PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

Secondary - Questions Answered


Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree the secondary looked good.. but it's one game. Certainly we are not about to go with the players that look best that week. If that was the case, Brady would have been benched because he didn't look too hot last week. There's a reason why Hobbs is the starter because he is clearly the better CB, and same with Wilson, etc.
 
NEM said:
Not necessarily. In pre season you really dont see what a particular group can, or can not do because of the number of players going in and out of games that reeally are meaningless. Many times , in many sports, players get a chance to play because of an injury to another , and if not for that opportunity, they may never have had an opportunity to show what they can do. Tom Brady comes to mind, wouldnt you say?


No, I wouldn't say this for you're introducing different circumstances for the sake of the argument. We're talking about the DBs. As such, a corp of Asante, Gay, Geno, Hawkins, Hobbes, Rodney, Sanders, Scott and Tebucky (prior to IR) are all players the coaching staff knows well for they've all been with the team at least a whole season and have played in meaningful games with the team.
 
I also would like to see Hawkins in the game more. He impresses me far more than Wilson from everything I've seen of him from last year and this game. He's typically a SOLID tackler (i.e. he doesn't bounce OFF of guys like Samuel and Wilson), he never seems to be out of position and he just appears to know what he's doing/what the offense is trying to do far more than Wilson. I wouldn't mind seeing him start, if not for Wilson, then maybe for Harrison. I haven't been able to get a good grasp on Harrison's play this year. He doesn't seem to be involved in any positive impact plays but he also doesn't seem to be playing terribly for the most part. Today he did miss a chance for a tackle two times that I noticed. I'm not particularly sold on the secondary as they still seem to believe that their only purpose in the game is to tackle the receiver AFTER he has caught the ball instead of trying to prevent completions. However, I just feel more confident with Hawkins on the field....Wilson never seems to have a clue about what's happening on the field and always appears slow to react. What was his wonderlic score?
 
NEM said:
Why bring Hobbs back as a starter. I wouldnt. The players we had out there today did a hell of a job. Why change what looks good? Hobbs can get beatn 9 out of ten times with quick inside moves.....

If something is working, you dont fix it. What we had out there today worked..... Why change it? That would be idiotic.

Hobbs is a good nickel back, but as a starter, he sucks and is far too small for today's bigger receivers, espercially on quick insde moves off of the line of scrimmage. He can not cover them at his size.

There was a new coverage implimented in that game (I'm quoting from the Reiss blog) designed specifically to stop the high powered passing attack of the Bengals. What makes you think Hobbs would not have done a good job in this new coverage? It had never been used, so you have no basis for your assumption. You have a personal vendetta against Hobbs for whatever reason and it's sickening.

I questioned you TWICE before the game to step up and say WHO you thought was our best cover man (being that you don't think Hobbs is it), and you sissed out.

Now, after this great Bengals performance by the D you have even more fodder for your anti-Hobbs campaign, but I question you thusly: If you really believed there was a better cover player BEFORE the Bengals game, then why did you not once respond to the repeated questions about it.

It'll be easy for you to come up with an answer now, and for the moment you'll appear to be right because of the great effort and a new coverage, but the simple fact is that you were not man enough to lay yourself on the line BEFORE you had proof.

As always you work in hindsight.
 
NEM said:
Hobbs won't be a starter much longer.


He'll return to the starting lineup as soon as he's healthy, and remain there until he gets hurt again. One new coverage and you're proclaiming him dethroned and try to justify your inane rantings. Please be prepared to stuff a sock in your own mouth when you are proved wrong on this statement.
 
I lied what I saw yesterday out of the secondary, with one exception. Rodney!
He did not play well at all.
 
NEM said:
I wont be proven wrong.


We shall see. Just like you weren't about the running gameplan against Cincy? :)

And why, sir, do you keep ignoring my posts about our best cover man if it is not Hobbs? There is one in this very same thread, right above the post that you commented on.

Will you not address that post as well?

EDIT: No response again, I can't say that I'm surpised.

Me: "Hobbs is our best corner, and best cover man."

You: "Hobbs is not our best cover man, he's too short for slants and crossing patterns, he's not a starter, he's a nickleback."

Me: "If Hobbs is not our best cover man, then WHO is? You can't just throw out a starter without having a better player to replace him!"

You: *crickets chirping*

Me: "And you're the one claiming to be right??? Then back it up!!"

You: *crickets chirping*

Me: "Alrighty then, I hope I never hit senility."
 
