First impressions...

[patsox23]

Re: First impressions....

It sure seems like a lot of the new guys are right and Deus is wrong. I don't think anyone is claiming - as you're falsely positing that they are - that it was a flawless performance. From what I'm reading of the game, there was a good deal of sloppiness. But given that the team came away with 34 points (27 on offense) and given that they could've scored 34 all on offense since they essentially called off the dogs toward the end, it seems that the team's production was top-notch enough to overcome the errors and still hang 30+ points on the board.

I don't know why you see looking at the positive aspects of putting up ELITE point totals, even in a somewhat clumsy effort, is deserving of "kool aid" charges. Seems to me you are digging your heels in, as I've seen you do on occasion, and just arguing to WIN. What's the point of that, especially when some of the points you're arguing are false ones that NO ONE is making.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

Re: First impressions....

A couple of points on rebuttle.

4. I failed to mention in my original post that the Browns will soon find themselves in a SD type situation with Anderson and Quinn.

I think it's more a Jon Kitna/Carson Palmer type scenario. Although Quinn is not as good as Palmer.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: First impressions....

Tell me what part of my comments are flat out wrong.

And no, my comparison of today's performance was to teams of '01, '03, and '04, when they were good enough to win 14, 17, and 17 games on their way to winning Super Bowls. I believe I am more realistic in assessing this game as being good enough to beat most teams in the NFL than you are in acting like Chicken Little.

And you're going to respond by attempting to degrade my posts or me in whatever way you can, so I don't particularly care if we disagree on this.

How many times do I have to say the same things?

1.) The team didn't play well today by this season's standards.

2.) I didn't expect the team to always play as well as they had.

3.) I felt that this team was good enough to beat Cleveland even it it played poorly.

4.) I'm almost thrilled with the way this worked out because BB will have plenty to hammer the team about even though they won.

5.) People who think the team played poorly and has real problems to resolve aren't being irrational, whether or not I agree with them.

6.) Your argument that this was a "top notch" performance was refuted by the team's starting quarterback, the team's broadcast crew and the team's head coach. In fact, since you insist on acting as if I'm wrong, let's get the words of BB himself, from Reiss:

I don't think that was either team's best game out there today, but in the end we were able to make a few more plays. We�ll take it and move on to Dallas. It was a physical game. There was a lot of hard hitting out there. I just don't think on our end it was executed the way we are capable of. But, as I said, in the end we made enough plays, and that was good, but we left some out there too. I think we just have to do a better job all the way around in all three areas of the game, and the coaching, and I think we can play better than that.

Brad, I didn't start my posts in this thread as a rebuttle to you. I started them as a rebuttal to the person who called fans "chicken little trolls" because they didn't like the way the Patriots played today.

I really don't care about your opinion in that context, because it's clear that your response was just knee jerk rather than thoughtful, and began by comparing me to Felger. The notion that you should be acting hurt or offended because I'm 'degrading' your posts is simply ridiculous given that you were the first one to be 'degrading'. So, since you can't seem to take what you dish out, and since you can't seem to deal with what's actually in front of you, feel free to take it up with BB, Brady, the broadcasting crew, etc., rather than continuing further with me.

 

[bradmahn]

Re: First impressions....

How many times do I have to say the same things?

1.) The team didn't play well today by this season's standards.

2.) I didn't expect the team to always play as well as they had.

3.) I felt that this team was good enough to beat Cleveland even it it played poorly.

4.) I'm almost thrilled with the way this worked out because BB will have plenty to hammer the team about even though they won.

5.) People who think the team played poorly and has real problems to resolve aren't being irrational, whether or not I agree with them.

6.) Your argument that this was a "top notch" performance was refuted by the team's starting quarterback, the team's broadcast crew and the team's head coach. In fact, since you insist on acting as if I'm wrong, let's get the words of BB himself, from Reiss:




Brad, I didn't start my posts in this thread as a rebuttle to you. I started them as a rebuttal to the person who called fans "chicken little trolls" because they didn't like the way the Patriots played today.

