VrabelJr
Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 8,118
- Reaction score
- 7,741
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Yea. Not as deep as last year's but still strong.Actually, the good news is the Pats don't face many good QBs this season. Only really face Luck, the Mannings (if one or both aren't toast), Roethlisberger, Romo, and Tannehill (depending on which Tannehill shows up).
Our front seven is a hell of a lot better than it was in 2011. I know that for sure. We can still be a top 10 defense (depending on which stats you use to determine that) even with our current CBs.
On the 2011 defense you can count two players that played at a ProBowl level.
On the 2015 D you can count 5-6
This may be proof that measurables don't mean ****. His pro day, 4.44 forty, 40 inch verticle, 10'7" long jump, measured at 6'0" and 200 pounds. You would think he wouldn't be so horrible with those measurables.
Here's my response, go look it up. I didn't say anything about winning, winning is the end result but hey if your okay with getting carved up by mediocre qbs then to each his own.
Yea. Not as deep as last year's but still strong.
But I get you and your type I really do, your the type of fan that will walk head on into traffic if BB told you it was good for you.
That is a misnomer. The Pats give up a lot of yards to mediocre QBs in the past, but not a lot of points.
Clearly you know your argument is crap because you decide to criticize me for valuing winning.Actually I did respond. Nobody is crying about passing yards, it's frustrating win or lose watching crap qbs look like hall of fame players. But I get you and your type I really do, your the type of fan that will walk head on into traffic if BB told you it was good for you.
That doesn't matter. Team record is not a fantasy football category.You are talking 3-4 years ago to talk about today? Well, we can chock the Giants game as a loss even if they had Revis because the Giants alway beat the Pats no matter who is playing. Revis isn't going to change that. Should deactivate Brady and Gronk for those games. The past for predicting the future is always 100%.
And even if we do look at the past. Some of these scrub QBs got tons of yards in the past, but the Pats still were pretty good in points allowed those years. This past year the Pats were 13th in points allowed with Revis and Browner, they were 15th in 2011 with a horrible secondary, 9th in 2012 and didn't have Talib until midseason (and his play was overrated that year), 8th in points allowed in 2010, and 5th in points allowed in 2009. So even with crappy secondaries, the Pats historically haven't given up a lot of points.
Actually I did respond. Nobody is crying about passing yards, it's frustrating win or lose watching crap qbs look like hall of fame players. But I get you and your type I really do, your the type of fan that will walk head on into traffic if BB told you it was good for you.
Eh! I don't think the QBs they are facing are all that good. I still think Peyton may be done. Tannehill is eratic. But for argument sake, say they all are good QBs. That is still 7 out of 16 games. Only Luck is elite (unless Peyton rebounds). And only Ben and Romo are other ones in the top 5-10 range.
I think the Pats as of right now look to have it pretty easy in terms of QB competition. Might be one of the easiest schedules based on what QBs they are facing in the league. Granted come during the season it could be far harder or easier than we expect right now. But the Pats have a very weak schedule on paper in terms of QBs they are facing.
1/2 the games vs functional to good QBs is a lot.
Last year the Pats were great at making Dalton, Luck, Orton, Cutler, Stafford, Tannehill, P Manning and Rivers, Cassell look very average. Geno Smith- the most unlikely of the bunch performed pretty well. Only Rodgers and Alex Smith looked like worldbeaters and you can make the case that Rodgers was controlled in the 2nd 1/2.
As or right now, there is a greater chance Luck and other marginal Qbs throwing for 300 and doing well on 3rd down than not. The question is that do these QBs lead their team to a win.
let hope the bad to functional don't become good.Nah! Some teams have six games in their own division with functional to good QBs every year. If you are in Minnesota, you face Rodgers, Stafford, and Cutler six games a year. If you are Cleveland, you got Roethlisberger and Flacco and Dalton (who is middle of the pack). If you the Raiders, you have Manning, Rivers, and Smith for six games every year. And that is before you even go outside the division.
Most teams have at least two QBs in their division who are functional to great. The Pats have one and he is closer to functional than great. That means most teams automatically have four game against functional to great QBs and are likely to have at least 3-4 more in out of division games. Having seven games vs. functional to great QBs is pretty standard.
let hope the bad to functional don't become good.
He did ok vs NE. Last 4 game of the year he played well overall.For whatever freakish reason Geno Smith plays great against us.
Clearly you know your argument is crap because you decide to criticize me for valuing winning.
What it comes down to is you criticize Belichicks scheme and philosophy.
The point is that you are ignorant to what matters because you care more about how many fantasy points are put up rather than whether your team wins.
I will take a 500 yard passing day from Mark Sanchez and a win over a 50 yard passing day from Aaron Rodgers and a loss.
I get you and your type too. Fantasy football fans.
Here is a hint for you. When you are on the side of criticizing the greatest coach of his generation and claiming those who disagree with you think he is flawless, you end up being wrong a lot more than you are right.