Greg Bedard "All he got for Christmas is two hours with two morons" listening thread

BradyManny said:

I don't have time to go through it all now and show it, but the Patriots do not treat all games equally, and are conscious of their opponent, and of the importance of the game, when deciding whether a guy should play. The timing of player's returns from injury over the course of the year suggests as much to me.

Would you not agree with this? Which leads me to suggest that if this past Sunday were the AFC divisional game, I would guess Edelman is playing. We've run guys out there the next week after concussions plenty, including in the playoffs (Hernandez). We can guess that given Edelman did not leave the game for his concussion that his is on a similar or lesser severity of other concussion examples.

Click to expand...

By all means take all the time you want, but you will not find that players are held out because the opponent sucks. It just does not happen.
Um, this was a divisional game, and it had A LOT at stake. We wrapped up a bye and were tied for the #1 seed going in.
Concussions are different now. Did we hold Aiken out because the Chargers stink and we didn't need good long snaps? Did we hold Hightower out because that game wasn't important?
If anything the Patriots are the team LEAST likely to rush a guy back because of the opponent. Who is on the schedule just does not impact whether an injured player plays or not.

patsfanincleveland said:

Did players sit?

Did they win? The likelihood is the team wins loses or ties.

That's what BB cares about.

Click to expand...

You are making no sense.

Actually that's what happened in 2012 in Jacksonville......and they won that game.

Click to expand...

No it is not. Injured players did not play, and would not have played no matter the opponent.

The guys who sat out Sunday are participants in practice not walking around on crutches.

Click to expand...

Was their contact today?

The NFLN "Football Life" two parter on the 2009 season had a very interesting segment with BB debating if Welker should play Week 17 in Houston. My guess is that debacle has made him more calculating on this topic.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was in a game where there was nothing to gain or lose in the standings or seedings.

Rob0729 said:

You do realizing telling people that their opinions are ridiculous is being an ass?

Click to expand...

Not when they are ridiculous.

Rob0729 said:

The fact that you have to put "If they make it" as a qualifier for the Ravens makes me believe they are not a team I would fear if I was the Pats.

Click to expand...

The 2012 Ravens and 2010 Jets would've required the same caveat, and they both came to Foxboro and beat us.

And until I see otherwise, Brady absolutely owns **** LeBeau

Click to expand...

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201110300pit.htm

Brady typically does well against the Steelers, and their defense isn't great, but it's also a bad matchup. The worst element of Pittsburgh's D is that they can be beaten deep, and the Pats rarely exploit that against any defense. I expect the Pats would win, but it's not all that hard to envision a scenario where it's a very close game.

and I think they can slow down Roethlisberger and their offense which is Jeckyl and Hyde.

Click to expand...

Well that's the thing about Jekyll and Hyde. Sometimes Hyde shows up (or Jekyll, if that's better). That's the whole point, and it's On a good day they're really, really good.Although I feel pretty good about Revis' chances to shut down Antonio Brown.

I think the Pats match up well against the Steelers. Their zone blitz defense cannot match up with the Pats' offense. The only time they stopped Brady was when they threw him off guard and went to man defense which they rarely if ever do. But they do not have the secondary to do man this year.

Click to expand...

The prevailing thought was that they didn't have the secondary to do man in 2011 either.

AndyJohnson said:

Not when they are ridiculous.

Click to expand...

And apparently everyone who ever disagrees with you have ridiculous opinions.

AndyJohnson said:

If anything the Patriots are the team LEAST likely to rush a guy back because of the opponent. Who is on the schedule just does not impact whether an injured player plays or not.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry - I'm at work and I don't have time to research this, but this is absolutely not at all my feeling. If you have evidence contrary, I am certainly open to thinking I am wrong. But I feel like I've seen the team's health revive in the weeks leading up to too many big games to believe this. And yes, I do think Hightower and Jones coming back for a critical division game against the Phins is possibly an example. We can't know for sure, but that stuff has happened a lot over the years.

Belichick's not a robot. He looks at the context and does what is best for the team in the long haul. Recall him referencing in the NFLN documentary Moss & Welker as the guys who couldn't get hurt going into the Texans game (tragically, and ironically, of course). I do think he thinks about these things. It's not a matter of this team sucks or that team sucks, no, but he does pay attention to context.

BradyFTW! said:

The 2012 Ravens and 2010 Jets would've required the same caveat, and they both came to Foxboro and beat us.



http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201110300pit.htm

Brady typically does well against the Steelers, and their defense isn't great, but it's also a bad matchup. The worst element of Pittsburgh's D is that they can be beaten deep, and the Pats rarely exploit that against any defense. I expect the Pats would win, but it's not all that hard to envision a scenario where it's a very close game.



