Pats backroom let down Brady AGAIN

MassPats38 said:

You have to admire the poster who repeatedly lauds the objectivity and intelligence of his own subjective opinions. When people disagree with those opinions, the only response is they lack the objectivity and vision to see the truth and are 'homers'.

Are you a fan of the Pats? If not, then why do you subject yourself to this perceived lack of objectivity? If you are a fan, let me know when you actually compliment something this failing organization does. Everything I have read seems to be negative and critical of an organization that pretty much spanks the rest of the NFL with sustained excellence in the salary cap era.

Click to expand...

1) Texxx is a fan of the team whose QB roster going into this year's draft was Ryan Fitzpatrick, Case Keenum and TJ Yates.

2) A few days ago, said team waited until the 4th round to take someone named Tom Savage as the only addition to the most important position on the field.

3) Texxx then spends the days after the draft hanging around the perennial 11-14 win per season Patriots to lecture their fans that they are too positive about their team.

Usually, such obvious trolling gets banned immediately, but this guy is too entertaining.

Danger Zone said:

I know that Belichick as a coach, is a genius.

But I sometimes feel the Patriots might have been better off with Belichick simply having to coach the players a good (and sympathetic) GM chose to give him.

Click to expand...

So what do you do when Belichick laughs at you, refuses to work for you ever again, goes to one of the 25 teams willing to give him completely control over all football operations, and leaves you needing both a new HC and GM? Because that's what you would deserve.

RayClay said:

You'll get to see how someone else runs a team soon enough.

Click to expand...

Sciz said:

So what do you do when Belichick laughs at you, refuses to work for you ever again, goes to one of the 25 teams willing to give him completely control over all football operations, and leaves you needing both a new HC and GM? Because that's what you would deserve.

Click to expand...

Operative word is "sometimes".

If I was Kraft, I wouldn't change a thing.

I was just trying to make a point to Texx that this homer is perfectly capable of entertaining criticisms about his beloved coach.

When I read posts in a thread such as this it seems as though I have reached a parallel universe, far from the universe that I have witnessed since 2000 for this Patriots team.

Deus Irae said:

The game NE won was a turnover fest (7 combined turnovers) on a windy night where Manning's weakened arm came back to haunt the Broncos, as the Patriots squeaked one out in overtime. The game DEN won was a game where both teams were missing a lot of key players, and the Broncos kicked the tar out of the Patriots. It's true that we can't really say which team was actually the better team, and I'll defend the Patriots against any Broncos/Jets troll who comes in on the subject, but let's not pretend the games were equal.

Click to expand...

The Pats were exposed in Denver and it would have been much worse vs Seattle.

The Broncos could have run the score up, but let off the gas. Just a common theme in the NE post season when the offense comes to a grinding halt and the defense cant get off the field on 3rd down.

Snake Eyes said:

If you seriously think it's luck I have a bridge to sell you.

Seattle is not lucky, they're damned good.

Click to expand...

He said luck played a large role, not the only role. His point is valid.

A "One and done" playoff format brings luck (not to mention officials' calls...see "Roughing the Passer" and the "Tuck" calls, familiar to all Pats fans for worse and better) into play and means that, while the better team often wins (I agree with your reference to Seattle), it doesn't always win. The velcro helmet catch to keep the Pats from 19--0 by a guy who never played another down in the NFL is the most painful example in Patriots lore. Smart owners don't build teams to win SB's. They build teams to do very well in the regular season, get into the Playoffs and let the chips fall where they may.

The Krafts have said time and time again that their objective every season is to be competitive to win the Division and get into the Playoffs; they are smarter than the Wrecks Ryans and Dan Snyders who say that winning the SB is their objective every year and make fools of themselves by predicting the same...too many things have to fall just right for that to happen.

PatsFanSince74 said:

He said luck played a large role, not the only role. His point is valid.

