Do the Pats have a "Playmaker" on their D?

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

You're a bizarrely obsessive and stalker-ish troll, plain and simple.

Yeah, I haven't had a confrontation with you since last off-season, but I'm obsessive and a stalker-ish troll?

Nope, just wanted to let you know you were wrong and I was right.

But, if you ignore me then you will never hear from me again.

 

[Warren94]

You're a sore loser buddy. Why can't you just admit you were wrong on so many levels. I've already had a couple of apologies from people that defended Mr. Woods.

This coming from a guy who said Chad Jackson was going to be all-world?

 

[bucky]

Interesting how it only takes one preseason game for some people to decide that they must pick fights with other fans.
This thread was a disaster from the start as clearly it was an attempt to feel better by blasting the team for having the audacity to not play a preseason game like it was the SB, rather than a real attempt at discussion.
I love when threads are disguised as a question then any responder that doesn't praise the implication is called an idiot. .
The in fighting that followed was all this thread was ever destined for.

Actually, the poster has a valid point. This team has been lacking playmakers for the last 2 years. However, the timing, manner and tone of the post, along with some interesting responses, has turned this thread into a war zone.

 

[Warren94]

all over a paragraph ladies and gentleman

 

[Ring 6]

Actually, the poster has a valid point. This team has been lacking playmakers for the last 2 years. However, the timing, manner and tone of the post, along with some interesting responses, has turned this thread into a war zone.

Perhaps, but playing team defense and everyone doing thei job (considered 'not enough' by the OP) creates more plays than the perceived 'playmakers'. Personally, I find that term way too vague to ellicit a reasonable discussion.
Anyone you can call a 'playmaker' from any of our Championship teams, IMO, is far more a guy who just did his job. Our scheme revloves around that. I would much rather have players who do their job than player who shirk their responsibilities because they want to try to make big plays.
If Mayo read the play and ran to where he expected it to go, many fans would sing his praises because he makes tackles in the backfield, while our defese would consistently get gashed because no one is assigned to the job he abandoned.

 

[bucky]

Perhaps, but playing team defense and everyone doing thei job (considered 'not enough' by the OP) creates more plays than the perceived 'playmakers'. Personally, I find that term way too vague to ellicit a reasonable discussion.
Anyone you can call a 'playmaker' from any of our Championship teams, IMO, is far more a guy who just did his job. Our scheme revloves around that. I would much rather have players who do their job than player who shirk their responsibilities because they want to try to make big plays.
If Mayo read the play and ran to where he expected it to go, many fans would sing his praises because he makes tackles in the backfield, while our defese would consistently get gashed because no one is assigned to the job he abandoned.

Well the 2 are not mutually exclusive. Take Merriweather for example. He makes INTs and whenever he blitzes, he makes things happen. But at the same time he doesn't always do his job because sometimes he's out of position and his tackling is subpar. So what you need is a bunch of guys who do their jobs and a few guys who do that AND are playmakers. Like Harrison or Bruschi. When you got guys like Mayo and Sanders out there for 900 plays and they end up with a total 5 or 6 impact plays (including sacks, PDs, INTs, FFs, TFLs, etc.). One could argue they're not quite doing their jobs.

 

[Ring 6]

Well the 2 are not mutually exclusive. Take Merriweather for example. He makes INTs and whenever he blitzes, he makes things happen. But at the same time he doesn't always do his job because sometimes he's out of position and his tackling is subpar. So what you need is a bunch of guys who do their jobs and a few guys who do that AND are playmakers. Like Harrison or Bruschi. When you got guys like Mayo and Sanders out there for 900 plays and they end up with a total 5 or 6 impact plays (including sacks, PDs, INTs, FFs, TFLs, etc.). One could argue they're not quite doing their jobs.

Of course. Doing your job and doing it well is what creates plays.
My read on the OP was that it suggested 11 players doing their job would fail, and frankly, thats ludicrous. Rarely does 1 player 'make plays' all by himself. Int are more often caused by what the other players did than the guy who gets the pick. Same with sacks, fumbles, etc.

Maybe I misunderstood but I read it as saying aTeam Defense concept is crap and letting players free lance to make some big plays now and then is the way to go. Kind of the same old story that aggressive blitzing is a better concept than what BB believes in.
Remember, the most conservative coach in the NFL is the one who got us the most wins, playoff wins, and SBs of the last decade.

 

[apple strudel]

Yeah, I haven't had a confrontation with you since last off-season, but I'm obsessive and a stalker-ish troll?

