Are we not as far as we originally thought?

[emoney_33]

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

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.

Are you honestly trying to suggest that Moore/Manning are better at getting more out of less? Brady made his career winning with minimal talent. Sam Aiken is a special teamer, no QB in the universe is going to make him look good. Edelman broke his arm early, not to mention he was a QB (not a WR) in college. Enough with the delusions please.

 

[upstater1]

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...

I'm not so sure about that.

If the referee deems the Faulk catch a 1st down conversion, you're at 11-5. A win at Houston if youre playing for a better seed makes you 12-4. Who's to say the Patriots don't choke it away to Miami off the momentum from the Colts win. That puts them at 13-3. Very close to 14-2, and the Denver choke would be the other likely game that would have taken them to 14-2.

The Patriots were beaten thoroughly by the Saints and Jets, but otherwise, they lost the rest of those games in totally un-Patriot-like fashion.

They could have been 14-2.

 

[SanAngeloState]

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

If BB can work some magic and develop schemes around players instead of trying to draft players to fit schemes...some originality and anticipation of what the defense is doing on offense....

no doubt we can dominate go 16-0 or nearabouts and win the SB.

Maybe BB having his hands closer to the defense is a good thing.

 

[patsfan55]

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

Are you honestly trying to suggest that Moore/Manning are better at getting more out of less? Brady made his career winning with minimal talent. Sam Aiken is a special teamer, no QB in the universe is going to make him look good. Edelman broke his arm early, not to mention he was a QB (not a WR) in college. Enough with the delusions please.

Great post. Although the Colts might have done a better job at putting players in position to make more plays than us this year (due to lack of experience on O'Brien's part). We need to all remember though that McDaniels' first year calling the plays we were all screaming how awful he was too.

 

[The Dynasty]

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

Are you honestly trying to suggest that Moore/Manning are better at getting more out of less? Brady made his career winning with minimal talent. Sam Aiken is a special teamer, no QB in the universe is going to make him look good. Edelman broke his arm early, not to mention he was a QB (not a WR) in college. Enough with the delusions please.

I was suggesting that with a better play caller the Patriots could have been better because Brady knows how to get the most out of his WR's similar to what Manning/Moore did with Garcon and Collie this year. No where did I say that Manning and Moore are better at getting more out of less I was noting what they did this season. Next time only react to what I actually post, not make up things that you hope I meant. Put Aiken in Garcon's spot I think he puts up the same kind of numbers, I disagree with you on that one.

 

[The Dynasty]

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

I'm not so sure about that.

If the referee deems the Faulk catch a 1st down conversion, you're at 11-5. A win at Houston if youre playing for a better seed makes you 12-4. Who's to say the Patriots don't choke it away to Miami off the momentum from the Colts win. That puts them at 13-3. Very close to 14-2, and the Denver choke would be the other likely game that would have taken them to 14-2.

The Patriots were beaten thoroughly by the Saints and Jets, but otherwise, they lost the rest of those games in totally un-Patriot-like fashion.

They could have been 14-2.

You could just as easily say they could have lost some of the games that they won this year. Ex. The Ravens game when Mason dropped the pass. You cant make a strong argument based on assumptions.

The fact is that the Patriots were 10-6 this year, could they have been better, yes sure they could have, but they also could have lost a few more games. To say that they could have been 16-0 to 14-2 is ridiculous, that would be changing 4-6 outcomes of games. Brady is not the difference between winning or losing 6 games. He did lose games when he was completely healthy, he isnt perfect....

 

[emoney_33]

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

I was suggesting that with a better play caller the Patriots could have been better because Brady knows how to get the most out of his WR's similar to what Manning/Moore did with Garcon and Collie this year. No where did I say that Manning and Moore are better at getting more out of less I was noting what they did this season. Next time only react to what I actually post, not make up things that you hope I meant. Put Aiken in Garcon's spot I think he puts up the same kind of numbers, I disagree with you on that one.

That makes no sense, why would I -hope- you mean anything?

