Are we not as far as we originally thought?

[bucky]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

So, pretty much all year I felt like we were two years away from truly competing again. And I know teams always look a little sloppy in the Super Bowl for many reasons, but after watching tonight's game I couldn't help but feel we aren't as far from the top as I originally thought we were. One very good offseason and we're right back in it.

Of course a great offseason consists of: 1) keeping Wilfork here; 2) bringing another good wr to town; 3) drafting two starting outside linebackers; and 4) drafting a possible starting defensive end

2 years away? The Pats lost 6 games this year. 3 of them could have been turned on 1 play! And the Houston game they didn't try 100%. So they were actually extremely close to being 14-2.

Obviously, there are some items of concern that need to be corrected - like pass rush, depth at WR and LB, fading in the 2nd half, leadership void, etc. And I'm sure they won't fix all of them in 1 offseason. But they're definitely not 2 years away.

 

[patsfan55]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

I still don't get this "the Pats are two years away" stuff. This team is one year removed from a 11-5 record without Brady. They went 10-6 this year and won the division. They are in good shape to be active in free agency whether there is a cap or not. They have 4 picks in the first two rounds of the draft. There isn't any dominant teams in the NFL.

Personally, with the right moves this offseason, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 13-14 win season. Then again, with the wrong moves, I wouldn't be shocked to see an eight win season either.

The problem is, even if we do have some great draft picks, as we all know, it's usually not til their 2nd or 3rd year in the league where players are really contributing at a high level.

 

[Jangles]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

The regular season could have been great if a couple things had gone differently

The beatdown by the Ravens to end the season though really made me question where this team is at.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

I still don't get this "the Pats are two years away" stuff. This team is one year removed from a 11-5 record without Brady. They went 10-6 this year and won the division. They are in good shape to be active in free agency whether there is a cap or not. They have 4 picks in the first two rounds of the draft. There isn't any dominant teams in the NFL.

Personally, with the right moves this offseason, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 13-14 win season. Then again, with the wrong moves, I wouldn't be shocked to see an eight win season either.

I wonder how many 'years away' people thought this years Saints were. or the *gulp* '07 Giants.... or **'01 Pats.... list goes on and on. With a good offseason and a few good bounces, if you catch fire at the right time pretty much any team aside from Detroit/Cleveland can go all the way.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

The problem is, even if we do have some great draft picks, as we all know, it's usually not til their 2nd or 3rd year in the league where players are really contributing at a high level.

First of all, we have had plenty of players contribute as a rookie (Eugene Wilson, Jerod Mayo, Richard Seymour, Logan Mankins, to name a few). Second, the Pats can be active in free agency still. The Pats could use a pick or two to trade for a RFA or just sign free agents.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

I wonder how many 'years away' people thought this years Saints were. or the *gulp* '07 Giants.... or **'01 Pats.... list goes on and on. With a good offseason and a few good bounces, if you catch fire at the right time pretty much any team aside from Detroit/Cleveland can go all the way.

The Patriots and Steelers have 5 of the last 9 titles, and have represented the AFC in 6 of those 9 games. When you add the Colts into the equation, you've got 3 teams having played in 8 of the 9 Super Bowls on behalf of the AFC. Only the 2002 Raiders break up the dominance.

The NFC has been more wide open but, even there, there's been a team (Eagles) dominating to an extent. One could even argue that a major reason for the AFC Super Bowl dominance is precisely because there's been no room for upstarts.

 

[JoeShmoe]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

So, since BB will be HC+DC, who will be coaching the Offense ? O'Brien ? Then, you;re back to same predictability. Sad to see this team has gotten away from what we did best.....spread it around and the opposing D did not know week to week who to focus on. Right now its Moss+Welker and then the crickets chirp(no TE, no RB, no 3rd WR).

Unless the philosophy changes on Offense, this team will continue struggle(anomaly was 2007 season but that aint happening again)

Watching Brees/Saints throw to 8 receivers last night was a clear blueprint Sean Payton took from Pats of old. Pats need to look in their past to succeed in future, else mediocrity fellas

BINGO! - people seem to think that just adding parts to this offense instantly makes it better. We had Brady, Moss, Welker and a whole host of decent RB's yet the playcalling was goddamn awful.