Yup. I haven't been on the board for 6 months and my first day back you're trying to boost your apparently miniscule ego with a conversation I'd long since forgotten, never really cared about (other than hoping that Woods turned out to be a good player) and that you've so overinterpreted that you've pretty much forgotten what my point was. Some serious over-compensation going on here.

Nope, just wanted to let you know you were wrong and I was right.

I heard my batsh1t crazy neighbor screaming exactly that to a lady over parking 1 foot too close to his driveway. She drove away shaking her head, and everybody else laughed at him. It was great. You don't happen live in Watertown, do you?

But, if you ignore me then you will never hear from me again.

I'd wager that the only reason 90% of this board doesn't put you on ignore is that if they do your inane trolls would go unchallenged.

 

[apple strudel]

Yeah, I haven't had a confrontation with you since last off-season, but I'm obsessive and a stalker-ish troll?

Nope, just wanted to let you know you were wrong and I was right.

But, if you ignore me then you will never hear from me again.

You know what, you are a complete and utter tool. I wasted my time and went back and looked at what I wrote about Woods and I never said he was the answer. The crux of my argument was that 1) we didn't know if Woods was the answer, and 2) turning undrafted players into contributors is smart team-building. So yes, you are over-interpreting. Either that or English is your 4th language. What kind of loser plays "I was right, you were wrong" on the internet when they don't even have their ducks in a row? Right, weenies like you and my neighbor. You are a giant douche, bro. Now where's that apology? Right.

In case you don't believe me or are too lazy to search, I will provide some quotes.

Nobody really knows if he's the answer yet or not. But he's definitely in the mix as part of the rotation.

Nobody's trusting blindly. I am saying, simply and clearly, that turning an undrafted FA into a solid contributor and potential starter is precisely the right way to build your team. The fact that Woods is even in the mix to start speaks very well of both him and BB. Obviously BB and others think Crable might be more physically talented, based on draft position.

I love this forum. BB signs and develops an undrafted FA OLB who can work hard and contribute and people are complaining about it. Just like he turned a 7th round pick in the form of Cassel into a 2nd rounder and a solid contributor.

I mean, that's exactly how to build a team and work the draft. Shows how much people still don't understand football, even after years of BB as coach.

When you're investing a draft pick in a guy, I agree. When you get the guy off the street and he performs well for you on a regular basis, I disagree.

From this thread:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england.../10/248641-pierre-woods-our-starting-olb.html

 

[Ring 6]

You know what, you are a complete and utter tool. I wasted my time and went back and looked at what I wrote about Woods and I never said he was the answer. The crux of my argument was that 1) we didn't know if Woods was the answer, and 2) turning undrafted players into contributors is smart team-building. So yes, you are over-interpreting. Either that or English is your 4th language. What kind of loser plays "I was right, you were wrong" on the internet when they don't even have their ducks in a row? Right, weenies like you and my neighbor. You are a giant douche, bro. Now where's that apology? Right.

In case you don't believe me or are too lazy to search, I will provide some quotes.







From this thread:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england.../10/248641-pierre-woods-our-starting-olb.html

Homer
Woods Lover

 

[CheeseMonkeys]

Chill Brahs, aight?

 

[apple strudel]

Homer
Woods Lover

LOL (10 chars)

 

[iapatsfan]

Of course. Doing your job and doing it well is what creates plays.
My read on the OP was that it suggested 11 players doing their job would fail, and frankly, thats ludicrous. Rarely does 1 player 'make plays' all by himself. Int are more often caused by what the other players did than the guy who gets the pick. Same with sacks, fumbles, etc.

Maybe I misunderstood but I read it as saying aTeam Defense concept is crap and letting players free lance to make some big plays now and then is the way to go. Kind of the same old story that aggressive blitzing is a better concept than what BB believes in.
Remember, the most conservative coach in the NFL is the one who got us the most wins, playoff wins, and SBs of the last decade.

Let me retry saying what I was trying to say. Sure, in a vacuum, doing your job is exactly all defensive players have to do. Knowing how to do your job and doing it are two different things. The problem is there are people on the opposing team who try to prevent you from doing your job. So you can have the most dedicated, smartest, hardest working players, who all know exactly where they are supposed to be on a given play, but if they cannot beat the person in front of them, you lose. The Patriots used to have players who won those battles, now we don't. In the last few years, haven't you got sick of seeing receivers running free and our DL and LBs being stopped cold at the LOS. If I have to watch Wright or Burgess chicken fighting (and going nowhere) with the OL one more time, I may vomit. The Pats need PLAYMAKERS (which I define as guys that continually beat the men in front of them), not guys that just know how to do their jobs.