Aiken didn't put up numbers because he can't get OPEN. Not because the offensive coordinator can't make him get open. If you think we would have been a better offense by coming up with gimmicks just to get Aiken the ball, then I don't know what to tell you. O'Brien wasn't particularly great, but the lack of weapons was NOT primarily due to play calling.

You act as if the team had a bad offensive year. This team had a tough pass defense schedule, while putting up 3rd most yards, 6th most points and leading the league in TOP. Yet you want Aiken to get the ball more?

They were forced to use Aiken against the Ravens more than they wanted to, and it resulted it turnovers.

What do you think O'Brien was doing, calling plays to make Aiken sit down and do nothing? Or is it that you fault him for not finding any way possible to get the ball in the hands of the great Sam Aiken?

 

[upstater1]

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

You could just as easily say they could have lost some of the games that they won this year. Ex. The Ravens game when Mason dropped the pass. You cant make a strong argument based on assumptions.

The fact is that the Patriots were 10-6 this year, could they have been better, yes sure they could have, but they also could have lost a few more games. To say that they could have been 16-0 to 14-2 is ridiculous, that would be changing 4-6 outcomes of games. Brady is not the difference between winning or losing 6 games. He did lose games when he was completely healthy, he isnt perfect....

I was responding to your previous post.

You said there was no chance the Patriots could have 14-2.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

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

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.

Uhhhh no

Sorry sport but all those games come down to one or two plays. This board picked apart all those games.

Besides my post is zero indictment on TB. He played far beyond what should be expected from someone coming back and compared to "standard" QBing was very good. In terms of accuracy and pocket presence, it wasn't standard Brady.

A fully healthy Brady with a full offseason of work with his receivers will provide the biggest "upside" of any team in the league.

 

[DonBlackmon55]

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

That makes no sense, why would I -hope- you mean anything?

Aiken didn't put up numbers because he can't get OPEN. Not because the offensive coordinator can't make him get open. If you think we would have been a better offense by coming up with gimmicks just to get Aiken the ball, then I don't know what to tell you. O'Brien wasn't particularly great, but the lack of weapons was NOT primarily due to play calling.

You act as if the team had a bad offensive year. This team had a tough pass defense schedule, while putting up 3rd most yards, 6th most points and leading the league in TOP. Yet you want Aiken to get the ball more?

They were forced to use Aiken against the Ravens more than they wanted to, and it resulted it turnovers.

What do you think O'Brien was doing, calling plays to make Aiken sit down and do nothing? Or is it that you fault him for not finding any way possible to get the ball in the hands of the great Sam Aiken?

How many of the "Stats" were skewed by the shellacking of TN and Brady's 6TD game ?

Any 8yr old could tell you what Pats were going to do when Maroney was in backfield, or when they changed up to have either Faulk/Taylor. The fact is this team regressed offensively through the year. Idiotic unbalanced playcalling was even more the problem....Ok say Aiken was garbage, that does not excuse not throwin to RB's or TE.

Bottomline it was Moss or Welker, regardless who else were the weapons, and don't tell me rest were garbage players with no talent. If that's the case then BB is even a bigger idiot for going into the season with these useless backups after Moss & Welker.

 

[emoney_33]

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

Uhhhh no

Sorry sport but all those games come down to one or two plays. This board picked apart all those games.

Wrong, all those games come down to a unique collection of MANY plays. Trying to handpick 1 or 2 plays to change while keeping everything else exactly the same is a fool's game.

Besides my post is zero indictment on TB. He played far beyond what should be expected from someone coming back and compared to "standard" QBing was very good. In terms of accuracy and pocket presence, it wasn't standard Brady.

A fully healthy Brady with a full offseason of work with his receivers will provide the biggest "upside" of any team in the league.

So you expect 2007 level of output then, and think that's valid to "expect"? I know Brady wasn't at 100% and was inconsistent at times, moreso early on, but I don't think his performance personally was that far off his career norm.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

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.

...

I take BB at his word that he doesn't feel even he knows what he has in the current year's team in any given season until week six or so.

That said, I would say that we are probably a lot closer to "the top" than we were after the 5--11 2000 Season and the next year turned out pretty well, as I recall.