Last edited:
NEM said:
Anyone with open mind can see that the coverage from the corners was much better vs. Cincy, WITHOUT Hobbs than it had been in the previous three games WITH Hobbs.



Stop deflecting and ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION.

I've already addressed the fact that you'd use the Bengals game as a way to deflect the question, and already debunked it as an after-the-fact one game instance where a new coverage was used that you have no clue how Hobbs would have done in.

And yet you still use that method even though I'd already said you'd do as much.

How unoriginal of you.

WHO IS OUR BEST COVERAGE CORNER? JUST MAN UP AND ANSWER THE QUESTION!
 
NEM said:
Its you, not I , that has the problem. I was correct about the game plan, not you. You stated that the running game made the difference, anbd it did, to a point, but it was the PASSING game, on play action and inside routes that made the difference and allowed the running game to be solid, in the second half.

Here's a post by BelichikFan that proves it.

First half :

Maroney and Dillon combined for 14-52, averaging 3.7 yards per carry.

Second half :

Maroney and Dillon combined for 18-140, averaging 7.8 yards per carry.

That's right, boys and girls, 140 yards rushing in the second half.



EXACTLY, as soon as Brady began hitting the inside receivers, in the 2nd half, it forced Cinci out of the box and opened up the game for Dillon and Maroney.

We have a team that needs to show opponents that we have the capability of moving the ball through the air FIRST, and it opens up the entire offensive possibilities for us.

So, as usual, its you that is wrong, not me. The ruinning game was great, and mostly in the second half, but it was the passing game that allowed it to be great, because once Brady began throwing inside, and on many occasions, FINALLY, used PLAY ACTION, it allowed the line to open the gaps for the running game to be effective....

You just have a personal problem with me that gets in your way of seeing the facts...and, you probably really dont know much about the game ...itself, just what you think you see when, in fact, what you see and what you understand are two different things, completely.

There is much more to a game than just the numbers.... things work because they are set up to work by something that is totally different....such as our running game yesterday.....once they saw we could hit the inside receivers, they got out of the 8 man box...... and this is how we need to approach all games from here on in. Finally, McDaniels, or Belilchick, saw it, implemented it in the 2nd half, and we all saw the results, except you, of course,

Have a nice day.


Stop deflecting once again. You're distorting facts as usual, and you can't get away with it. You said that we should not run, because it did not work for the Steelers. You said we should use the hurry-up and pass like crazy. I made no predictions, just after the fact observations of your inane crockery.

What happened was that we ran like crazy and SET UP THE PASS WITH THE RUN. Which is EXACTLY what the Steelers tried to do, albiet unsuccessfully.

So explain to me exactly HOW you were correct, when you called for us NOT TO RUN, and to PASS LIKE CRAZY. We used the run to set up our passing game. Had we not run like crazy, that game would have looked just like Denver in the passing game.

Go ahead and spin spin spin. This is exactly why none of your posts ever get any credit, because you never man up and own it when you are obviously and blatantly wrong.
 
Also, you're claiming that the pass set up the run (which is obvious crockery to anyone with a modecrum of common sense). But for your benefit I'll show you exactly how wrong you are, here's a comment from Bill, you know, THE HEAD COACH:

Was your game plan to run the ball?
“Our game plan was to try to move the ball and score points. If that means running the ball, and we have opportunities to run it, then we will run it. If we don’t, I don’t want to keep calling it to say we called it. It was good to have balance. We made some plays in the passing game. A couple of those were set up off the running game. The team complemented itself well and picked up some third downs.â€

So who is right, NEM, you or the head coach?
 
NEM said:
You're not even close to reality. Our running game was great because our passing game worked at key moments.... and it forced Cincy to back out of the box with linebackers. You are not even close. Belickick fan proved it with his post that our running game was very successful in the 2nd half...do you get it, the 2nd half...and thats when Brady began hitting the inside routes with the receivers....and it is what made the running game click..and it can continue that way as long as we show opponents that we can pass against them...And that is exactly what I posted before the game, not to dump the running game, but to make it work by demonstrating an ability to pass...and that is EXACTLY what they did.

You arent even close to reality, as usual.


If you are going to pretend that the running game did not set up the passing game against the Bengals then we'll just have to respectfully disagree.

And yet you still deflected the initial question:

Who, if not Hobbs, is our best coverage cornerback?