Well that's the thing about Jekyll and Hyde. Sometimes Hyde shows up (or Jekyll, if that's better). That's the whole point. On a good day they're really, really good.Although I feel pretty good about Revis' chances to shut down Antonio Brown.

[quote[I think the Pats match up well against the Steelers. Their zone blitz defense cannot match up with the Pats' offense. The only time they stopped Brady was when they threw him off guard and went to man defense which they rarely if ever do. But they do not have the secondary to do man this year.

Click to expand...

The prevailing thought was that they didn't have the secondary to do man in 2011 either.[/QUOTE]

Both the 2012 Ravens and 2010 Jets both had better defenses than the current Ravens.

And the box score you posted it the one game I referenced where LeBeau went against everything in his nature and switched from a zone scheme to a man scheme throwing the Pats all off balance. Polumalu was still good then and Clark was good then. Also, they had two decent CB (Taylor and Gay). They had the ability to play man. Their secondary is their weak link right now and I don't think they have the horses to play man.

I agree that the Steelers' defense vs. Brady are a bad match up - for the Steelers. Brady almost always picks apart a zone defense that applies pressure via the blitz. Hence why the only time LeBeau's only time getting the best of Brady was switching to man defense (the only game I think LeBeau ever did that). Otherwise, Brady usually cuts through LeBeau's defenses like butter.

The only way I see Pittsburgh beating the Pats is in a shoot out and most likely because the Steelers get the last possession.

I don't think the Ravens or Steelers can't beat the Pats. Of course it is possible. But I think it will take them playing their best game and the Pats playing like crap. They cannot beat the Pats in Foxboro if the Pats are on their game.

AndyJohnson said:

You are making no sense.


No it is not. Injured players did not play, and would not have played no matter the opponent.


Was their contact today?


Yeah, that was in a game where there was nothing to gain or lose in the standings or seedings.

Click to expand...

Your retorts make zero sense. The Patriots played on Sunday...won a football game.......without 4 valuable players. Unless reality work differently in some alternative universe...arguing otherwise makes no sense.

Your assertion on injured players makes zero sense. Are you at the facility? On the medical staff? Outside of some proprietary credentials, you are speculating......just like everyone else. If you do hold some special, inside qualification please share because outside of this.........making such definitive assertion means you are making no sense.

Was there contact today? Who cares...just asking that question makes no sense.

Your assessment of the 2012 Week 16 game in Jacksonville makes no sense. It was entirely possible the Patriots could have won the #1 seed at 12-4 vs the 13-3 Broncos who did actually become the #1 seed.

Arguing that the game was meaningless makes zero sense because the game was meaningful....and it simply makes no sense to argue otherwise.

Rob0729 said:

And apparently everyone who ever disagrees with you have ridiculous opinions.

Click to expand...

No. There are many disagreements that are not ridiculous on either side, and more opinion based.

Look, this is a freaking message board about football. The point is to have a discussion. I choose to discuss the things I disagree most about, because that seems worthy of the time.
I don't think its about feelings and being offended. I can have the greatest amount of respect for you and think you have the stupidest opinion ever. I would rip that opinion, but be of the understanding that it is not personal, and I am not telling you that you are a bad person.
I am wrong a lot. I am probably wrong more about the 'heated' type of arguments because they are the ones that have the most diversity of opinion.
Anyone who thinks their opinion always turns out to be right is a boob.
Anyone who discusses something vociferously without believing they are right shouldn't be wasting their time.
I suppose it would be great to be polite and throw around a lot of niceties while disagreeing but I go in with the understanding that it (usually) isn't personal and of course words get harsh when there is a strong disagreement.

BradyFTW! said:

Brady typically does well against the Steelers, and their defense isn't great, but it's also a bad matchup.

Click to expand...

This isn't even remotely accurate. Perhaps their worst attribute is deep passes, but it's not like everything else is stout. A "bad matchup" is when someone does something really well that exploits one of your weaknesses, not when there are holes everywhere, but you just don't target the biggest one.

The simple truth is this: If NE plays a B game, there isn't a team in the AFC that can beat them. And, other than Baltimore's pass rush, there really aren't any teams that have strengths specifically aligned to a NE weakness.

Whether NE moves on the SB will depend entirely on how well they play.

patsfanincleveland said:

Your retorts make zero sense. The Patriots played on Sunday...won a football game.......without 4 valuable players. Unless reality work differently in some alternative universe...arguing otherwise makes no sense.

