The Post game venting thread.(merged a lot)

MoLewisrocks · Feb 6, 2012

Re: Gronk!

KoolAid said:
Not having a third TE, in hindsight seems to be a mistake. Another case for improving depth at the skill positions.

Third TE, third WR worth fielding, RB who can move the pile, someone to push Mankins to earn his $8M in crunch time... We wasted some roster spots this season when we really didn't have the margin to. Ground or gutted it out with effort and coaching in the regular season. Bit us in the ass down the stretch in the post season. Same thing has happened over the last couple of seasons. Sometimes it's sentimentality driven, other times it's speculative value driven. We held a spot for Fred Taylor forever to no avail, although had he been healthy that was a player we needed. Too many red shirt rookies and sentimental favorites on the offensive roster this season. A healthy Gronk covered for some of that. A hobbled Gronk couldn't.

strongside · Feb 6, 2012

Re: Gronk!

I have to go one what I saw all year. There is nothing to indicate that Gronk would decide to give up on that play.

Lansdowne · Feb 6, 2012

SirEatsALot said:
A lot of people are going to blame Brady for the safety, and the interception or missing a wide open Branch, or Welker for missing a catch that he probably could have made, or the dropped passes at the end by basically every receiver, but I think it's on Belichick for allowing the Giants to score the touchdown that gave them the win. I know what he was trying to do, and even the Giants didn't want to take the touchdown he gave them, but I think the smart play would have been to keep them out of the endzone, which the Pats could have easily done, especially since the Giants didn't want to be there, and force them to kick a field goal to win. Here's my thinking, even at that distance, it's no chip shot. There's no such thing as a chip shot when the Super Bowl is on the line. They could miss, the Pats could block the kick, the snap could go over the holder's head, or the holder could fumble the snap, all these lead to a Pats win. A field goal at any range is no guarantee, but if you let them score, then you're playing catch up and you must have a touchdown to win. It was a gamble, and it lost. But it was a weird call either way, how do you explain to someone who's watching football for the first time why the team who is winning is allowing the other team to score the go ahead, and winning touchdown, and why that team didn't even want it?

Sorry but I disagree completely. The Giants would've had something like 90% chance of making the FG from that close. It was better that the Pats had the ball with 57 seconds. That's enough time feasibly to drive down the field and win it. I was shocked that the Giants didn't try kneeling instead of Bradshaw running it in.

Sivy · Feb 6, 2012

Re: Gronk!

"With a 100% Gronk, the patriots win that game by two touchdowns" SKip

cmasspatsfan · Feb 6, 2012

Re: Gronk!

Anyone criticizing Gronk has your head up your arse, he has balls of steel to go out and play the way he did with that injury, he played much less than he normally does, why was he out there so much when he wasnt 100%, because a 70% Gronk is still better than anything else we had. They game planned around it as much as they could but man, you can criticize Gronk, he left it all out on the field.

ctpatsfan77 · Feb 6, 2012

Re: Gronk!

Sivy said:
"With a 100% Gronk, the patriots win that game by two touchdowns" SKip

The two non-Patriots who have done more than anybody else to ruin the Pats' chances of winning the Super Bowl:

(1) Brett Favre
(2) Bernard Pollard

pwes · Feb 6, 2012

Re: Gronk!

Brady should have kept running right. Looked like there was plenty of room to get a first or very close and run out of bounds.

Bostonian1962 · Feb 6, 2012

Re: Gronk!

Gronk just increased his status with me. To see him ailing like that, but to gut it out and be out there for the team spoke volumes. It will forever suck that he got hurt before the Super Bowl like that, but it happened. It was sad that after being with this team for the whole season, Ocho still doesn't know the plays enough that they had to play an injured Gronk over a healthy Ocho.

guardplay320 · Feb 6, 2012

Deus Irae said:
It cost time, which is the real problem. The offensive team should probably have to option to have the time put back on the clock.

Explain how it cost any time? The play was run just as it would have been run had there been 11 guys on the field. They should change the rule, but only so that it is not abused. Should they add time back on for an offsides as well when the team gets a free play?

PatsFan2 · Feb 6, 2012

Re: Gronk!

Bostonian1962 said:
Gronk just increased his status with me. To see him ailing like that, but to gut it out and be out there for the team spoke volumes. It will forever suck that he got hurt before the Super Bowl like that, but it happened. It was sad that after being with this team for the whole season, Ocho still doesn't know the plays enough that they had to play an injured Gronk over a healthy Ocho.

Doesn't that just speaks volumes to Ocho coming back.

Deus Irae · Feb 6, 2012

guardplay320 said:
Explain how it cost any time? The play was run just as it would have been run had there been 11 guys on the field. They should change the rule, but only so that it is not abused. Should they add time back on for an offsides as well when the team gets a free play?

If you can't figure out how running a play costs time, I'd suggest to you that you don't know football very well.