I really don't care about your opinion in that context, because it's clear that your response was just knee jerk rather than thoughtful, and began by comparing me to Felger. The notion that you should be acting hurt or offended because I'm 'degrading' your posts is simply ridiculous given that you were the first one to be 'degrading'. So, since you can't seem to take what you dish out, and since you can't seem to deal with what's actually in front of you, feel free to take it up with BB, Brady, the broadcasting crew, etc., rather than continuing further with me.

Okay, Deus, there was no degradation on my part, simply an observation I made while reading your comments, more specifically this one:

If you think the Patriots of this week were good enough to beat Dallas or Indianapolis, you haven't been watching football this season. The Indianapolis Colts that buried the Buccaneers today would have carved up this week's Patriots just as easily.

Heaping undue praise on opponents + being overly critical of the Patriots + claiming others who see the situation positively are homers or "koolaid drinkers" = Mike Felger

Now, as the coach of this football team, Bill Belichick is supposed to be critical of his team; he coaches for perfection. Even the last few weeks Belichick's responses would make outsiders think his team lost every game. Belichick has a reason for ignoring the good and focusing on the bad, you have no reason other than to attempt to prove your "rationality."

I think the team will be better next week, but it's not irrational for others to disagree given the poor performance in all phases of the game that was witnessed today.

If you would take a step back and assess this game without your expectations, you would realize that this game was anything but "poor." Yes, there were many aspects that could improve (namely red zone offense, and some aspects of the passing game), but they were anything but terrible or poor.

What the koolaid people are going to simply have to accept is that this team is going to be measured against the Colts, the Cowboys, the previous Patriots Super Bowl teams and the all-time great NFL teams by a lot of people, and not just by some Patriots fans that you don't think have sufficient team spirit. Like it or not, what was seen today was simply not good enough for people using that sort of lens while looking at this team.

It is fair to assume these teams are going to be compared to the all-time greats, but many of the "koolaid drinkers" you make reference to also realize that a game like this from the Patriots teams of old would also be considered a success, as I have said before. In that regard, yes, yes this game was "top notch."

I do think that this discussion here stems from both of us slightly exaggerating the other's posts, namely the descriptions of the game as poor and top notch. Do I think this game was perfection? No. Do I think a 17 point win is really good? Yes.

My issue with your posts is that you seem to feel that taking veiled jabs at someone's intellectual capacity or acumen is furthering your argument, and I've seen this from you many times. It's unnecessary and really ruins any sort of discussion on these boards.

 

[patsox23]

Re: First impressions....

Deus, he wins, you lose, shut up. I, for one, would like to hear more of this kind of insightful, tempered comment from the likes of Bradmahn. Keep it up.

 

[bradmahn]

Re: First impressions....

Thanks, patsox.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: First impressions....

Heaping undue praise on opponents + being overly critical of the Patriots + claiming others who see the situation positively are homers or "koolaid drinkers" = Mike Felger

I wasn't overly critical, as anyone with the ability to listen to the coach, listen to the broadcasters, listen to the quarterback, listen to or read the quotes of other Patriots players and/or read other threads on this site such as:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=63178

would seem to agree with.

If that's not good enough for you, how about Karen Guregian:

It would have been easy to be caught looking ahead to Sunday’s showdown with Dallas, particularly with a lesser opponent on the field.

The Patriots also could have been off their game following a short week, having played Monday.

And in some respects, a bit of those elements no doubt came into play. The Pats did not show up with their ‘A’ game yesterday. It was probably something around a ‘C,’ which is frightening, considering the margin of victory.

In fact, feel free to read that entire article for comments from other players:

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1036597

Now, as the coach of this football team, Bill Belichick is supposed to be critical of his team; he coaches for perfection. Even the last few weeks Belichick's responses would make outsiders think his team lost every game. Belichick has a reason for ignoring the good and focusing on the bad, you have no reason other than to attempt to prove your "rationality."



If you would take a step back and assess this game without your expectations, you would realize that this game was anything but "poor." Yes, there were many aspects that could improve (namely red zone offense, and some aspects of the passing game), but they were anything but terrible or poor.

