Pats D still Number 2 in AFC points against

[mosslost]

I can think of a few, but not fifteen. Past/present is meaningless. Difference of opinion.

Off the top of my head
Brady
Bledsoe
Namath
Griese
Marino
Kelly
Bradshaw
Roethlisberger
Ken Anderson
esiason
Unitas
Manning
McNair
Stabler
Elway
Rivers
Fouts
Dawson
Simms
Manning
Theisman
Jurgensen
Mcnab
Staubach
Aikman
Favre
Starr
Rodgers
Tarkenton
Moon
Ryan
Brees
Newton
Montana
Brodie
Young
Warner
Wilson
Baugh
Graham

That's 40 to start with.[/QUOTE]
Steven Grogan was way better too

 

[Rob0729]

Can we hold the ravens under 28 next week?

They have scored over 28 points once this season. They have scored 28 or more points twice this season. They have scored under 21 points six time this season and two of those six came in November.

 

[Rob0729]

Because Baltimore is peaking at the right time and forcing turnovers,

Are they peaking or are they just beating bad and mediocre teams? They have only played one good team in the last month and they lost. In fact, they are 1-4 against teams that had 4 or fewer losses before this season. Their first win in this category was against the Dolphins today.

 

[Rob0729]

Yes, the Rams' offense is a joke, but this was an impressive display by the defense. They had given up a little more than 100 yards and three point before that last garbage time TD drive. That is great even against a horrible offense.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

For what it is worth, if Seattle gives up 20 points to Carolina tonight, the Pats and Ravens are tied for least points allowed......not bad such a crappy defense............
They don't have to be the 85 Bears, just prevent a last minute TD and protect a lead.. Are we there yet?? TBD

 

[deroc5050]

Yes it is one of hundreds of stats that are part of playing games that end with a result of points. You are taking one of the hundreds of variables and saying it is more important than the results. It's crazy.
I'll ask question number 4 that you won't answer. You have now altered your argument to say the patriots haven't played well on defense because there are 12 QBs they haven't played and you are now basing how they have played on what you think would happen in those 12 games that they haven't played.
So you said there are 12-15 defenses that have played better. So who are the 12-15 defenses at least 10-13 who allow more points that you are now calling better because you project they will somehow play better against these 12 QBs and what makes them better against those 12 but worse against everyone else?

They played aggresive defense against a rookie. I said their PPG stat wouldn't go up this week against the awful Rams. Add Jared Goff to another great QB they played.

Talk to me after Monday night football. I am not hanging my hat on PPG this season.. they just haven't faced quality offenses most of the year. And I was working while the game was on so what happend to Hightower?

 

[Ring 6]

They played aggresive defense against a rookie. I said their PPG stat wouldn't go up this week against the awful Rams. Add Jared Goff to another great QB they played.

Talk to me after Monday night football.

Another question you refuse to answer.
Today was a total domination by the patriot defense. If you weren't rooting against them you might have noticed.

 

[deroc5050]

Another question you refuse to answer.
Today was a total domination by the patriot defense. If you weren't rooting against them you might have noticed.

lol they played an awful Rams offense, its been bad most of the season. I know your hanging your hat on PPG. I am not. However with that said I liked the way the defense looked today but consider the competition.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, the Rams' offense is a joke, but this was an impressive display by the defense. They had given up a little more than 100 yards and three point before that last garbage time TD drive. That is great even against a horrible offense.

Actually less than 100.
Garbage time td obscured what otherwise may have been the best game any NFL defense has played this season.

 

[Ring 6]

lol they played an awful Rams offense, its been bad most of the season. I know your hanging your hat on PPG. I am not. However with that said I liked the way the defense looked today but consider the competition.

I am not hanging my hat on anything I am saying, quite correctly according to BB that you judge a unit and team by the only stat that really matters, the score.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

I can think of a few, but not fifteen. Past/present is meaningless. Difference of opinion.

