THEARCHIVES said:
I know it's the first game of the season and lots of teams are rusty coming out of the gates, but if the first game is any indication, Brady will have a hard time lasting the season. Brady clearly has NO RECIEVERS TO THROW TO!
Maybe you are just making a point, but it's really too strong a statement. First, you really do have to take into account what the game plan was. When there were 41 rushing plays versus 23 passing plays, you have to figure that either the game plan was to find out what the running game could do or that the Bills defensive sets were taking away the pass and making the running plays the much better choice. If you want to assume that it was because Belichick had no confidence in the passing game, you are welcome to assume that - but I just don't think that is how he operates.
Also, of course, is that fact that both TDs were scored on passes.
And, as far as I know, TEs are considered receivers. And in the Pats game, don't you also have to agree that Faulk and other RBs are receivers ?
OK, so maybe you want to comment just on WR.
Brady threw to Caldwell 4 times.
= 1-13:38 was a long fly. Either Brady threw a step too far or Caldwell was a step too slow. But Caldwell leaped and got a hand on it or it may well have been an interception.
= 2-7:21 - ball was tipped. No chance for Caldwell.
= 3-8:50 - 2nd and 7; 9 yard completion for a 1st down. Drive ended in TD.
= 4-11:28 - 1st and 10; 24 yard completion for a 1st down. Drive ended in FG.
Brady threw to Brown 3 times.
= 1-10:47 - 9 yard completion for TD.
= 1-3:01 - incompletion - Brady threw the ball as he was pulled down.
= 3-4:56 - 1st and 10 at Buffalo 33 - 9 yard completion. Drive ended in TD.
IMHO, that's not exactly NO RECEIVERS.
THEARCHIVES said:
The O-line had a hard time blocking the Bills D-line at times and when Brady did get passes off, he was getting clocked in the process.
I tend to agree with you. I didn't go through and figure out how many pressures there were, but there were 3 sacks out of 23 pass attempts and 2 tipped balls by Schobel - that accounts for 5 of the 12 incompletions. That doesn't seem like a good O-line performance. But if that's the problem, why does that lead you to judge that it is a huge WR problem rather than an O-line pass blocking problem ?? ??
THEARCHIVES said:
When ever they showed Brady on the sidelines you could clearly tell that "something" was bothering him. I'm not trying to be a hater or downer, just a realist.
See above
THEARCHIVES said:
I'm not a homer and I don't drink the Kool-aid. I will admit that I thought it was a great idea for the Patriots to let Deion hold out. However, after watching Brady struggle as much as he did the Pats need to re-evaluate the Branch situation no matter how wrong Deion may be, he is the only reciever not named Brown that Brady has shown to rely heavily on. Branch is important to Brady's success and the rest of the team. I think Deion is wrong, but for pete's sakes Patriots, sometimes you may have to overpay in order to keep your "CORE" intact.
Well, I have asked this dozens of times, but I have never gotten an answer. Which of the 'middle class' players are you willing to give up in order to 'overpay' some players ? And you HAVE to answer that question to justify changing the overall approach of the Patriots. You can't just avoid it on some vague basis of 'there's enough money' - there isn't. It's a fixed cap. You could certainly make the case that there's enough money at the moment to pay Branch right now. But if you advocate that, you have to have a pretty darn good explanation about why that wouldn't be setting a ruinous precedent that would lead other players holding out or at least foul up the possibility of the Patriots signing players to reasonable extensions before their contract is up. Maybe you think it would be no problem, but I strongly suspect the Patriots would disagree with you. And what' wrong with the Belichick/Pioli approach anyway ? 3 superbowls doesn't count for anything ?
I guess that the Patriots have answered that question anyway. Rather than change their philosophy and open the door to chaos, they just traded Branch rather than 'overpay' him. Even though they absolutely 'needed him'. But maybe you can come back at the end of the season and say 'I told you so'. Somehow or another, I'm not rooting for that. But maybe that's just me.
THEARCHIVES said:
A "win is a win" but the Pats played like ****! Oh yeah, tell me why the Pats traded for Doug Gabriel again? Why wasn't he playing today?
That does your credibility no good. How about that he was on the injury report with a hamstring ? Or even more, how about that he has had so few practice reps with Brady ?
THEARCHIVES said:
They really could have used him against the Bills.
Earlier you seem to make a big point about receivers that Brady can 'rely on'. Does Gabriel fall into that category ? Somehow, I rather think that Brady was much more familiar with Childress. But maybe that's just me.