I dont care who suits up or which studs you draft or get in FA - if we dont run block better and start getting more creative in the playcalling then top tier defenses will continue to figure this team out and shut them down

Look for example how Manning used that quick slant to Wayne and Garcon last night. I dont think I saw us use that all season. WE jst send Moss off on a 50 metre dash down field and hope Welker/Edelman is quick enough to get seperation. All the plays take an age to develop. We never throw to our TE's, we never throw to the RB in the flats - I could go on

And dont say the other guys cant play - when NO shut down Welker - Aiken had 7 or 8 catches

I dont care who we get - what we need more than any player is a decent OC. BB and O Brien are not that team

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

BINGO! - people seem to think that just adding parts to this offense instantly makes it better. We had Brady, Moss, Welker and a whole host of decent RB's yet the playcalling was goddamn awful.

I dont care who suits up or which studs you draft or get in FA - if we dont run block better and start getting more creative in the playcalling then top tier defenses will continue to figure this team out and shut them down

Look for example how Manning used that quick slant to Wayne and Garcon last night. I dont think I saw us use that all season. WE jst send Moss off on a 50 metre dash down field and hope Welker/Edelman is quick enough to get seperation. All the plays take an age to develop. We never throw to our TE's, we never throw to the RB in the flats - I could go on

And dont say the other guys cant play - when NO shut down Welker - Aiken had 7 or 8 catches

I dont care who we get - what we need more than any player is a decent OC. BB and O Brien are not that team

Aiken had 20 catches, total, all season.

The "other guys" couldn't play. You can go pissing about the play calling all you want. It wasn't anything near the biggest problem.

 

[patsfan55]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

First of all, we have had plenty of players contribute as a rookie (Eugene Wilson, Jerod Mayo, Richard Seymour, Logan Mankins, to name a few). Second, the Pats can be active in free agency still. The Pats could use a pick or two to trade for a RFA or just sign free agents.

Yes, there have been some that have contributed right away, but in all likelihood we'd get one out of the four early picks that are immediate solid contributors. All along I felt like we were four or five solid contributors away from being a true title contender. The point of my thread was to indicate my feelings that after seeing last night's game I feel as though that number is not quite as big, maybe we're really only two or three solid contributors away (of course this is assuming we keep Wilfork).

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

This was exactly my feeling after this game, I mean we all knew these were the two best teams in the league pretty much all year, and really, how far from them are we? In my view, not that much.

We are only as far away as shoring up our areas that are liabilities. And simply making them acceptable. Our good is as good as anyones. Our mediocre is fine. Our issue is that we have some spots that can be exploited and shredded, particularly by good and SMART teams.
We do not need more stars, we need to upgrade the bottom of the starting (or heavily contributing) roster.

 

[DonBlackmon55]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Aiken had 20 catches, total, all season.

The "other guys" couldn't play. You can go pissing about the play calling all you want. It wasn't anything near the biggest problem.

Hmmm...

Watson "couldnt play", maybe that explains his lack of production ? Maybe Maroney "can't play" and that explains his limited touches and he loses confidence in his abilities.

Your argument is baseless. The problem is offensive scheme and playcalling. They look great against teams unable to contain Moss + Welker. However, when teams are able to play the containment, there is nothing in the offensive scheme to use other "weapons".

 

[The Dynasty]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Next year hinges on where TB is. If we had 2002-2007 TB, this team is 16-0 to 14-2. People seem to forget how dominating the Pats were for the first 57 minutes of the Colts game.

With ACL's a two year injury, I think his performance was commendable this year. Next year will be the test.

Likewise, I like seeing BB more involved next year with the defense. There will not be anymore "shutdown" defenses because league rules render a "shutdown" defense very tough .

Thats a pretty bold statement. Theres not a chance this years Pats team could have ever been 14-2. Lets be honest here...

 

[The Dynasty]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Hmmm...

Watson "couldnt play", maybe that explains his lack of production ? Maybe Maroney "can't play" and that explains his limited touches and he loses confidence in his abilities.

Your argument is baseless. The problem is offensive scheme and playcalling. They look great against teams unable to contain Moss + Welker. However, when teams are able to play the containment, there is nothing in the offensive scheme to use other "weapons".

Yeah I agree its the play calling. I mean look at who the Colts have with rookies Garcon and Collie. Manning and Tom Moore made these guys look like studs. Brady is capable of doing the same thing with Aiken and Edelman (maybe not as good as Collie and Garcon, but to an extent). They needed a better play caller.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Hmmm...

Watson "couldnt play", maybe that explains his lack of production ? Maybe Maroney "can't play" and that explains his limited touches and he loses confidence in his abilities.