Off the top of my head
Brady
Bledsoe
Namath
Griese
Marino
Kelly
Bradshaw
Roethlisberger
Ken Anderson
esiason
Unitas
Manning
McNair
Stabler
Elway
Rivers
Fouts
Dawson
Simms
Manning
Theisman
Jurgensen
Mcnab
Staubach
Aikman
Favre
Starr
Rodgers
Tarkenton
Moon
Ryan
Brees
Newton
Montana
Brodie
Young
Warner
Wilson
Baugh
Graham

That's 40 to start with.[/QUOTE]
I respect your opinion, but we do totally disagree on this. Thanks for not putting McMahon in there. Head-to-head, Jim beat Namath, Griese, Marino, Fouts, Dawson, Anderson, Esiason, Unitas, Manning (Archie), Stabler, Elway, Simms, Theisman, Jurgensen, Tarkenton, and Montana. Wilson: Russell, nope. Wade, worse. Marc, the guy the Raiders kept trying to start over Jim (and really did in '86 playoffs and of course lost-to us) and spent some terrible time here too, worst.

In a title game, which it goes without saying you have to win, for instance, you'd choose Wilson, Bledsoe, Kelly, Roethlisberger, Manning (Peyton or Eli), McNair, Rivers, McNabb, Aikman, Rodgers, Moon, Ryan, Brees, Newton, Brodie, Young, and Warner. I would totally expect to win starting Plunkett over all of them. That does leave seven guys whom I might not win against. Maybe.

 

[Ring 6]

Off the top of my head
Brady
Bledsoe
Namath
Griese
Marino
Kelly
Bradshaw
Roethlisberger
Ken Anderson
esiason
Unitas
Manning
McNair
Stabler
Elway
Rivers
Fouts
Dawson
Simms
Manning
Theisman
Jurgensen
Mcnab
Staubach
Aikman
Favre
Starr
Rodgers
Tarkenton
Moon
Ryan
Brees
Newton
Montana
Brodie
Young
Warner
Wilson
Baugh
Graham

That's 40 to start with.

I respect your opinion, but we do totally disagree on this. Thanks for not putting McMahon in there. Head-to-head, Jim beat Namath, Griese, Marino, Fouts, Dawson, Anderson, Esiason, Unitas, Manning (Archie), Stabler, Elway, Simms, Theisman, Jurgensen, Tarkenton, and Montana. Wilson: Russell, nope. Wade, worse. Marc, the guy the Raiders kept trying to start over Jim (and really did in '86 playoffs and of course lost-to us) and spent some terrible time here too, worst.

In a title game, which it goes without saying you have to win, for instance, you'd choose Wilson, Bledsoe, Kelly, Roethlisberger, Manning (Peyton or Eli), McNair, Rivers, McNabb, Aikman, Rodgers, Moon, Ryan, Brees, Newton, Brodie, Young, and Warner. I would totally expect to win starting Plunkett over all of them. That does leave seven guys whom I might not win against. Maybe.[/QUOTE]
Head to head he lost to those guys too probably more than he won.
I'm going to stop here because I think you couldn't be more wrong and there is no point left in having a discussion

I'll just end with this fact. Jim plunketts career record 72-72

 

[Fixit]

Is there another Jim Plunkett I should know about? I remember being confused a few years ago when there were two Adrian Petersons running around.

The reason I ask is because the Jim Plunkett I'm familiar with has a career .500 record, barely completed half of his passes, and threw way more picks than TDs.

 

[mosslost]

Off the top of my head
Brady
Bledsoe
Namath
Griese
Marino
Kelly
Bradshaw
Roethlisberger
Ken Anderson
esiason
Unitas
Manning
McNair
Stabler
Elway
Rivers
Fouts
Dawson
Simms
Manning
Theisman
Jurgensen
Mcnab
Staubach
Aikman
Favre
Starr
Rodgers
Tarkenton
Moon
Ryan
Brees
Newton
Montana
Brodie
Young
Warner
Wilson
Baugh
Graham

That's 40 to start with.

