NE/CIN observations

[Oswlek]

They don't currently seem to have the horses for this. I think Brady's making things pretty clear today, without actually saying it:

Tom Brady Unhappy With Patriots Lack of Execution on Offense, Says They Need to Start Making Plays NFL Players Make | New England Patriots | NESN.com

As long as Tom is pointing the finger at himself as well, I'm all for this kind of statement. He was terrible yesterday, bad decisions, no touch, inaccuracy, you name it.

Pretty much everyone on the offensive side of the ball was lousy yesterday, including Tom. I view that as a good thing because you can reasonably expect him not to have too many more of those games.

 

[Oswlek]

p sure 4-1 teams with 14.0 opponent ppg have historically finished better than 5-0 teams with 27.8 opponent ppg

Yeah, historically speaking, giving up 48 points in any manner - win or lose - is not nearly as positive of a playoff indicator as giving up only 13, even in a loss.

At some point, just about every playoff team has to win a game scoring 24 or less points. In no way does Denver look ready to pull off that feat just yet.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yeah, historically speaking, giving up 48 points in any manner - win or lose - is not nearly as positive of a playoff indicator as giving up only 13, even in a loss.

At some point, just about every playoff team has to win a game scoring 24 or less points. In no way does Denver look ready to pull off that feat just yet.

The Broncos have won 3 games where they held the opponent to 23 points or fewer and, in those games, the Eagles, Raiders and Giants all got over 20 by scoring garbage time touchdowns.

 

[Oswlek]

The Broncos have won 3 games where they held the opponent to 23 points or fewer and, in those games, the Eagles, Raiders and Giants all got over 20 by scoring garbage time touchdowns.

So as long as they face the Raiders' offense in the playoffs, they'll be fine. :confused2:

 

[Deus Irae]

Not all that relevant to the point. :confused2:

They'd still have won all those games by scoring 24 points or less, which was your stated number. How is that not relevant to a claim that they haven't shown they could win by doing that?

 

[Oswlek]

They'd still have won all those games by scoring 24 points or less, which was your stated number. How is that not relevant to a claim that they haven't shown they could win by doing that?

A) Because those teams are terrible.

B) Because defensive performances when scoring over 40 don't translate at all to how they would if the offense only puts up 21.

Saying, "they only allowed 17 to team X, so they would have won even if they only scored 20" is missing the point entirely.

 

[Deus Irae]

A) Because those teams are terrible.

B) Because defensive performances when scoring over 40 don't translate at all to how they would if the offense only puts up 21.

Saying, "they only allowed 17 to team X, so they would have won even if they only scored 20" is missing the point entirely.

That's just goalpost moving in an attempt to set up a win/win for yourself. If the offense struggles in a game, your next claim will be "but the offense showed it can be stopped".

It's fair to wonder if that team can sustain its current pace, but knocking it now makes us no better than the idiots who were knocking the '07 Patriots early in the year. The Broncos defense has held 3 teams to under 20 points when the score still mattered.

 

[Oswlek]

That's just goalpost moving in an attempt to set up a win/win for yourself. If the offense struggles in a game, your next claim will be "but the offense showed it can be stopped".

It's fair to wonder if that team can sustain its current pace, but knocking it now makes us no better than the idiots who were knocking the '07 Patriots early in the year. The Broncos defense has held 3 teams to under 20 points when the score still mattered.

You are too smart to swallow the BS you are selling, so I'm going to assume you are arguing for argument's sake. If you have a legitimate point to make, have at it.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

I know some people tend to blame Brady but I just don't think he has the confidence in his wideouts.

How could Brady have declined so much in a year. It's the personnel.

Yes he has made some bad decisions but I don't believe all of those mistakes are his fault.

Certainly not all, but it's not all on the wideouts either. That play to Dobson looked like a clear case where Dobson read outside leverage and a vacated safety, and Brady need to make the same read. Clearly, his decision making is affected by a lack of confidence in the wideouts and, when he's under pressure often enough during a game, in the offensive line. I'm not sure there's much to do for the latter. It wold be nice if he didn't rush throws when the protection is there, but that's just human nature, and he is not immune to it, as much as we would like him to be.

However, I think he does need to simply put trust in his teammates to do their job and get rid of the ball more quickly. It's the team mantra, and as much as he needs to avoid mistakes, he also needs to make plays. If the rookies are out-of-position on a hot read, he might give-up a pick, but as long as it's third down, I think that's a chance they need to take when the offense is struggling and the game is tight. Hopefully, trust in the receivers will develop more in the next few weeks and having Gronk back will definitely help overall, provided he doesn't become TB's greatbigbinky.

 

[Deus Irae]

You are too smart to swallow the BS you are selling, so I'm going to assume you are arguing for argument's sake. If you have a legitimate point to make, have at it.

My point is perfectly legitimate. Your argument was a poor one, and you're smart enough to know that.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

You are too smart to swallow the BS you are selling, so I'm going to assume you are arguing for argument's sake. If you have a legitimate point to make, have at it.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...phins-post-game-thread-page8.html#post3268626

Seems pretty clear what he's doing...

 

[Oswlek]

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...phins-post-game-thread-page8.html#post3268626

Seems pretty clear what he's doing...

That is awesome. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[pats4life12]

I agree I thought Allen played his best game yet.

 

[Deus Irae]

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...phins-post-game-thread-page8.html#post3268626

Seems pretty clear what he's doing...