I had no expectations other than victory. I'm simply not a koolaid drinker, apparently unlike yourself. Oddly enough, the team seems to have seen the game essentially as I saw it, and not as you did. In fact, here's how I summed it up in the game thread:

That doesn't mean that it's somehow an evil thing to point it out when the team has been playing flat for 3/4 of a game against an opponent they should defeat easily. The simple truth is that Cleveland is the sort of team that New England should blow away even on a bad day, and that's what we're seeing. it's a 17 point lead, but I don't think anyone here is blind or foolish enough to claim that the Patriots have brought even their "B" game.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: First impressions....

Okay, Deus, there was no degradation on my part, simply an observation I made while reading your comments, more specifically this one....

Heaping undue praise on opponents + being overly critical of the Patriots + claiming others who see the situation positively are homers or "koolaid drinkers" = Mike Felger

Your use of the term "Felgerian" was clearly meant to belittle my point by your own definition, it was clearly a degradation. Glass houses and stones.... or are you now going to pretend that you didn't intend "Felgerian" to have a negative connotation?

It is fair to assume these teams are going to be compared to the all-time greats, but many of the "koolaid drinkers" you make reference to also realize that a game like this from the Patriots teams of old would also be considered a success, as I have said before. In that regard, yes, yes this game was "top notch."

So, as long you can make up your own definitions and rules of applicability, you're correct, huh? Great logic, there. Too bad the team, the media, and many fans don't agree with you. The team did not play "top notch", and that's not going to change no matter how you try to claim otherwise. The definition of "Top notch" is "of the highest quality". The game played by the Patriots was not "of the highest quality", by their own admission.

My issue with your posts is that you seem to feel that taking veiled jabs at someone's intellectual capacity or acumen is furthering your argument, and I've seen this from you many times. It's unnecessary and really ruins any sort of discussion on these boards.

My issue with your posts is that you were the one who cast the first aspersion, were incorrect in doing so, and yet you act as if you're a wounded innocent. If you don't want to be 'degraded', avoid making that first degrading post.

 

[bradmahn]

Re: First impressions....

I wasn't overly critical, as anyone with the ability to listen to the coach, listen to the broadcasters, listen to the quarterback, listen to or read the quotes of other Patriots players and/or read other threads on this site such as:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=63178

would seem to agree with.

If that's not good enough for you, how about Karen Guregian:



In fact, feel free to read that entire article for comments from other players:

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1036597



I had no expectations other than victory. I'm simply not a koolaid drinker, unlike yourself. Oddly enough, the team seems to have seen the game essentially as I saw it, and not as you did. In fact, here's how I summed it up in the game thread:

I don't care if my assessment, a fan, seems to be anything but unbiased to someone like you. Nowhere in this thread did I say they played a great game (in fact I've specifically pointed out areas that need improvement, unlike yourself), and that quote from Guregian proves my point more so than it does yours (because, really, you are arguing on the side of something everyone agrees with). "If you actually read my previous post" you would know how I feel about the margin of victory, which was still very good. Face it, Deus, performances like today's are good enough to win most Sundays, and could easily be competitive (and win) against the likes of the Cowboys and Colts. It would be nice if they played to their potential every game, and they will win every game going away if they do, but it's not going to happen that way.

You've stopped arguing the content of the thread and have resorted to arguing for the sake of arguing because your pride has been hurt. Grow up and stop throwing around the term Kool Aid like it's a bad thing, please.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: First impressions....

I don't care if my assessment, a fan, seems to be anything but unbiased to someone like you. Nowhere in this thread did I say they played a great game (in fact I've specifically pointed out areas that need improvement, unlike yourself), and that quote from Guregian proves my point more so than it does yours (because, really, you are arguing on the side of something everyone agrees with). "If you actually read my previous post" you would know how I feel about the margin of victory, which was still very good. Face it, Deus, performances like today's are good enough to win most Sundays, and could easily be competitive (and win) against the likes of the Cowboys and Colts. It would be nice if they played to their potential every game, and they will win every game going away if they do, but it's not going to happen that way.