Click to expand...

I am totally lost.
I am discussing the parameters of making the decision. I say BB will not weaken his team by sitting a player out based on a belief the opponent is weak.
You seem to be saying he is psychic and knew he would win.

Your assertion on injured players makes zero sense. Are you at the facility? On the medical staff? Outside of some proprietary credentials, you are speculating......just like everyone else. If you do hold some special, inside qualification please share because outside of this.........making such definitive assertion means you are making no sense.

Click to expand...

On the contrary. I am disputing the claim that BB sits players because the opponent stinks. It is common sense and basic knowledge if you listen to him that he takes every game and opponent seriously. All of those factors you list above are the explanations for why the argument I am disputing is wrong.

Was there contact today? Who cares...just asking that question makes no sense.

Click to expand...

You implied they were healthy enough to play Sunday because they are at practice today. Not true.

Your assessment of the 2012 Week 16 game in Jacksonville makes no sense. It was entirely possible the Patriots could have won the #1 seed at 12-4 vs the 13-3 Broncos who did actually become the #1 seed.

Click to expand...

I said they played it 100%, you said they didn't try hard.

Arguing that the game was meaningless makes zero sense because the game was meaningful....and it simply makes no sense to argue otherwise.

Click to expand...

What would the difference have been if they beat Houston or lost to Houston in that game? None.

Rob0729 said:

The prevailing thought was that they didn't have the secondary to do man in 2011 either.

Click to expand...

Both the 2012 Ravens and 2010 Jets both had better defenses than the current Ravens.

And the box score you posted it the one game I referenced where LeBeau went against everything in his nature and switched from a zone scheme to a man scheme throwing the Pats all off balance. Polumalu was still good then and Clark was good then. Also, they had two decent CB (Taylor and Gay). They had the ability to play man. Their secondary is their weak link right now and I don't think they have the horses to play man.

I agree that the Steelers' defense vs. Brady are a bad match up - for the Steelers. Brady almost always picks apart a zone defense that applies pressure via the blitz. Hence why the only time LeBeau's only time getting the best of Brady was switching to man defense (the only game I think LeBeau ever did that). Otherwise, Brady usually cuts through LeBeau's defenses like butter.

The only way I see Pittsburgh beating the Pats is in a shoot out and most likely because the Steelers get the last possession.

I don't think the Ravens or Steelers can't beat the Pats. Of course it is possible. But I think it will take them playing their best game and the Pats playing like crap. They cannot beat the Pats in Foxboro if the Pats are on their game.[/QUOTE]

The 2011 Steelers and 2010 Jets are classic examples of where a one time game plan can bring success vs systematic chances for sustained success.

If these are examples then one can cite the 2008 Miami "Wildcat" game.

Considering the fact that the Jets have won exactly one game since 2010 and one can doubt that last year's 50+ point/600 yard + defensive performance by Steelers wasn't exactly what Lebeau had in mind.....using these examples requires the additional explanation of why that can be sustained.

After all, both games are now on film.

Naturally, any of these teams can come up with a real doozy, "outside the box" game plan. However, I doubt anyone at patsfans.com would have access to such proprietary information.

BradyManny said:

I'm sorry - I'm at work and I don't have time to research this, but this is absolutely not at all my feeling. If you have evidence contrary, I am certainly open to thinking I am wrong. But I feel like I've seen the team's health revive in the weeks leading up to too many big games to believe this. And yes, I do think Hightower and Jones coming back for a critical division game against the Phins is possibly an example. We can't know for sure, but that stuff has happened a lot over the years.

Click to expand...

There really isn't a reasonable way to use examples on both sides and conclude anything.
My point is simply that BB has not sat players down because the opponent stinks.

Belichick's not a robot. He looks at the context and does what is best for the team in the long haul. Recall him referencing in the NFLN documentary Moss & Welker as the guys who couldn't get hurt going into the Texans game (tragically, and ironically, of course). I do think he thinks about these things. It's not a matter of this team sucks or that team sucks, no, but he does pay attention to context.

Click to expand...

The Houston game was a game where they had nothing to gain, like this week, so naturally he is talking about sitting guys out. Im talking about meaningful games.
Of course there are a number of factors in when an injured player plays.
I am saying one of them is not "You are good to go, but we can't lose to this team, so grab some pine".

AndyJohnson said:

One of my concerns with these threads. The rest of the media spews crap. Bedard is intelligent.
However, Bedard is a reporter, not an analyst, and too many people take his anaysis as solid insight or even fact

Click to expand...