As for the offsides claim, there's already an avenue in place for dealing with an offsides that looks as if it might impact the play. It's the 'unabated' call. In the case of 12 men, it's inherently impactful on the play.

jnug · Feb 6, 2012

Re: Gronk!

Gronk was running down the field because running in a straight line was just about all he could do. In reality if Gronk was playing on a good ankle he comes back under the defender with ease and makes that catch.

If you look at the play, the defender simply brushed Gronk aside with one hand when in fact on a good ankle Gronk goes right through that attempt to brush him aside and makes that catch.

Ball should not have been thrown where it was thrown or at all given Gronks condition.

brdmaverick · Feb 6, 2012

Re: Gronk!

Gronk is the wrong guy to be mad at. Sure, you can be disappointed that he was not at full strength, but even that is out of his control.

SirEatsALot · Feb 6, 2012

BoTown said:
Sorry but I disagree completely. The Giants would've had something like 90% chance of making the FG from that close. It was better that the Pats had the ball with 57 seconds. That's enough time feasibly to drive down the field and win it. I was shocked that the Giants didn't try kneeling instead of Bradshaw running it in.

Nothing to be sorry about, and you're probably right. If that's the way Belichick wants to do it I've got to trust him, he's the best coach in football, and I'm just a fan. There was a quote by someone, I think Parcells, that said if you listen to the guys in the stands, pretty soon you'll be joining them and it's true. But I would rather try to hold a lead than play catchup, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to give my opponent a free shot. And people will say it's a chip shot, he easily would have made the field goal, but there's no such thing as a chip shot when the Super Bowl is on the line, and I'll bet more games have been lost on an easy kick than have been won by a last second drive.
I don't think the Giants expected the Pats to step aside there, they knew there was a possibility, but they were caught off guard and Bradshaw had too much momentum, by the time he realized what was happening he couldn't stop in time. It's weird to see a player be upset he scored a touchdown that gave his team the lead with less than a minute.

guardplay320 · Feb 6, 2012

Deus Irae said:
If you can't figure out how running a play costs time, I'd suggest to you that you don't know football very well.

As for the offsides claim, there's already an avenue in place for dealing with an offsides that looks as if it might impact the play. It's the 'unabated' call. In the case of 12 men, it's inherently impactful on the play.

An offsides play that isn't ruled unabated costs time also. As for the 12 men being inherently impactful on the play, it was not in this case, just as an example. Tuck was off the field by the time the play was really taking place. He was on for a brief moment as the ball was snapped. Therefore, It didn't change that play one bit. It was a free play just like a free play on an offsides play (one not ruled unabated).

All that being said, I think the rule should be changed and time should be added back just to avoid abuse of the rule. The ability to keep extra men on just to run off time could clearly be abused. It wasn't in this case, but this should draw enough attention to be changed anyway.

StevePatsFan · Feb 6, 2012

Can we build a Defense now please?

Clearly the rules change in the playoffs, any halfway decent defense would have stymied either one of those teams on the field last night.

Brady is mortal, and has a shelf life, play to your coach’s strength and build a defense!

JackBauer · Feb 6, 2012

Re: Can we build a Defense now please?

I think the defense is a few pieces away from being "built." I thought they played pretty well last night. A couple additions to the front seven, a safety or two, perhaps another corner...

Bartmac36 · Feb 6, 2012

As far as I'm concerned, this one was once again on the offense. The D played to expectations, if not better, and our offensive machine once again blew a fuse on a grand stage. I can't help but think if we had AJ Green or Larry Fitzgerald last night..

BUT, i think this lack of scoring in big games will finally be the hint the front office needs to target a legitimate number 1 WR. Either free agency, trade or draft IDC just get one.

sambam94 · Feb 6, 2012

Pats D didn't give up a lot of points but they gave up way too many long drives. What this does is keep the Pats offense off the field. Pats only had 3(not counting last 57 seconds) drives after they scored the TD to start the 2nd half..3..that's it. The 1st was a 3 and out that ended with a sack. 2nd drive was under 1 minute and ended with the INT. 3rd drive they moved the ball and ended with the Welker and Branch drops.

All the lack of no huddle people should take a look at the 2nd half possessions above to see when they could have..they couldn't. People calling the talk shows are driving me crazy...why do so many so dumb?

StevePatsFan · Feb 6, 2012

Anyone recall #75 doing anything last night except missing out on his press obligation, love Big Vince, but being a leader means taking it on the chin for your team.

The Post game venting thread.(merged a lot)

PatsFans.com Supporter

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

PatsFans.com Supporter

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

In the Starting Line-Up

On the Roster

Hall of Fame Poster

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

On the Game Day Roster

PatsFans.com Supporter

Rookie

On the Roster

Practice Squad Player

Hall of Fame Poster

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Practice Squad Player

Similar threads