Dr. Z: Old and Tired

[letekro]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/dr_z/12/05/ranks.part1/index.html

First, he says the O-line and D-line got pushed around. Then in the next sentence he wonders whether the Pats are just "old and tired."

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the game would have to know that the Pats' OL and DL are very young, with Matt Light (maybe) the only one not in his 20s.

I fail to see how their lines getting dominated has any relation to the team being old.

In fact, I'm getting sick of this rationale, because it's just not true - Yes, our D has 3 old guys on it. Our O has zero old guys (one if you count K. Brady). So that's three old guys total. Is that really more than average???

 

[Mike the Brit]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/dr_z/12/05/ranks.part1/index.html

First, he says the O-line and D-line got pushed around. Then in the next sentence he wonders whether the Pats are just "old and tired."

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the game would have to know that the Pats' OL and DL are very young, with Matt Light (maybe) the only one not in his 20s.

I fail to see how their lines getting dominated has any relation to the team being old.

In fact, I'm getting sick of this rationale, because it's just not true - Yes, our D has 3 old guys on it. Our O has zero old guys (one if you count K. Brady). So that's three old guys total. Is that really more than average???

I've got to say it: I thought the thread title was about "Dr" Z.

 

[Buchanty]

After the last two close games, there are some that scent blood in the water, and they are sharpening their pencils to be the first to declare the end of the run.

One of the popular chants from the anti-Pats brigade is that our D is old, by which they do mean our linebackers (they may even include #37 in there), and they have been saying it all season, so nothing really new.

All that is being added is the obvious observation that the team is tired, and I think that is valid. Tom alluded to it a couple of weeks back when he said that night games disrupt his schedule, and he loses sleep as a result. Three in a row has to have some effect, and I'm guessing that's why they got a light day with no practice today.

Three night games, and 3 out 4 requiring 4th quarter comebacks will drain you. So Dr Z is not far off the mark, he's just sprinked in the Old D myth to make his prognostications more valid.

Steve Young also referenced the lull in the season and its a mark of a champion whether you can rise back above it to the level of dominance you had before. I wouldn't guarantee that they can, but believe that team captains and the coaching staff are going to be be going all out to get back to trim.

The Steelers will still have to bring their A' game to beat the Patriots in Foxboro. It is possible, but I think that they too are flawed and a little tired (their last few games haven't inspired confidence especially with Parker's fumbles).

 

[Metaphors]

Here we go again...

• Ravens went 3-11 on 3rd down (27%)
• Ravens had five 3-play drives and one 5-play drive (5 punts/1 int)
• Ravens in 1st half: 19 carries for 67 yds (3.5 ypc, long of 15)
• Ravens in 4th qtr: 6 carries for 4 yds (0.7 ypc, long of 2)
• Ravens threw for 158 yds
• Ravens scored 10 points

If that is all the information you had, you would say that the Pats' defense had a dominating day. The only things left out of my information above? The Ravens two 3rd-quarter drives and the hail mary at the end of the game.

The Pats' defense had 2 bad drives coming out of halftime. That's it. That's all. You can't have 2 good drives in a quarter and say that you dominated a team. If that is the case, the Colts, Eagles and Ravens were all dominated by the Pats. Does anyone think that is the case?

 

[Lansdowne]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/dr_z/12/05/ranks.part1/index.html

First, he says the O-line and D-line got pushed around. Then in the next sentence he wonders whether the Pats are just "old and tired."

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the game would have to know that the Pats' OL and DL are very young, with Matt Light (maybe) the only one not in his 20s.

I fail to see how their lines getting dominated has any relation to the team being old.

In fact, I'm getting sick of this rationale, because it's just not true - Yes, our D has 3 old guys on it. Our O has zero old guys (one if you count K. Brady). So that's three old guys total. Is that really more than average???

The linebacking core is old (or filled with crafty veterans ), but every other unit is young. The oldest guy on both lines is Stephen Neal at 31.

 

[letekro]

I'm just sayin', if the lines are getting pushed around, then, if anything, the problem is fatigue, lack of talent, or lack of technique- it CAN'T be old age.

 

[Wax Frog]

Three night games, and 3 out 4 requiring 4th quarter comebacks will drain you. So Dr Z is not far off the mark, he's just sprinked in the Old D myth to make his prognostications more valid.

Hopefully those 2 consecutive night games in less than ideal conditions will balance things out...

 

[stinkypete]

Here we go again...

• Ravens went 3-11 on 3rd down (27%)
• Ravens had five 3-play drives and one 5-play drive (5 punts/1 int)
• Ravens in 1st half: 19 carries for 67 yds (3.5 ypc, long of 15)
• Ravens in 4th qtr: 6 carries for 4 yds (0.7 ypc, long of 2)
• Ravens threw for 158 yds
• Ravens scored 10 points

If that is all the information you had, you would say that the Pats' defense had a dominating day. The only things left out of my information above? The Ravens two 3rd-quarter drives and the hail mary at the end of the game.

The Pats' defense had 2 bad drives coming out of halftime. That's it. That's all. You can't have 2 good drives in a quarter and say that you dominated a team. If that is the case, the Colts, Eagles and Ravens were all dominated by the Pats. Does anyone think that is the case?

Your rational, fact based way of thinking is not welcome on this board

 

[TIMEsteelersfan]

I think when a team is as good as the Patriots are this year there's always people trying to make a case for why their "not as good as advertised". It's the norm... conflict creates good TV. Not everyone wants to hear about how great they are anyway.