A "One and done" playoff format brings luck (not to mention officials' calls...see "Roughing the Passer" and the "Tuck" calls, familiar to all Pats fans for worse and better) into play and means that, while the better team often wins (I agree with your reference to Seattle), it doesn't always win. The velcro helmet catch to keep the Pats from 19--0 by a guy who never played another down in the NFL is the most painful example in Patriots lore. Smart owners don't build teams to win SB's. They build teams to do very well in the regular season, get into the Playoffs and let the chips fall where they may.

The Krafts have said time and time again that their objective every season is to be competitive to win the Division and get into the Playoffs; they are smarter than the Wrecks Ryans and Dan Snyders who say that winning the SB is their objective every year and make fools of themselves by predicting the same...too many things have to fall just right for that to happen.

Click to expand...

No, that's not what he said, I can dig up his exact quote if you want.

Triumph said:

The Pats were exposed in Denver and it would have been much worse vs Seattle.

The Broncos could have run the score up, but let off the gas. Just a common theme in the NE post season when the offense comes to a grinding halt and the defense cant get off the field on 3rd down.

Click to expand...

There are issues why they lost in the AFCCG two years in a row. Some of it was bad luck losing key players (Gronk, Talib during both games, Dobson who could barely walk, etc.).

But they have addressed some of the issues that were personnel problems in those games. They bolstered the secondary with better and more durable CBs. Looks like they are trying to revise the defense to be more aggressive on passing downs.

As for the offense, they addressed in the last draft. We have to see what these receivers did in year two. If Dobson and Thompkins have similar jumps from year one to year two that Branch and Givens had (the former combo out performed the latter in year one), Dobson could be a 1,000 plus yard receiver and Thompkins could be solid guy off the bench. LaFell should address what the Pats have been missing whenever Gronk goes down - a big target in the red zone.

Time will tell if these moves work, but don't act like the Pats haven't tried to correct the problems.

shmessy said:

First off, there is no animosity whatsoever, 6. You're good people and we're just debating a football point. No worries.

Click to expand...

Glad to hear that, as I said I hold you in very high regard and would not want that.

Second, your post above is responding to (but evidently did not read the part of) a post where I wrote in the 2nd paragraph (caps now for emphasis):

"Is Lafell an EVERY DOWN TE posibility? HELL NO,he's not big enough. Can he fill the "Y" role for 5-10 PLAYS PER GAME? The professional highly paid NFL coach who worked with Lafell day in and day out (not you) says yes. Throw a possibility of Mark Harrison at 6'3" 230lbs in there along with Dustin Keller (if he's healthy) and you have 3.5 pretty good TE's and can lose Hoomanawanui and DJ Williams.

Click to expand...

I do not think he could play the Y-TE position at all, if you had said he could play the Flex-TE position (the position formally manned by Mr. 187) for 5-10 plays a game I would not have disagreed, I would say it still would not be optimal but I would not say it could not ever happen.

Wait a second.

HOW have the Patriots NOT been in contention EVERY single year in the 10 years since they last won a SB????

In the past 10 years, please list ONE other NFL team that can say the same.

Click to expand...

Shmessy they have been in contention obviously but they have not won one in a decade. Brady has played his best football during that decade, won two league MVPs and dominated the NFL, it goes without question that the QB is the most important position in the NFL. Over the past decade, the following QBs have been considered the elite –

Tom Brady
Drew Brees
Peyton Manning
Aaron Rodgers
Ben Roethlisberger
Eli Manning (although I disagree and do not consider him elite most rankings do)

All of those QBs have won at least one Super Bowl in the past decade except for Tom Brady. Do I put that on Brady or the people around him? I personally cannot put it on Brady, so if I put it on the players around him do I label it bad luck and injuries, or do I say that the team was not built well enough to win a title? If it is that it was not built well enough then I would have no choice but to put that on the front office.

Snake Eyes said:

No, that's not what he said, I can dig up his exact quote if you want.

Click to expand...

He said "Winning a Super Bowl in one-game playoffs is largely a factor of luck...". He didn't say it was the only factor but that it plays a large role. I agree with him on that.