Your argument is baseless. The problem is offensive scheme and playcalling. They look great against teams unable to contain Moss + Welker. However, when teams are able to play the containment, there is nothing in the offensive scheme to use other "weapons".

You should probably at least pretend to do a little research before spouting this sort of gibberish.

2009 TEs (Watson/Baker): 43 catches
2007 TEs: (Watson/Brady/Thomas): 46 catches

2009 Maroney: 14 receptions
2007 Maroney: 4 receptions

2009 Maroney: 194 carries
2007 Maroney: 185 carries

2009 Maroney: 4 fumbles
2007 Maroney: 0 fumbles

You can keep spouting off for as long as you want. You'll be wrong the whole time.

2009 WR3 (Aiken/Galloway): 27 receptions
2007 WR3 (Stallworth/Gaffney): 82 receptions

It's really that simple.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Thats a pretty bold statement. Theres not a chance this years Pats team could have ever been 14-2. Lets be honest here...

With 2002-2007 Brady? What game would have been lost, exactly?

Jets? Nope
Denver? Nope
Indy? Nope
Miami? Nope
Houston? It's meaningless maybe
New Orleans? Perhaps.

The point is "great" QB play is critical. TB played better than can be expected from an ACL but wasn't classic TB. A full return to form will add more to this team than all the "pass rush"... yada... yada...yada talk on this board.

If he doesn't return to peak form (a possibility) then the Pats are much further off.

 

[bucky]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Thats a pretty bold statement. Theres not a chance this years Pats team could have ever been 14-2. Lets be honest here...

Just off the top of my head here...

Colts game - pick up the first down and they win.
Dolphins game - take away that awful INT in the end zone and the Pats probably win.
Denver game - Missed FG, plus numerous other chances in an overtime game.

That would have put us at 13-3 without even trying to win the Houston game. Also, did you know that they led at halftime of every game except the first Bills game and the Saints?

 

[patsfan55]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

We are only as far away as shoring up our areas that are liabilities. And simply making them acceptable. Our good is as good as anyones. Our mediocre is fine. Our issue is that we have some spots that can be exploited and shredded, particularly by good and SMART teams.
We do not need more stars, we need to upgrade the bottom of the starting (or heavily contributing) roster.

I never said we needed more stars. I completely agree with you that we need to shore up the weak spots: solb, wolb, de, wr3
Solid play out of those spots this year and we should look fine.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

With 2002-2007 Brady? What game would have been lost, exactly?

Jets? Nope
Denver? Nope
Indy? Nope
Miami? Nope
Houston? It's meaningless maybe
New Orleans? Perhaps.

The point is "great" QB play is critical. TB played better than can be expected from an ACL but wasn't classic TB. A full return to form will add more to this team than all the "pass rush"... yada... yada...yada talk on this board.

If he doesn't return to peak form (a possibility) then the Pats are much further off.

You look back on the past with emotions rather than objectivity. 2002-2007 Brady doesn't change the outcome of any of those losses, except MAYBE Denver.

You have delusions of what "classic TB" is/was. He wasn't at his best early on, but he wasn't as bad as you pretend he was compared to past years. 2002 Brady wasn't even close to as good as 2007 Brady btw.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Just off the top of my head here...

Colts game - pick up the first down and they win.
Dolphins game - take away that awful INT in the end zone and the Pats probably win.
Denver game - Missed FG, plus numerous other chances in an overtime game.

That would have put us at 13-3 without even trying to win the Houston game. Also, did you know that they led at halftime of every game except the first Bills game and the Saints?

You do realize that Brady was never perfect right? And that he has, in fact, thrown "awful" INTs and had 4 INT games and struggled at times like every other QB to ever play the game.

I mean sure you can look back at every loss, every single year and change 1 or 2 plays to create perfect seasons. But that's not reality.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Are we not as far as we originallly thought?

Hmmm...

Watson "couldnt play", maybe that explains his lack of production ? Maybe Maroney "can't play" and that explains his limited touches and he loses confidence in his abilities.

Your argument is baseless. The problem is offensive scheme and playcalling. They look great against teams unable to contain Moss + Welker. However, when teams are able to play the containment, there is nothing in the offensive scheme to use other "weapons".

What other "weapons"? Stop using Watson because nothing changed since he's been here. Aside from the Ravens game (and 1st Jets game), when has this offense looked terrible as compared to the past (not including 2007)?