Are you kidding me? My 6:20 post:

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not surprised that the team had an off game, and I'm not in any kind of panic about it. However, the playcalling was suspect at times, Brady missed some easy passes to wide open receivers, the defense allowed Cleveland to move the ball far too easily, the punting sucked, and the kicker put one out of bounds. They won while playing poorly and they left plenty of things for BB to hammer them about all week. Fankly, I'm close to thrilled by how it worked out. I'm just not going to bash people for seeing the obvious and coming to a less rosy conclusion about it.

You've been riding my ass because you misunderstood my point the entire time. I wasn't attacking the Patriots or being a "Felgerian", I was merely defending some people who were called trolls just because they are concerned because of the way the team played this game.

You've stopped arguing the content of the thread and have resorted to arguing for the sake of arguing because your pride has been hurt. Grow up and stop throwing around the term Kool Aid like it's a bad thing, please.

How do you think my pride's been hurt? My take on the game is the same as the team, the media, and many of the fans. You seemingly have misunderstood my posts that you were attacking, and you apparently didn't know the definition of "top notch" when you claimed that the Patriots game was that. How is any of that a blow to my pride?

 

[bradmahn]

Re: First impressions....

Your use of the term "Felgerian" was clearly meant to belittle my point by your own definition, it was clearly a degradation. Glass houses and stones.... or are you now going to pretend that you didn't intend "Felgerian" to have a negative connotation?




So, as long you can make up your own definitions and rules of applicability, you're correct, huh? Great logic, there. Too bad the team, the media, and many fans don't agree with you. The team did not play "top notch", and that's not going to change no matter how you try to claim otherwise. The definition of "Top notch" is "of the highest quality". The game played by the Patriots was not "of the highest quality", by their own admission.




My issue with your posts is that you were the one who cast the first aspersion, were incorrect in doing so, and yet you act as if you're a wounded innocent. If you don't want to be 'degraded', avoid making that first degrading post.

If you find the term Felgerian degrading you're a wimp. Period. If I come back and start calling your posts absurd, or nonsense, or attempting to completely discredit your POV because I disagree, that is degrading. You have offered nothing in this thread but garbage like "well the announcers said this" or "Belichick and the players said that." Thanks for contributing. When I ask you for your "scout's" analysis (because you have so obviously belittled my take of the game), you have yet to answer. I made an observation that your willingness to overlook the good in this game is similar to the stances Mike Felger has taken because it is. When you jump on someone or something because they failed in some aspects of the game, then you are irrational.

You are an ass, and I am through discussing this topic with you (to which you will announce that you have "won").

You've jumped on my case because of the use of top notch, when I basically agree that they left plays out on the field. Get over top notch. They won by 17, they won it handily. The outcome was top notch. Read everything else I have said and I think we are in agreement that it could have been better. And Belichick feels that way BECAUSE IT ALWAYS CAN BE, so stop resorting to his and the players' opinions as if they prove your point because they say that about every game.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: First impressions....

If you find the term Felgerian degrading you're a wimp. Period. If I come back and start calling your posts absurd, or nonsense, or attempting to completely discredit your POV because I disagree, that is degrading. You have offered nothing in this thread but garbage like "well the announcers said this" or "Belichick and the players said that." Thanks for contributing. When I ask you for your "scout's" analysis (because you have so obviously belittled my take of the game), you have yet to answer. I made an observation that your willingness to overlook the good in this game is similar to the stances Mike Felger has taken because it is. When you jump on someone or something because they failed in some aspects of the game, then you are irrational.

You are an ass, and I am through discussing this topic with you (to which you will announce that you have "won").

No, you're through discussing the topic because you just realized that you've been arguing the wrong thing for post after post. I had pointed to specific things even before you'd ever made a post on the thread, and you just figured that out because you had either not read the entire thread or you hadn't paid attention to what you'd read. Why don't you just admit your error?

P.S. Why should I "get over top notch" (from your edited post) when you keep insisting it's correct?

 

[bradmahn]

Re: First impressions....