 

[bucky]

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

You could just as easily say they could have lost some of the games that they won this year. Ex. The Ravens game when Mason dropped the pass. You cant make a strong argument based on assumptions.

The fact is that the Patriots were 10-6 this year, could they have been better, yes sure they could have, but they also could have lost a few more games. To say that they could have been 16-0 to 14-2 is ridiculous, that would be changing 4-6 outcomes of games. Brady is not the difference between winning or losing 6 games. He did lose games when he was completely healthy, he isnt perfect....

That's true. No one is arguing that the Pats should have been 14-2. But they weren't that far off of it. On the other hand, the Patriots could have been 8-8 by losing to the Bills and Ravens. All the other games were significantly more decisive.

So the whole argument is that the Patriots were very atypical in going 2-4 in close games. Tom Brady and BB are usually the difference makers in those types of games. If they get back to form and fill a few holes with average to above average players, this is still a top notch team.

 

[emoney_33]

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

How many of the "Stats" were skewed by the shellacking of TN and Brady's 6TD game ?

Why are you asking me? Get off your lazy arse and go crunch the numbers yourself. Be sure to take out every team's best game.

Any 8yr old could tell you what Pats were going to do when Maroney was in backfield, or when they changed up to have either Faulk/Taylor. The fact is this team regressed offensively through the year. Idiotic unbalanced playcalling was even more the problem....Ok say Aiken was garbage, that does not excuse not throwin to RB's or TE.

Well there must be a lot of 7 year olds coaching and playing in the NFL if Maroney can still get almost 4 YPC, the offense can still score 26.7 PPG, Brady can still complete 66% of his passes and throw 28 TDs. Yep, even an 8 year could have stopped this idiotic offense

Bottomline it was Moss or Welker, regardless who else were the weapons, and don't tell me rest were garbage players with no talent. If that's the case then BB is even a bigger idiot for going into the season with these useless backups after Moss & Welker.

BB is not an "idiot" and the rest WERE garbage players. Watson is talented but like is usual with our TE's we ask them to block more than be a receiving threat. BB tried to get another WR but all of his attempts failed for various reasons, none of which point to him being an idiot. Lewis, Galloway, Nunn, Tate. Maybe he should have valued Gaffney a little bit higher, but that can hardly be called idiotic.

All that being said, stop acting like we had a bad year offensively. It was a GOOD year offensively. Better than 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008. 2004 can only be considered better because it had the workhorse great year of Corey Dillon.

O'Brien wasn't 'great', but quit over-reacting.

 

[VJCPatriot]

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

If BB can work some magic and develop schemes around players instead of trying to draft players to fit schemes...some originality and anticipation of what the defense is doing on offense....

no doubt we can dominate go 16-0 or nearabouts and win the SB.

Maybe BB having his hands closer to the defense is a good thing.

But who is calling the plays on offense in the meanwhile? Our offense looked predictable and uninspired in 2009. The Pats blew SIX fourth quarter leads and couldn't sustain drives to end the game if their lives depended on it. Know how many 4th quarter leads the Pats had blown before then? 1. UNO.

They were ridiculously good at holding onto leads before 2009. Unfortunately I believe that blown 4th quarter lead was against the Colts in the AFCCG. Someone correct me on my stats if I'm wrong. But I believe the facts will show that 2009 was the Pats worst season in terms of blowing leads in the BB era.

 

[emoney_33]

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

But who is calling the plays on offense in the meanwhile? Our offense looked predictable and uninspired in 2009. The Pats blew SIX fourth quarter leads and couldn't sustain drives to end the game if their lives depended on it. Know how many 4th quarter leads the Pats had blown before then? 1. UNO.

Blowing a 4th quarter LEAD is indicative of a "predictable" offense? I'm fairly certain you can't blow a lead unless you give up some points...

Brady's 4th quarter numbers weren't that far off his career norms for the 4th quarter (except for the aberration of 07)

 

[The Dynasty]

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

That makes no sense, why would I -hope- you mean anything?