 

[Ring 6]

Let me retry saying what I was trying to say. Sure, in a vacuum, doing your job is exactly all defensive players have to do. Knowing how to do your job and doing it are two different things. The problem is there are people on the opposing team who try to prevent you from doing your job. So you can have the most dedicated, smartest, hardest working players, who all know exactly where they are supposed to be on a given play, but if they cannot beat the person in front of them, you lose.

That is part of doing your job. I really am losing your point here. Are you saying that BB preaching do your job means stand in the right spot, use bad technique and get blown off the ball????

The Patriots used to have players who won those battles, now we don't.

We won an awful lot of individual battles on the way to allowing the 5th fewest points in the NFL last season. Or is this all about a meaningless preseason game?

In the last few years, haven't you got sick of seeing receivers running free

Every team allows completions.
Last season we allowed 300 of them, which was the 7th fewest in the NFL. (the average is about 320)
We allowed 58.6% complete which was 11th best (the avg is about 61%)
We allowed the 12th most yards on those passes.

So, you are taking an above average performance and describing it as incompetance.
The average NFL game is going to have a team allow 20 pass completions for 240 yards. Unless we do worse than that how can you make such a huge miss of a statement
Since 2001, in 8 seasons of football, the Patriots have allowed more than the league average of completions or yards exactly 1 time (2005)
In every one of those seasons the Patriots comp % allowed has been lower than the league average (the only yr since BB got here that it wasnt was 2000 when they were 18th out of 31)

So, no, I cant say I am getting sic of seeing receivers run free when fewer do that against us than most other teams.

and our DL and LBs being stopped cold at the LOS.

I can do similar #swith run D. Again, teams run. The average team runs for well over 100 yards every game. [/quote]

If I have to watch Wright or Burgess chicken fighting (and going nowhere) with the OL one more time, I may vomit.

Burgess will not play in the base D so I could care less. Your comments here on Wright are simply ignorant. But go ahead and direct me to the plays that what he did could be described as chicken fighting, and i'll og watch them. I have the game taped, so just post time of game and down and distance, OK.

The Pats need PLAYMAKERS (which I define as guys that continually beat the men in front of them), not guys that just know how to do their jobs.

And consistently our players have done that. Otherwise we would have been a poorly ranked defense and a losing team.
It seems that your standard is 3 and out every series, and anything less sucks, but that is a fantasy world.

 

[mgteich]

Do we have a playmaker? Will we lead the lead in sacks? Who will be our pass-rushing intimidator? For me, all these questions are beside the point.

For me, the questions for me is how many points will the defense allow? And how many points will the team allow in critical situations?

If the defense is in the top 5 in points allowed again, the offense should ahve us deep in the playoffs.

BTW, the team with best defense and best running game lost the division to the NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS LAST YEAR. Winning is about scoring more points than your opponent!
==================

And the answer is "yes". Thankfully the playmaker may be different players at different times. Do we have any probowl quality talent? Of course, we do.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

You know what, you are a complete and utter tool. I wasted my time and went back and looked at what I wrote about Woods and I never said he was the answer.

Thanks for bringing the thread back up. Now if anybody from that thread that thought I was wrong, they owe me an apology.

Thanks,

Hey Bro, What up? aka "thearchives"

The crux of my argument was that 1) we didn't know if Woods was the answer, and 2) turning undrafted players into contributors is smart team-building. So yes, you are over-interpreting. Either that or English is your 4th language. What kind of loser plays "I was right, you were wrong" on the internet when they don't even have their ducks in a row? Right, weenies like you and my neighbor. You are a giant douche, bro. Now where's that apology? Right.

Wrong. You defended him and I said he wasn't starter worthy. When did I say today that you defended him and could be a starter for the Pats? I didn't. And thanks again for bringing back that thread. I was dead on about Woods (which wasn't very difficult). And in case you didn't notice, one of my quotes to DaBruinz was something like "I hope Woods is the next best thing, but I'm not holding my breath".
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england.../10/248641-pierre-woods-our-starting-olb.html

This coming from a guy who said Chad Jackson was going to be all-world?

Did you just see that Apple Strudel? He just proved me wrong about Chad Jackson and brought this back up 4 years later. I must have a stalker and he must be a troll.

But in all seriousness, it didn't help the fact that the Pats mismanaged a player they traded up for to be their #1 guy and put him on special teams to tackle the ball carrier. Not everyone responds well when they tear their ACL. But to be fair, I was wrong about Jackson and I was wrong about Maroney.

Can you believe that? I think I just history on Patsfans.com! Someone actually admitted they were wrong.

 

[apple strudel]

Wrong. You defended him and I said he wasn't starter worthy. When did I say today that you defended him and could be a starter for the Pats? I didn't. And thanks again for bringing back that thread. I was dead on about Woods (which wasn't very difficult). And in case you didn't notice, one of my quotes to DaBruinz was something like "I hope Woods is the next best thing, but I'm not holding my breath".
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england.../10/248641-pierre-woods-our-starting-olb.html

Haha, you are such an amazing, spectacular idiot. Let me quote you "I was right and you were wrong" or some such bullsh1t. Except that I wasn't, genius. Turning an undrafted free agent into a contributor is smart team building, and that's exactly what I said. And now your sorry 4ss is doing all kinds of backtracking on a topic that you brought up out of nowhere. Stalker.

What is you major malfunction? Seriously, there is something very wrong with your brain, and it's hilarious and sad to watch all at the same time.

Did you just see that Apple Strudel? He just proved me wrong about Chad Jackson and brought this back up 4 years later. I must have a stalker and he must be a troll.

You are a stalker because I didn't even know who you are until today, but you clearly misremember me. And you are a troll because you completely make **** up. Right out of your 4ss/mouth.

But in all seriousness, it didn't help the fact that the Pats mismanaged a player they traded up for to be their #1 guy and put him on special teams to tackle the ball carrier. Not everyone responds well when they tear their ACL. But to be fair, I was wrong about Jackson and I was wrong about Maroney.

What do Jackson and Maroney have to do with the price of tea in China? Seriously, do you have ADD? Maybe, but I also see an awful lot of face saving going on. This is great!

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Stalker.

It's not nice to call people names. And you fail to recognize that somebody did the same thing I did to you. He must be a stalker as well? You are weak like the rest.

What is you major malfunction? Seriously, there is something very wrong with your brain, and it's hilarious and sad to watch all at the same time.

Says the guy who defended Pierre Woods. And was wrong.

You are a stalker because I didn't even know who you are until today, but you clearly misremember me. And you are a troll because you completely make **** up. Right out of your 4ss/mouth.

See the first comment.

What do Jackson and Maroney have to do with the price of tea in China? Seriously, do you have ADD? Maybe, but I also see an awful lot of face saving going on. This is great!

Damn, and you think I'm losing it.

 

[apple strudel]

It's not nice to call people names. And you fail to recognize that somebody did the same thing I did to you. He must be a stalker as well? You are weak like the rest.

My 4ss. You've got nothing but a bunch of bullsh1t to back up your bizarre inventions and weird obsessions.

Says the guy who defended Pierre Woods. And was wrong.

Can you read? Apparently not. Jesus you are stupider than you sound. This is just amazing to watch. FOR THE THINKING IMPAIRED: I "DEFENDED" HIM AS AN UNDRAFTED FREE AGENT WHO MADE A DECENT CONTRIBUTION TO THE TEAM AND ILLUSTRATED HOW THIS IS EFFECTIVE TEAM BUILDING STRATEGY. And I've got the quotes and the thread to prove it. Jesus f*cking christ, do you get it now? Or are you going to keep repeating the same invention over and over again? How much face do you have to lose in the process of trying to save face? Seriously. :ugh:

See the first comment.

That's all you've got? What a turd. You're not even trying.

Damn, and you think I'm losing it.

Apparently you don't read the tripe you post. But the good news is that you're not really a troll at all, you are a genuine internet loser. Sweet!

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

My 4ss. You've got nothing but a bunch of bullsh1t to back up your bizarre inventions and weird obsessions.

This coming from a guy who said Chad Jackson was going to be all-world?

Try reading what I already posted.

Can you read? Apparently not. Jesus you are stupider than you sound. This is just amazing to watch. FOR THE THINKING IMPAIRED: I "DEFENDED" HIM AS AN UNDRAFTED FREE AGENT WHO MADE A DECENT CONTRIBUTION TO THE TEAM AND ILLUSTRATED HOW THIS IS EFFECTIVE TEAM BUILDING STRATEGY. And I've got the quotes and the thread to prove it. Jesus f*cking christ, do you get it now? Or are you going to keep repeating the same invention over and over again? How much face do you have to lose in the process of trying to save face? Seriously. :ugh:

Woods was just about worthless at everything.

Apparently you don't read the tripe you post. But the good news is that you're not really a troll at all, you are a genuine internet loser. Sweet!

Welcome back!