No, you're through discussing the topic because you just realized that you've been arguing the wrong thing for post after post. I had pointed to specific things even before you'd ever made a post on the thread, and you just figured that out because you had either not read the entire thread or you hadn't paid attention to what you'd read. Why don't you just admit your error?

No I'm sick of arguing with someone who is so obviously handcuffed because of someone's use of the words top notch, a colloquialism at that. My argument with you is that you focus on the minutiae while ignoring the big picture.


And let me add that there is no reason for the fans to be concerned with the way they played today. Yes, they can make improvements, but that was not a bad game today and there is no reason for you to be the Knight of the Chicken Little "Trolls" and attempt to defend their position.

I am extremely critical of the way the team plays during the game, much to the annoyance of the people I watch it with. But I will allow the coaches to make the team better (to which I have no effect) and I can examine the game as a whole afterward and feel good about a 17 point win.

The outcome was top notch.

That's why you should get over my use of "top notch," and I have reiterated that many times since I first used the term.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: First impressions....

No I'm sick of arguing with someone who is so obviously handcuffed because of someone's use of the words top notch, a colloquialism at that. My argument with you is that you focus on the minutiae while ignoring the big picture.

Oh, come on, now you're getting ridiculous.

You were the one crying for "minutiae" when you asked me for a "scout's analysis" after I'd already had a post breaking down some of the issues seen in the game. Now you're claiming that I'm the one focusing on it? Is this a new version of Candid Camera or something?

As for "top notch", AGAIN..... you were wrong and continue to defend it. Do you expect me to concede your point when it's being wrong is precisely my point? The team did not give a "top notch" performance.

 

[bradmahn]

Re: First impressions....

Oh, come on, now you're getting ridiculous.

You were the one crying for "minutiae" when you asked me for a "scout's analysis" after I'd already had a post breaking down some of the issues seen in the game. Now you're claiming that I'm the one focusing on it? Is this a new version of Candid Camera or something?

As for "top notch", AGAIN..... you were wrong and continue to defend it. Do you expect me to concede your point when it's being wrong is precisely my point? The team did not give a "top notch" performance.

See, minutiae. Preceding the use of top notch I said "they did not play a great game."

Most people would take that to mean I don't feel they played a great game. It was still a good game. I apologize if my use of the term top notch is different than yours, but I clearly said that it wasn't a great game. And if you look at the stats, the score, the big picture and even the vast majority of play, you too would realize that it wasn't a bad game.

You are arguing with me because you think I thought it was a great game when I said it wasn't. And if you are really arguing with me simply for the "misuse" of top notch, go find yourself a grammar message board.

 

[Fencer]

Re: First impressions....

I feel the exact same way. We always seem more likely to score when we're not deep in the red zone for some reason.

Mike Vrabel's 9 TD catches argue otherwise.

 

[Fencer]

Re: First impressions....

AGAIN, 27 points against any NFL offense is a decent day's work.

It's not too shabby against an NFL defense either.

Still, this game featured:

1. The most points that Pats have given up this season
2. The fewest points the Pats have scored this season
3. Arguably the most lucky breaks the Pats have gotten this season (the bounces on the INTs)

So it's fair to say that, good as it was, this was their least successful performance.

Of course, the opponent may have had something to do with that. The Pats' other four opponents have only slightly more wins, other than against each other, than the Browns have alone.

 

[patfanken]

Re: First impressions....

A couple of points on rebuttle.

1. This was the first time Brady missed open receivers more than a couple of times. I can think of 4 times off hand. He also had 2 or 3 drops go against him. AGAIN, 27 points against any NFL offense is a decent day's work. Most of our complaints are due to how perfect the offense has been in the 4 prior games.

2. I feel that the offense could have added that extra TD in the 4th if it had wanted to.

3. We have all seemed to forget the old adage, "they other guys are on scholarship too." Too many of the negative commentors seem to forget that the Browns are a pretty good football team. They have a lot of rather high draft picks (in each round) who are now coming together under a good HC. I predict they will be spoilers this year, but in the future they will be consistant playoff contenders.

4. I failed to mention in my original post that the Browns will soon find themselves in a SD type situation with Anderson and Quinn.