Aiken didn't put up numbers because he can't get OPEN. Not because the offensive coordinator can't make him get open. If you think we would have been a better offense by coming up with gimmicks just to get Aiken the ball, then I don't know what to tell you. O'Brien wasn't particularly great, but the lack of weapons was NOT primarily due to play calling.

You act as if the team had a bad offensive year. This team had a tough pass defense schedule, while putting up 3rd most yards, 6th most points and leading the league in TOP. Yet you want Aiken to get the ball more?

They were forced to use Aiken against the Ravens more than they wanted to, and it resulted it turnovers.

What do you think O'Brien was doing, calling plays to make Aiken sit down and do nothing? Or is it that you fault him for not finding any way possible to get the ball in the hands of the great Sam Aiken?

I said that because you love looking for fights on here...

Maybe the reason Aiken didnt get open because of the plays that were called...the Patriots didnt get the most out of some of their offensive players this year. Aiken, Maroney and Watson come to mind. I think that the lack of a good OC was the reason for this. The play calling was awful all season long, way too predictable.

I strongly believe that if Aiken was in place of Garcon he would have put up the same numbers because Manning/Moore know how to get the most out of their players. They call plays based off of their strengths. When O'Brien knew that Welker and Moss would be doubled he could have called plays to get the ball to Aiken, he is a big strong physical WR. He could be a decent 3rd WR if he was used correctly. The biggest reason for the offensive struggles this year was because of the lack of an OC and I really hope BB address it this off season

 

[The Dynasty]

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

I was responding to your previous post.

You said there was no chance the Patriots could have 14-2.

You cant look back on the season and change the outcome of games based upon if someone played at 100%. There is no chance they could have gone 14-2 because some of the teams the Pats played this year were just flat out better than they were, not because our QB wasnt 100%, our WR played with a separated shoulder, etc...

Fans sometimes need to realize that Brady is not perfect, he does lose games. We got spoiled in 2007 and fans now expect perfection every season. We won the AFC East and were 10-6, that isnt a bad season by most NFL teams standards.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

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

Wrong, all those games come down to a unique collection of MANY plays. Trying to handpick 1 or 2 plays to change while keeping everything else exactly the same is a fool's game.



So you expect 2007 level of output then, and think that's valid to "expect"? I know Brady wasn't at 100% and was inconsistent at times, moreso early on, but I don't think his performance personally was that far off his career norm.

uhhhh NO

Like no int in Miami or hitting Welker in Denver.

And no I don't expect 2007. What can be expected is better strings of sustained drives. This will come from full recuperation, full off season of fundamentals and hours of work with receivers.

Why are you so defensive? He played better than any QB could be expected to play and w/o the Weler injury would most likely have had a great playoff.

 

[emoney_33]

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

I said that because you love looking for fights on here...

Right I don't frequently back up all my debates with facts, rather I just go poking around looking for a fight

Maybe the reason Aiken didnt get open because of the plays that were called...the Patriots didnt get the most out of some of their offensive players this year. Aiken, Maroney and Watson come to mind. I think that the lack of a good OC was the reason for this. The play calling was awful all season long, way too predictable.

Sam Aiken.... SAM AIKEN. You are arguing that SAM FRIGGIN AIKEN should have gotten more attention.

I strongly believe that if Aiken was in place of Garcon he would have put up the same numbers because Manning/Moore know how to get the most out of their players. They call plays based off of their strengths. When O'Brien knew that Welker and Moss would be doubled he could have called plays to get the ball to Aiken, he is a big strong physical WR. He could be a decent 3rd WR if he was used correctly. The biggest reason for the offensive struggles this year was because of the lack of an OC and I really hope BB address it this off season

He CANNOT get open, it doesn't matter what play you call. Did you WATCH the Ravens game? They tried to get him the ball, and it resulted in interceptions all the way to 24-0. You live in a fantasy world. We didn't have a lot of offensive struggles this season. Sam Aiken is NOT a viable 3rd option, you can continue to pretend that the Colts would have made him more than he is but the only reason he stuck around was for his special teams contributions.