Sometimes the better team wins, sometimes it doesn't. If Tyree doesn't make that catch and if Welker makes a (tough) catch that he has made dozens of times, the Brady/Belichick Pats have five Lombardi's. "One and Done" playoffs make for great ratings and high drama because almost anything can happen; the downside is "almost anything can happen."

Brady6 said:

I do not think he could play the Y-TE position at all, if you had said he could play the Flex-TE position (the position formally manned by Mr. 187) for 5-10 plays a game I would not have disagreed, I would say it still would not be optimal but I would not say it could not ever happen.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it, Rivera did. I made that perfectly clear in post #193.

Like you, I'd also be much more comfortable with him at the H, not the Y (hence my earlier posts about him taking the "move TE" spot for 5-10 plays per game). Harrison at 6'3" 230 lbs reportedly is being looked at by the Pats to be more of the "move TE" and then if they sign Keller after June 1, they would have 3.5 TE's (Gronk, Keller, Harrison and a part-time TE in Lafell). That saves roster spots and gives some more flexibility.

PatsFanSince74 said:

He said "Winning a Super Bowl in one-game playoffs is largely a factor of luck...". He didn't say it was the only factor but that it plays a large role. I agree with him on that.

Sometimes the better team wins, sometimes it doesn't. If Tyree doesn't make that catch and if Welker makes a (tough) catch that he has made dozens of times, the Brady/Belichick Pats have five Lombardi's. "One and Done" playoffs make for great ratings and high drama because almost anything can happen; the downside is "almost anything can happen."

Click to expand...

"luck is merely preparation meeting opportunity" - Vince Lombardi

Snake Eyes said:

"luck is merely preparation meeting opportunity" - Vince Lombardi

Click to expand...

love vince.....but this quote makes for a great locker room poster, and it is a great way to motivate those you are pushing through the drudgery of said preparation

call it what you will, but many, many games come down to "luck"....even games that end up convincing wins often hinged on one or two plays that could have gone either way.....

As much as anyone on this board I wanted an outside WR for Brady. But, the way the draft went when we were picking at the end of the 2nd there was no impact players, just some projects. BB addressed the O-Line by adding some much needed depth. We added Lafell and hopefully Dobson projects well

yukon cornelius said:

love vince.....but this quote makes for a great locker room poster, and it is a great way to motivate those you are pushing through the drudgery of said preparation

call it what you will, but many, many games come down to "luck"....even games that end up convincing wins often hinged on one or two plays that could have gone either way.....

Click to expand...

Nothing could be further from the truth, people just have a hard time seeing the thing that doesn’t happen. Suppose you have a drive that stalls and you punt, people don’t see that as a critical play that decides a game but suppose the QB made a better read which allowed a completion, and then on 3rd down the blocker did a little better of a job and didn’t let the defender get those 6 inches which allowed them to slow the runner, allowing the safety to make the tackle short of the first down, were those critical plays?

Suppose the GM does a better job when selecting a player, so you have a solid contributor who can be part of a rotation, giving them experience and allowing your starter some snaps off, what effect does that have over the course of the season? You starter has less wear and tear on him going into the playoffs and you have a much better developed rookie as opposed to your competition.

All these things are critical.

Snake Eyes said:

Nothing could be further from the truth, people just have a hard time seeing the thing that doesn’t happen. Suppose you have a drive that stalls and you punt, people don’t see that as a critical play that decides a game but suppose the QB made a better read which allowed a completion, and then on 3rd down the blocker did a little better of a job and didn’t let the defender get those 6 inches which allowed them to slow the runner, allowing the safety to make the tackle short of the first down, were those critical plays?

Suppose the GM does a better job when selecting a player, so you have a solid contributor who can be part of a rotation, giving them experience and allowing your starter some snaps off, what effect does that have over the course of the season? You starter has less wear and tear on him going into the playoffs and you have a much better developed rookie as opposed to your competition.

