season. Guess what there starting record was? 0-3, not 3-0 but 0-3. Keep making a fool of yourself.

 

[Ive_Killed_People]

Biggest x-factor? That's easy No Lawfirm. Everyone that runs the ball this year with the possible exception of Brady will be more explosive than the Lawfirm. For a Lawfirm he ran like he was afraid to get sued by hitting someone. I got so tired of seeing him run into the back of our o-line. Know why he never fumbled? HE NEVER STAYED UPRIGHT LONG ENOUGH! I hated seeing him get the ball on 1st and 10 you just knew it was going to be 2nd and 9! Ridley and Vareen looked good in limited action and Danny is very elusive. We should be much improved.

 

[IllegalContact]

That was in bad taste and completely uncalled for. Now after embarrassing your self for close to a week, you cap it off by being an asshat. Nice work. :rolleyes; How do you like MY impression....jerk.

So what is your plan? What should the Pats do that would give them a better chance to win the SB? Rely more on the run; bench Brady? I'm curious to hear, after all of this back-and-forth, what you see as our biggest problem and propose the solution.

be a more balanced team.....betwen offense and defense, and be a more balanced team between running and passing. just like manning with the colts, depending on one guy who just turned 35 is a recipe for disaster. their prospects for success are strictly tied to the physical health of a 35 year old QB.....the pats would have had a top 5 pick last year if it weren't for brady.

 

[IllegalContact]

Terrell Davis started the first 3 games of the season. Guess what there starting record was? 0-3, not 3-0 but 0-3. Keep making a fool of yourself.

what's your point? bubby brister was 4-0 in 1998....he had a better record than elway in 1998 and a higher QB rating too....there was a reason elway retired

he was dealing with leg problems starting with preseason. in fact, davis was never the same after the 1998 season. they also lost shannon sharp. between the 2, that's 3000 yards of offense.

go learn something

 

[Marqui]

be a more balanced team.....betwen offense and defense, and be a more balanced team between running and passing. just like manning with the colts, depending on one guy who just turned 35 is a recipe for disaster. their prospects for success are strictly tied to the physical health of a 35 year old QB.....the pats would have had a top 5 pick last year if it weren't for brady.

He's actually not wrong about this part.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

be a more balanced team.....betwen offense and defense, and be a more balanced team between running and passing. just like manning with the colts, depending on one guy who just turned 35 is a recipe for disaster. their prospects for success are strictly tied to the physical health of a 35 year old QB.....the pats would have had a top 5 pick last year if it weren't for brady.

Without trying to be confrontational, I am just wondering if you are aware of this fact:

The Giants were the 32nd ranked rushing offense last year.

In addition, there was not a single elite quarterback (besides possibly Romo and an injured Rivers) who didn't make the postseason last year. Meanwhile Adrian Peterson, Chris Johnson, Maurice Jones-Drew, and the usual group of all-pro running backs were sitting at home watching the games on television.

The RBs in the Super Bowl the last five years:

Green-Ellis
Maroney
Bradshaw
Jacobs
Grant
Thomas
Bush
Addai
Hightower
Mendenaal

This is why I don't think Belichick thinks it's important to have a "stud" running back, as they are no longer worth the money they cost. The Patriots will settle for average backs, as clearly the recent SB champs have done the same. Now, back in Elway's day, we were in an era of Thurman Thomas, Emmit Smith, Barry Sanders, Marshall Faulk, etc. where it was important to have a stud ball carrier. The league has changed, so I don't see a big need to have a more run-focused offense.

However, on defense, I agree 100%. People forget about just how good our defense used to be, and during this last Super Bowl, we never really felt comfortable because we knew when push came to shove, the Giants D would step up and ours would fail. We were right.

The last star running-back to play in the Super Bowl was Shaun Alexander in 2005 (unless you count a worn down Edgerrin James in 2008 who wasn't even the primary back.)

 

[Ive_Killed_People]

Our passing offense= Dynamic, our rushing offense=mediocre. So yeah, obviously we need to run it more. Why stop running on 2nd and 9? We could run on 3 and 8 too! And then we could punt on 4th and 7! Why we would never have to even put the ball in that 35 year old QB's hand ever again! Most people would say "Put the ball in your best players hands" But you guys are WAY smarter than that! Imagine all the high first round picks we could get using that strategy! The scales have been on the dynamic side for too long! Let's get some damn mediocrity in there whoo hoo! Hey,any of you guys know if Howdy Doody is new tonight? Because this is 1955 right? Ground and pound baby!!!!!

 

[IllegalContact]

and yet the giants out-rushed the pats in the SB....this is not the only factor in my opinion, but there are several that are interrelated......regardless of what brady did last year, it is a fact that older players are more brittle than younger ones and get more brittle the more they age. So while brady has still performed at a high level, the CHANCES keep going up that he will experience injuries that will affect his play.....maybe not knock him out of a game, but prevent him from doing as well the things that the scheme depends on to be as good as it is. if his injuries are severe enough, the pats are screwed. and yet, for the last 4 years, the pats have run the ball less and less each year.

so....the question begs: why would you NOT make the scheme more diverse in order to protect your most valuable asset as the chances of injury increase? why would you NOT put something in place to prevent it from being obvious you're going to throw the ball 40-50 times when everything is on the line?

which is why i have him as an X factor....the question is "can he make it through a whole season again?"

Without trying to be confrontational, I am just wondering if you are aware of this fact:

The Giants were the 32nd ranked rushing offense last year.

In addition, there was not a single elite quarterback (besides possibly Romo and an injured Rivers) who didn't make the postseason last year. Meanwhile Adrian Peterson, Chris Johnson, Maurice Jones-Drew, and the usual group of all-pro running backs were sitting at home watching the games on television.

The RBs in the Super Bowl the last five years:

Green-Ellis
Maroney
Bradshaw
Jacobs
Grant
Thomas
Bush
Addai
Hightower
Mendenaal

This is why I don't think Belichick thinks it's important to have a "stud" running back, as they are no longer worth the money they cost. The Patriots will settle for average backs, as clearly the recent SB champs have done the same. Now, back in Elway's day, we were in an era of Thurman Thomas, Emmit Smith, Barry Sanders, Marshall Faulk, etc. where it was important to have a stud ball carrier. The league has changed, so I don't see a big need to have a more run-focused offense.

However, on defense, I agree 100%. People forget about just how good our defense used to be, and during this last Super Bowl, we never really felt comfortable because we knew when push came to shove, the Giants D would step up and ours would fail. We were right.

The last star running-back to play in the Super Bowl was Shaun Alexander in 2005 (unless you count a worn down Edgerrin James in 2008 who wasn't even the primary back.)

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

what's your point?

The next point

 

[Rob0729]

Are we going to this running game is the reason why the Pats lost the Super Bowl argument again? Yes, the Giants did out rush the Pats in the Super Bowl, but they are the first Super Bowl winner in the last four Super Bowls to rush for more than 60 yards in that game. The Packers, Saints, and Steelers all won Super Bowls without an effective running game. I am also pretty sure they were all outrushed by their opponents in those games.

This thread has turned into the typical reach for straw arguments that certain negative people always want to inject into these conversations.

 

[Deus Irae]

and yet the giants out-rushed the pats in the SB....

Individual game rushing results are generally meaningless when confronted with the stats for the entire season. That's obviously the case with what you're citing, as well.

this is not the only factor in my opinion, but there are several that are interrelated......regardless of what brady did last year, it is a fact that older players are more brittle than younger ones and get more brittle the more they age. So while brady has still performed at a high level, the CHANCES keep going up that he will experience injuries that will affect his play.....maybe not knock him out of a game, but prevent him from doing as well the things that the scheme depends on to be as good as it is. if his injuries are severe enough, the pats are screwed. and yet, for the last 4 years, the pats have run the ball less and less each year.

The Patriots offensive ranking (points) since the offensive renovation post-2006:

1
9
6
1
3

In the meantime, the league has become much more pass oriented. The Giants had only 411 rushing attempts last year, compared to the Patriots 438. The Packers had 395, the Saints had 431, the Steelers had 434 and that powerhouse running team named the Ravens had 459.

so....the question begs: why would you NOT make the scheme more diverse in order to protect your most valuable asset as the chances of injury increase? why would you NOT put something in place to prevent it from being obvious you're going to throw the ball 40-50 times when everything is on the line?

People *****ed about the empty backfield, too. Well, that's used less often, and you're still *****ing. Brady's highest pass total in the playoffs was 41, which is not exactly a terrible number, particularly given that Manning threw 40 times in the same game.

which is why i have him as an X factor....the question is "can he make it through a whole season again?"

That question can be asked of every QB in the NFL. It's such an obvious issue for the sport that it's a meaningless question unless you're looking at a QB with a history of missing games year after year, like a Schaub or Vick.

 

[patfanken]

Are we going to this running game is the reason why the Pats lost the Super Bowl argument again? Yes, the Giants did out rush the Pats in the Super Bowl, but they are the first Super Bowl winner in the last four Super Bowls to rush for more than 60 yards in that game. The Packers, Saints, and Steelers all won Super Bowls without an effective running game. I am also pretty sure they were all outrushed by their opponents in those games.

This thread has turned into the typical reach for straw arguments that certain negative people always want to inject into these conversations.

I completely reject the idea that we are going to the running game more as a reaction to the Super Bowl loss. However there are a number of reasons that we will probable feature the run a bit more than last season

1. increase our time of possession. It keeps the other team's offense on the bench and takes pressure of our more talented, but still very young defense.

2. Take some of the pressure off of Tom Brady. If he's throwing the ball, say, 100 times less this season, he will be fresher for the playoffs, both mentally and physically.

3. We have the talent. We have more pure talent at the RB position between Ridely, Vareen, Woody, and Addai, than we've had in a long time.

4. Don't forget we will have an offensive line that both big and athletic enough to create holes for these RBs....and in runs almost 2 deep at every position. This will be a very good rushing OL.

5. A good running game enhances the play action passing game - We can put 3 TEs on the field and demand teams respect our run game. While at the same time those 3 TEs are adept and dangerous receivers. The PAP can be a super effective weapon for this offense.

6. We currently have 3, that's THREE FBs on the roster, That's not a typo. A team that hasn't had a FB on the roster since 2008, looks like at ONE of those guys will make the roster, and it won't be because we need another receiver coming out of the backfield.

BOTTOM LINE: This has NOTHING to do with the Super Bowl. The Pats are going to run the ball more simply because we have the talent to do it, and do it well. All of which will make the rest of the offense just that much more effective....and help the defense too.