Not really, since you ignore the difference. Here, let me help. Here's me:

The question about the Patriots is whether or not they can beat playoff teams when the offense gets held in check. Today offered nothing to tell us that they can. They struggled to beat the Dolphins and Ryan freakin' Tannehill.

They won in Miami in December. That's great. If Tannehill didn't suck, things could have been different. If you can't see why that's an issue, you haven't watched this team in recent years.

Here's Oswlek:

At some point, just about every playoff team has to win a game scoring 24 or less points. In no way does Denver look ready to pull off that feat just yet.

Notice the difference? It's subtle, but important. "Denver's" playoff issue is that Manning chokes in the big games. It's not a recent failure to win low scoring games. They put up 35 in their loss last year.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Not really, since you ignore the difference. Here, let me help. Here's me:



Here's Oswlek:



Notice the difference? It's subtle, but important.

So you're going to rest your hat on the difference between implicit and explicit?

 

[Deus Irae]

So you're going to rest your hat on the difference between implicit and explicit?

What hat? Oswlek argued that

At some point, just about every playoff team has to win a game scoring 24 or less points. In no way does Denver look ready to pull off that feat just yet.

I demonstrated that to be incorrect, which he acknowledged by changing his follow up post from one of arguing relevance to one that read:

So as long as they face the Raiders' offense in the playoffs, they'll be fine.

Everything since has been a dog and pony show as he tries to walk it back from there.

Hell, if you'd like, we can start bringing in all the SB winning teams and breaking down their wins, too. The Ravens last year, for example, were up 24-9 with 9:22 left in the 4th against the Colts, and they played "run out the clock" for the rest of the game. That doesn't mean that they couldn't have put up more points if they'd chosen to. Hell, on their next drive, they started from the Colts 44 and went with 3 safe plays to Ray Rice instead of trying to push things more aggresively.

That was their only "24 points or less" game in last year's playoffs.

Also, the Chiefs and Broncos are the only teams to hold the Eagles under 30 points, so why wouldn't that game count? There are reasons to think the Broncos can be beaten. The myth that "At some point, just about every playoff team has to win a game scoring 24 or less points. In no way does Denver look ready to pull off that feat just yet" just isn't one of them.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

What hat? Oswlek argued that



I demonstrated that to be incorrect, which he acknowledged by changing his follow up post from one of arguing relevance to one that read:



Everything since has been a dog and pony show as he tries to walk it back from there.

Hell, if you'd like, we can start bringing in all the SB winning teams and breaking down their wins, too.

Sorry "hang your hat on" it's an idiom hang hat on - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Playoffs were brought up in the original post, but the connection between points allowed in them was implicit rather than explicit in your post. The Raiders are then referenced to further that implicit connection, but rather than seeing it you declare the goal posts are being moved. This is a message board not a court of law; the point being made was clear and you're willfully ignoring it. This behavior is exactly why you end up in so many of these dog and pony shows.

And I'd love for you to break such wins. I'm specifically interested to see an explanation as to why giving up 48 points isn't a red flag.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sorry "hang your hat on" it's an idiom hang hat on - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

I know. My point was that it wasn't me hanging a hat here.

Playoffs were brought up in the original post, but the connection between points allowed in them was implicit rather than explicit in your post. The Raiders are then referenced to further that implicit connection, but rather than seeing it you declare the goal posts are being moved. This is a message board not a court of law; the point being made was clear and you're willfully ignoring it. This behavior is exactly why you end up in so many of these dog and pony shows.

The Raiders reply from Oswlek was a changed post from the one I'd initially responded to. He changed his reply from questioning the relevance to specifically pointing to the Raiders. In doing so, he chose to ignore a more high scoring offense in the Eagles, yet I note you've not pointed that out. My point was about the Broncos demonstrating an ability to hold down opponents, which they have demonstrated three times. It was not about the Broncos having some recent trend to overcome with regards to defensive struggles in the playoffs.

I'm specifically interested to see an explanation as to why giving up 48 points isn't a red flag.

I never said it wasn't, but that's a different argument. The ability to be smoked and the ability to hold teams down aren't mutually exclusive, after all. The 1985 Chicago Bears are generally claimed to have been among the best defensive teams of all time, yet the Dolphins hung 38 on them.

 

[mb6592]

last year Stevan Ridley had 490 yards rushing and 4 TD's through the first 5 games when you have a team like the pats had last year and like Denver has this year that can score 35 a game with a unstoppable QB teams forget about the RB. Knowshon Moreno has been in the NFL for 5 years now he is a average back as best

You obvously haven't been watching the Broncos games. He is running much differently this year. My hatred for Manning keeps me glued and you are wrong in your observations if you think you're watching an average back. Also he's averaging 5.1 yds a carry vs Ridley 4.8 yds last year (and 3 catches a game for 25 yards vs Ridley's 1 catch for 10 yds). Remember, the argument is that the Patriots running backs hold a significant edge over the Broncos (and Ronnie Hillman isn't terrible either).

 

[Oswlek]

He changed his reply from questioning the relevance to specifically pointing to the Raiders. In doing so, he chose to ignore a more high scoring offense in the Eagles.

Only you would think that happened, or not see that the Deus post introduced by Move says exactly the same damn thing I said!

But go ahead and keep fighting the good fight, Deus. That's what you seem to be here for, so don't let me stop you. :rocker: