http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/patriots-left-peeved-and-proud-after-loss
man, brady took this as hard as the 2011 SB.
man, brady took this as hard as the 2011 SB.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/patriots-left-peeved-and-proud-after-loss
man, brady took this as hard as the 2011 SB.
Bill Belichick doesn't strike me as a coach who believes in close enough being good enough.For some reason, this game feels like last years Carolina game. A game in which they should have won but did not. There are no moral victories. And if the Pats start believing that, they are guaranteed to lose next week.
For some reason, this game feels like last years Carolina game. A game in which they should have won but did not. There are no moral victories. And if the Pats start believing that, they are guaranteed to lose next week.
I don't understand all this "Pats should have won" crap. If the other team doesn't turn it over, you don't win games where you lose in both trenches.
Did you only watch the first half? GB couldn't run the ball after their opening drive, Brady had time to throw with one exception and NE actually starting pushing GB around in the second half. Other than pass rush - which was partially by design - there wasn't a single area that you would give GB a convincing edge in. Two (pass pro and run defense) would probably go to NE by a slim margin.
I completely disagree with you. If you honestly think NE had better pass protection in either half, you really need to rewatch the game. Aside from a couple of bad plays, NE's secondary was the only thing that kept NE in the game. As far as run defense, chalk that up to the LBs (and DBs on a couple of occasions). Wilfork and Jones were getting pushed around, even in the second half. NE lost this game badly in the trenches, and if GB didn't have a couple of redzone drops, the score differential would have been much greater.Did you only watch the first half? GB couldn't run the ball after their opening drive, Brady had time to throw with one exception and NE actually starting pushing GB around in the second half. Other than pass rush - which was partially by design - there wasn't a single area that you would give GB a convincing edge in. Two (pass pro and run defense) would probably go to NE by a slim margin.
A couple of those FGs would have been TDs if not for bad drops.Agreed. Um, Green Bay only scored three points in the entire second half. They made one big, big play as the first half was ending. Despite 36 minutes of possession when the Pats' D held them to only two TD's, that was the difference in the game.
I read the article.http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/patriots-left-peeved-and-proud-after-loss
man, brady took this as hard as the 2011 SB.
The reason the Pass Protection sucked was that the Packers could afford to go after Brady because they assumed he was going to be passing. The Pats only called 18 runs all day.I completely disagree with you. If you honestly think NE had better pass protection in either half, you really need to rewatch the game. Aside from a couple of bad plays, NE's secondary was the only thing that kept NE in the game. As far as run defense, chalk that up to the LBs (and DBs on a couple of occasions). Wilfork and Jones were getting pushed around, even in the second half. NE lost this game badly in the trenches, and if GB didn't have a couple of redzone drops, the score differential would have been much greater.
Oh give me a break. Dropped passes are a function of a lot of things, including timing and pressure down field; those of us who aren't on the field have no idea what really causes them most of the time. The Pats dropped passes as well.A couple of those FGs would have been TDs if not for bad drops.
Gronk's "drop" was a contested catch. Packers had a couple of guys drop would-be TDs that were uncontested passes that hit them in the hands. There were many times when Rodgers comfortably had more than 5 seconds to throw. Brady had no such luxury.The reason the Pass Protection sucked was that the Packers could afford to go after Brady because they assumed he was going to be passing. The Pats only called 18 runs all day.
I don't see how you can say they lost the game in the trenches on D when they only gave up two TD's all day and none in the red zone and none in the second half. The play that won the game for Green Bay had nothing to do with the trenches. It was a great Catch and Throw.
As for dropped passes, if Gronkowski doesn't drop that pass the Pats likely win the game. He admits he should have caught it. Both teams dropped passes.
Besides rewatching the game, you may want to reread this post.Oh give me a break. Dropped passes are a function of a lot of things, including timing and pressure down field; those of us who aren't on the field have no idea what really causes them most of the time. The Pats dropped passes as well.
I completely disagree with you. If you honestly think NE had better pass protection in either half, you really need to rewatch the game. Aside from a couple of bad plays, NE's secondary was the only thing that kept NE in the game. As far as run defense, chalk that up to the LBs (and DBs on a couple of occasions). Wilfork and Jones were getting pushed around, even in the second half. NE lost this game badly in the trenches, and if GB didn't have a couple of redzone drops, the score differential would have been much greater.
I wish you were right. Generally speaking, people create false narratives to help substantiate a claim that they wish to be true. I am a borderline Pats homer and was expecting the Pats to dominate the trenches. I was very wrong in that expectation.I don't know what else I can tell you. That was simply not game lost badly in the trenches. If you want to continue with a false narrative, that's your prerogative.