I respect your opinion, but we do totally disagree on this. Thanks for not putting McMahon in there. Head-to-head, Jim beat Namath, Griese, Marino, Fouts, Dawson, Anderson, Esiason, Unitas, Manning (Archie), Stabler, Elway, Simms, Theisman, Jurgensen, Tarkenton, and Montana. Wilson: Russell, nope. Wade, worse. Marc, the guy the Raiders kept trying to start over Jim (and really did in '86 playoffs and of course lost-to us) and spent some terrible time here too, worst.

In a title game, which it goes without saying you have to win, for instance, you'd choose Wilson, Bledsoe, Kelly, Roethlisberger, Manning (Peyton or Eli), McNair, Rivers, McNabb, Aikman, Rodgers, Moon, Ryan, Brees, Newton, Brodie, Young, and Warner. I would totally expect to win starting Plunkett over all of them. That does leave seven guys whom I might not win against. Maybe.[/QUOTE]

In all honestly you just continue to lose all credibility

 

[Bruins29]

Actual Pats Fan. Let me just be brutally honest with you. Its' the Boston in me.

You are an idiot for even thinking some of these QBs are not as good/clutch as Jim Plunkett. To actually write this on a public message board is literally inexplicable.

Talk about doubling down on some stupidity. Stop posting for your own good. Go out and get a life.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

I respect your opinion, but we do totally disagree on this. Thanks for not putting McMahon in there. Head-to-head, Jim beat Namath, Griese, Marino, Fouts, Dawson, Anderson, Esiason, Unitas, Manning (Archie), Stabler, Elway, Simms, Theisman, Jurgensen, Tarkenton, and Montana. Wilson: Russell, nope. Wade, worse. Marc, the guy the Raiders kept trying to start over Jim (and really did in '86 playoffs and of course lost-to us) and spent some terrible time here too, worst.

In a title game, which it goes without saying you have to win, for instance, you'd choose Wilson, Bledsoe, Kelly, Roethlisberger, Manning (Peyton or Eli), McNair, Rivers, McNabb, Aikman, Rodgers, Moon, Ryan, Brees, Newton, Brodie, Young, and Warner. I would totally expect to win starting Plunkett over all of them. That does leave seven guys whom I might not win against. Maybe.

Head to head he lost to those guys too probably more than he won.
I'm going to stop here because I think you couldn't be more wrong and there is no point left in having a discussion

I'll just end with this fact. Jim plunketts career record 72-72[/QUOTE]
He did lose more to Griese. The Dolphins QB. He lost once each to Stabler and Anderson.

'NFL Films Presents': Perseverance pays off

Drew Bledsoe's record: 98-95.....18 more losses than Dave Krieg...33 more losses than McNabb

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Actual Pats Fan. Let me just be brutally honest with you. Its' the Boston in me.

You are an idiot for even thinking some of these QBs are not as good/clutch as Jim Plunkett. To actually write this on a public message board is literally inexplicable.

Talk about doubling down on some stupidity. Stop posting for your own good. Go out and get a life.

To be clear, Plunkett bumbled into 2 Super Bowl wins. And, he clearly qualifies as one of the Heisman NFL busts.

 

[Bruins29]

To be clear, Plunkett bumbled into 2 Super Bowl wins. And, he clearly qualifies as one of the Heisman NFL busts.

Great, but lets not get carried away here.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

I honestly don't think our defense has to be dominant. I just want to see some good complementary football, with a couple of key 3rd down stops and game-changing plays. That's the true mark of a championship-caliber team.

But for what it's worth...here are some some surprising stats

 

[Ring 6]

I honestly don't think our defense has to be dominant. I just want to see some good complementary football, with a couple of key 3rd down stops and game-changing plays. That's the true mark of a championship-caliber team.

But for what it's worth...here are some some surprising stats

The defense everyone says can't get off the field is 8th in first downs allowed too.