EDIT: Also, you've now shifted your argument. You are now arguing from the vantage point of what occured in the game (you claim the pass set up the run, which I believe is false). What you first claimed was that we should NOT run, and that we should go no huddle and pass like crazy. Which absolutely did not happen. Just own that you were wrong in your prediction, it's not really that hard at all. Just type the words: I was wrong. Be done with it. You were wrong about the no huddle, you were wrong about a crazy passing heavy attack. It's just facts. All this after the fact changing of tune does nothing to change your prediction, and does nothing to change the fact that your prediction was completely false.


Your new argument is that the success in the passing game set up the running game to have success. Your initial prediction was that we should absolutely not do what the Steelers did and run, and instead that we should go no huddle and go pass crazy. It didn't happen. To argue now that the pass set up the run is a further revision in hindsight.

I realize that you have a hard time not working in hindsight, but this time you're busted.
 
Last edited:
NEM said:
You're not even close to reality. Our running game was great because our passing game worked at key moments.... and it forced Cincy to back out of the box with linebackers. You are not even close. Belickick fan proved it with his post that our running game was very successful in the 2nd half...do you get it, the 2nd half...and thats when Brady began hitting the inside routes with the receivers....and it is what made the running game click..and it can continue that way as long as we show opponents that we can pass against them...And that is exactly what I posted before the game, not to dump the running game, but to make it work by demonstrating an ability to pass...and that is EXACTLY what they did.

You arent even close to reality, as usual.

You are this week's winner:
 
Last edited:
It's amazing to me that you are still trying to spin this so that you don't have to admit being wrong.

I've quoted the head coach of the team as disagreeing with you, I've provided ample proof that what you are now arguing isn't even close to what you initially claimed (and even what you're claiming now is false).

And yet still you can't admit it. Still you say that I'm off base, which is nuttery in that I'm quoting Belichick as the basis of my stance. You're disagreeing with the man himself even in your revision of your argument.

And yet still you have not answered the original question from FIVE DAYS AGO: Who is the Pats best cover corner if it is not Hobbs?
 
ATippett56 said:
You are this week's winner:


Thank you, I was going to get an image from google of a horse manure pile, but this will do just fine.
 
Brownfan80 said:
Thank you, I was going to get an image from google of a horse manure pile, but this will do just fine.
NEM is obsessed over the pass happy New England Patriots offense of last year. Personally, I would prefer if the New England Patriots offense rush the ball 40 times a game while limiting the hits on Tom Brady.
 
ATippett56 said:
NEM is obsessed over the pass happy New England Patriots offense of last year. Personally, I would prefer if the New England Patriots offense rush the ball 40 times a game while limiting the hits on Tom Brady.


He's as wrong as I think he is, right?

And yes, I think for us to have success we'll have to mimic the 2004 gameplan, not the 2005 gameplan. Run run run to set up the pass, control the clock and play great defense.

2005 ended in a bad way because we couldn't run. Can you imagine this 2006 team throwing a pick to Champ Bailey from the 1 or 2 yard line?

That's Dillon and Maroney time now, as it should be.
 
Brownfan80 said:
He's as wrong as I think he is, right?

And yes, I think for us to have success we'll have to mimic the 2004 gameplan, not the 2005 gameplan. Run run run to set up the pass, control the clock and play great defense.

2005 ended in a bad way because we couldn't run. Can you imagine this 2006 team throwing a pick to Champ Bailey from the 1 or 2 yard line?

That's Dillon and Maroney time now, as it should be.

I think we can safely say that BB agrees, from what we know of him as a coach and from the fact that they brought in Maroney...a move few expected them to make. Last year's running game was not great. This year they were not about to risk that happening again (should Dillon be re-injured, etc.)
 
Last edited:
Brownfan80 said:
He's as wrong as I think he is, right?

Correct!

Personally, I grow tiresome of NEM's repeated "offensive coordinator" rants!
 
Last edited:
A lot of the secondary success yesterday does have to do with rushing the passer. However, I think that mixing up the defenders helped and Scott, who is 6' 1" and 205, brings a size mix to the corners. I also think the secondary did a better job of sealing off after the catch which may have been due to the injuries. Whatever it is, it worked and we didn't give up a passing TD. Coaching staff did a great job after last week.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


MORSE: Patriots Draft Needs and Draft Related Info
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/19: News and Notes
TRANSCRIPT: Eliot Wolf’s Pre-Draft Press Conference 4/18/24
Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/18: News and Notes
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/17: News and Notes
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/16: News and Notes
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/15: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-14, Mock Draft 3.0, Gilmore, Law Rally For Bill 
Potential Patriot: Boston Globe’s Price Talks to Georgia WR McConkey
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/12: News and Notes
Back
Top