All these things are critical.

Click to expand...

a windy day in foxboro that eats up an aging manning arm vs a 50 degree, calm january day in denver DOES effect the game, though.....and neither can truly be prepared for


i wholly agree with what you just said above......there is no such thing as over preparation, and preparation does change what many perceive as "luck" - it is why BB prepares the way he does, with the focus on details so few seem to think important......


at the same time, one cannot dismiss the random occurrences and quirks of fate that can't be overcome with preparation........and often times those random occurrences DO impact a game.....i guess one could argue that if one prepared just a little more, the vagaries of a call, or the weather, or an opponents actions, wouldn't have an effect......but games turn on one or two plays all the time, and all factors can't be controlled......and you know that drives coaches like vince & BB nuts

Snake Eyes said:

Nothing could be further from the truth, people just have a hard time seeing the thing that doesn’t happen. Suppose you have a drive that stalls and you punt, people don’t see that as a critical play that decides a game but suppose the QB made a better read which allowed a completion, and then on 3rd down the blocker did a little better of a job and didn’t let the defender get those 6 inches which allowed them to slow the runner, allowing the safety to make the tackle short of the first down, were those critical plays?

Suppose the GM does a better job when selecting a player, so you have a solid contributor who can be part of a rotation, giving them experience and allowing your starter some snaps off, what effect does that have over the course of the season? You starter has less wear and tear on him going into the playoffs and you have a much better developed rookie as opposed to your competition.

All these things are critical.

Click to expand...

A certain team advanced in the playoffs not too long ago with the help of a blatant fumble that was judged an incomplete pass because of a technicality in the rulebook... it's hard to argue that isn't luck.

Teams can't prepare for that kind of luck. Luck absolutely can influence the outcome of a game....

sb1 said:

A certain team advanced in the playoffs not too long ago with the help of a blatant fumble that was judged an incomplete pass because of a technicality in the rulebook... it's hard to argue that isn't luck.

Teams can't prepare for that kind of luck. Luck absolutely can influence the outcome of a game....

Click to expand...

First off, that was a correctly called play according to the rules at the time, perhaps luck helped the refs actually make a good call.

Next, I never said “luck” didn’t matter, I just don’t think it should be given more credit than it deserves. When winning is written off to luck you take credit away from the men who produce that victory, and you similarly remove blame from those who produce the failure, I think that’s what we have going on here.

Ask yourself this, if the Jets had our draft would we have the same opinion of it or would we talk about how their receiving corp is weak and their efforts to build the O-line as inadequate?

Snake Eyes said:

"luck is merely preparation meeting opportunity" - Vince Lombardi

Click to expand...

Looks like we disagree on the universality of that familiar quote. While it is without a doubt a great line for motivating players, nonetheless, to paraphrase another well-worn saying, "Sometimes luck is just luck." In a one and done playoff format, luck can play a disproportionately large role in the outcome.

Snake Eyes said:

First off, that was a correctly called play according to the rules at the time, perhaps luck helped the refs actually make a good call.

Next, I never said “luck” didn’t matter, I just don’t think it should be given more credit than it deserves. When winning is written off to luck you take credit away from the men who produce that victory, and you similarly remove blame from those who produce the failure, I think that’s what we have going on here.

Ask yourself this, if the Jets had our draft would we have the same opinion of it or would we talk about how their receiving corp is weak and their efforts to build the O-line as inadequate?

Click to expand...

It's a red herring to suggest that saying luck can play a disproportionate role in the outcome of a game is tantamount to discrediting the efforts of the winner and absolving the failings of the loser.

For example, when I look back on the Tyree catch, I hold two competing sets of thoughts in my mind: one, a guy who never played another down in the NFL made an improbable catch that he would not have been able to reproduce in a hundred tries and put the Giants in a position to win a game that they almost certainly would not have otherwise won; two, the Giants played well that day and the Patriots have themselves to blame for the game coming down to that one play.