- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 49,635
- Reaction score
- 28,362
Re: Denver's secretive nature, the key to their success vs pats?
What a stupid article! The Pats have historically done bad against the Broncos long before Belichick was the head coach. Was Shanahan's secretive nature the reason when Carroll, Parcells, Berry, etc. were head coaches?
The Pats have a horrible record in Miami, but not against Miami up here. Does that mean the Miami coaches are more secretive down in Florida?
Denver has a horrible record vs. Indy in the Dungy era. Does that mean Shanahan lets his guard down?
In the playoffs two years ago, the Pats lost primarily because of five turnovers which one was a RB fumble and two were on special teams. Not to mention the Champ Bailey INT was a rare illavised throw by Brady where he should have either taken the sack or thrown the ball out of bounds. Did Shanahan hiding defensive signals cause two defensive turnovers?
In 2004, Brady threw for 350 yards, 3 TDs, and 1 INT vs. the Broncos. Was that a rare game where Shanahan let his guard down and let the Pats read their signals?
Even in 2006, with Doug Gabriel and Reche Caldwell as his primary receivers, the Pats had 370 yards of offense and might have won the game if Gabriel didn't drop the ball on a big gain (might have been a TD if he held onto the ball) and then Caldwell didn't hold onto the fumble recovery.
Or how about 2005 during the regular season, with Dillon, Faulk, Troy Brown, and Matt Light out of the line up that day and the Pats almost came back from a 25 point deficit and had 388 yards of offense that day. Which hurt the Pats more? Not knowing the Broncos' defensive signals or Patrick Pass as the Pats' lead running back? Who had the advantage their of knowing the calls? The Broncos knew the Pats weren't going to run the ball that often.
I hate it when writers try to manufacture stories. You look at individual games and you will see that not being able to steal signals was clearly not the reason the Patriots lost to the Broncos.
Besides, Shanahan is the king of trying to steal signals.
What a stupid article! The Pats have historically done bad against the Broncos long before Belichick was the head coach. Was Shanahan's secretive nature the reason when Carroll, Parcells, Berry, etc. were head coaches?
The Pats have a horrible record in Miami, but not against Miami up here. Does that mean the Miami coaches are more secretive down in Florida?
Denver has a horrible record vs. Indy in the Dungy era. Does that mean Shanahan lets his guard down?
In the playoffs two years ago, the Pats lost primarily because of five turnovers which one was a RB fumble and two were on special teams. Not to mention the Champ Bailey INT was a rare illavised throw by Brady where he should have either taken the sack or thrown the ball out of bounds. Did Shanahan hiding defensive signals cause two defensive turnovers?
In 2004, Brady threw for 350 yards, 3 TDs, and 1 INT vs. the Broncos. Was that a rare game where Shanahan let his guard down and let the Pats read their signals?
Even in 2006, with Doug Gabriel and Reche Caldwell as his primary receivers, the Pats had 370 yards of offense and might have won the game if Gabriel didn't drop the ball on a big gain (might have been a TD if he held onto the ball) and then Caldwell didn't hold onto the fumble recovery.
Or how about 2005 during the regular season, with Dillon, Faulk, Troy Brown, and Matt Light out of the line up that day and the Pats almost came back from a 25 point deficit and had 388 yards of offense that day. Which hurt the Pats more? Not knowing the Broncos' defensive signals or Patrick Pass as the Pats' lead running back? Who had the advantage their of knowing the calls? The Broncos knew the Pats weren't going to run the ball that often.
I hate it when writers try to manufacture stories. You look at individual games and you will see that not being able to steal signals was clearly not the reason the Patriots lost to the Broncos.
Besides, Shanahan is the king of trying to steal signals.
