If you quote me you should really read what I say.
I didn't say the offense was 'fine' I said this is being blown out of proportion because it has been fine in 3 out of 4 halves, so looking at cumulative targets is wrong, and mostly that the analysis by Balistreiri is awful and ignorant.
I did not use stats to back up my opinion, I stated that Brady was 10/11 in the first half, so I'd like someone to explain how that happens when he is making worse decisions that some guy on a computer would.
Again, we should take anything that we want to disagree with and say thats why we were only 18-1 and lost a SB? A good offense having a bad game does not prove that the issue you are harping on is the reason.
Again, making up a reason to turn around and use it as proof of an argument you are making up.
Please explain to me what offenses are 'just fine' by your yardstick.
I sense someone is a little bit sensitive? OK - so you said the offense was "fine" for 3 out of 4 halves - not that it was "fine."
You've said that Brady was 10/11 in the first half - which probably is "fine" by you as well (but I don't want to put words in your mouth)
The issue of concern - that you apparently don't share - which itself is "fine" though you just need to stop taking offense at the opinion of others - is that some feel its NOT fine to continue to have such a predictable offense that is overly focused on one or two targets
What is "fine" by my yardstick? That can vary but what I value is diversity in the offense - an offense that is difficult to defend, even if the offense itself isn't ranked #1 or we don't have a fantasy-football-esque WR who puts up huge numbers like Welker and Edelman did
A "fine" offense to me is one that is measured by that one "must have" 1st down or catch when the game is on the line. That's something that doesn't show up in a season of stats - or even in one game or half - but it results in a W - the only stat that really matters to me.
So a "fine" offense to me would be the ones that won the 2003-2004 Super Bowls
Tell me - how many receivers did we have those seasons that caught over 100 passes? 90 passes? 80 passes? 70 passes? 60 passes?
Conversely how many receivers did we have those seasons that had over 20 passes caught?
I'm not expecting you to understand my point here - it's been made clear enough. What I value is an offense that is difficult, if not impossible to defend when that one "make or break" play is needed - which in my opinion helps win championships.
Others value impressive stats and rankings a la Welker, Moss, and Edleman - and they seem "fine" with that even if that doesn't result in a Championship.
To each his own.
I'll take the 2003 & 2004 offense over the 2007 offense any day - and I'd much prefer to see the 2014 offense emulate the Super Bowl winning offenses than even the eye popping stats of 2007 which, when push came to shove and we needed just that one more first down, the predictable offense was stopped.