I guess the same can b applied to you. You're just some football message board reader "not an analyst.. Not to many people take your analysis as solid insight or even fact"

AndyJohnson said:

Of course there are a number of factors in when an injured player plays.
I am saying one of them is not "You are good to go, but we can't lose to this team, so grab some pine".

Click to expand...

Fair - I have no disagreement with that.

PatsGuy said:

I guess the same can b applied to you. You're just some football message board reader "not an analyst.. Not to many people take your analysis as solid insight or even fact"

Click to expand...

Have I said otherwise?

Oswlek said:

This isn't even remotely accurate. Perhaps their worst attribute is deep passes, but it's not like everything else is stout. A "bad matchup" is when someone does something really well that exploits one of your weaknesses, not when there are holes everywhere, but you just don't target the biggest one.

Click to expand...

I think we pretty disagree somewhat on what constitutes a bad matchup, because none of this occurs in a vacuum. Just looking at its DVOAs, Pittsburgh's pass defense is bad overall. But looking in a bit more depth reveals exactly where it's bad. Specifically, the Steelers are 30th in DVOA on deep passes, vs. 14th on short passes. But these numbers don't occur in a vacuum: they're 14th on short passes at least in part because of the extra attention that they have to devote to defending the deep pass. By not having to defend the deep pass, we're not only playing into the relative strength of their defense, but also playing in a way that allows them to play the short pass better than when they're going against a team that can threaten their weakness.

Basically, Pittsburgh is a defense that is bad chiefly because they have one huge, glaring weakness. And that weakness happens to be the one thing that the Patriots, as an offense, can't really exploit. In my eyes, that's a textbook bad matchup, because in theory it should allow them to play at a significantly higher level than they would otherwise ever be capable of.

The simple truth is this: If NE plays a B game, there isn't a team in the AFC that can beat them. And, other than Baltimore's pass rush, there really aren't any teams that have strengths specifically aligned to a NE weakness.

Whether NE moves on the SB will depend entirely on how well they play.

Click to expand...

This is where context really maters, and where cherrypicking one sentence out of a multi-paragraph post helps nobody. I agree with most of this, and in fact I wrote pretty much the same. The Pats are the best team in the AFC and have HFA. We should advance to the Super Bowl. Even in painting the Steelers as a bad matchup, I still made it pretty clear that I expected the Pats to beat them if it comes to that. They (and the Ravens) are just the teams that I could most easily envision making a close game out of it. Which, again, I made pretty clear.

Basically, your entire rebuttal comes down to ignoring the content of what I posted to debate the semantics of my word choice in writing 'bad'.

Rob0729 said:

Doesn't feel Amendola has the same feel for the game as Edelman. Sits in zones too much. Without Edelman, the offense is very ordinary.

Click to expand...

I think that it is spot on that Edelman has a better "feel for the game". Too bad that Amendola doesn't have that because athletically he is more gifted than Edelman. Dola does those quick double turn moves smooth like no other (e.g. before the TD in the first Jets game). Hope he gets another handful of snaps against the Bills.

Rob0729 said:

Notice how Von Miller and Demarcus Ware have been invisible for the last month or so. That is why the Cowboys let Ware go. He fades at the end of the season. These guys have to make plays at the end of the season and they just don't. Why the Broncos aren't going to win.

Click to expand...

I was thinking about that today actually. Ware costs 9.6 millions against the cap this year and Von Miller costs them 6.6 million (4th year of the rookie contract). Just imagine the depth the Broncos could have had at LB (and whereever else they are hurting) if they didn't spend almost 10 millions on a player that definitely didn't put their pass rush on another level. And he is still on the books for another 10 million that are guaranteed (got 3 year 30m/20m guaranteed contract).

BradyFTW! said:

Which, again, I made pretty clear, but I guess it's easier to go after someone when you remove all context and attack straw men.

Basically, your entire rebuttal comes down to ignoring the content of what I posted to debate the semantics of my word choice in writing 'bad'.

Click to expand...

Not sure why you felt this was necessary, since the latter part had nothing to do with your statement.

That said, when you are trying to demonstrate that a team is a "bad" match up, you cannot complain when someone debates you about how "bad" that match up is. Even in your own text you admit that Pitt is average at the very thing they do well.

If you want to claim that they might be surprisingly decent, by all means go ahead, but don't trot out statements that universally mean something totally different and complain when you are disagreed with.

Gronkandez said:

It comes across much differently when you're listening.

Click to expand...

i use to be able to listen and watch bedard he comes across a lot different than reading what he said on here. To me he seems very credible when i listen and watch him.