idle thoughts - instant reaction

[shmessy]

This defense yesterday was vanilla. You're fine with it obviously. I'm in the party that believe we could be more creative and could have forced Manuel to more bad decisions.

Your complaints about our offense being aggressive is the bigger headscratcher. You mean to tell me it was a bad idea to give the green light to a HOF QB for a 2 minute drill?

1) Manuel had 150 yds total passing. Maybe you'd complain about Marilyn Monroe's beauty mark.

2) "HOF QB for a 2 minute drill"???? - - try 1:12, backed up deep in his own territory with a 10 point lead, no Dobson and no Amendola.

Sure, let's go 60+ yards in 1:12 throwing to Sudfeld, Thompkins and Boyce in all 3 of their first games as a pro!!!! What could possibly go wrong?



- - Hint: Here's what could go wrong - that 17-7 lead could evaporate into a 21-17 deficit within the next 6 minutes of playing time without ever getting the ball back after that inconceivable brainfart.

 

[Demosthenes]

Wow. Nice jump to conclusions.

Do you have to stretch for an hour to be able to do that?

Didn't have to stretch at all as it's the result of the underlying logic of your position. I don't think that teams and coaches should play "scared". Or engage in tactics/strategy based off of "what if we fail".

In the upcoming game against the Jets, if we get the ball first and start on the 25 yard line, why, we'd have to drive 75 whole yards to try and score. What if we fumble ? What if we throw an interception ? It would be "better" if we just kicked the ball away instead of running the risk of making a mistake and having a turnover.

There was 1:11 left on the clock and we only needed to go 45 yards to be in position to put points on the board. I'm happy to have a coaching staff that says "hey, that's more than enough time to try and get another score".

 

[DaBruinz]

How do you know EJ could have handled that blitz? He's a rookie playing in his first NFL game.

Could you show me where I said that Manuel would have? No. You can't. I said if you miss on the blitz, you give up the TD anyways.

Furthermore, you can't be bothered to give the other team's O-line any credit. Woods, Urbik and Pears are one of the best right sides of an O-line in the league.

What's the likelihood of the blitz being successful when they have a RB lined up to the left of the QB and a TE on the right side of the O-line? So, right away you have 7 potential blockers. Short of sending all the LBers and having all the DBs play man to man, Buffalo is picking up the blitz, which would give Manuel plenty of time to make the pass or run in the open space.

 

[Demosthenes]

1) Manuel had 150 yds total passing. Maybe you'd complain about Marilyn Monroe's beauty mark.

2) "HOF QB for a 2 minute drill"???? - - try 1:12, backed up deep in his own territory with a 10 point lead, no Dobson and no Amendola.

Sure, let's go 60+ yards in 1:12 throwing to Sudfeld, Thompkins and Boyce in all 3 of their first games as a pro!!!! What could possibly go wrong?



- - Hint: Here's what could go wrong - that 17-7 lead could evaporate into a 21-17 deficit within the next 6 minutes of playing time without ever getting the ball back after that inconceivable brainfart.

Shmessy, when did starting at the 25 yard line become "deep in his own territory" ?

Secondly, as has been explained, we only needed to go 45 yards.

Thirdly, you left out guys like Vereen and Edelmen. As for Suddy, he did well in TC/Preseason and since they decided to put him in a Pats uniform and run him out onto the field, it's expected that he would perform and execute.

 

[condon84]

I am enjoying the debate.

You the one who wanted to shut it down because of it being a "***********" in here.

If you don't like a healthy argument on the merits of two different opinions, then I can't help you. For me, I am enjoying the debate.

That was tongue in cheek. I thought the "***********" comment would have given that away.

 

[shmessy]

Didn't have to stretch at all as it's the result of the underlying logic of your position. I don't think that teams and coaches should play "scared". Or engage in tactics/strategy based off of "what if we fail".

In the upcoming game against the Jets, if we get the ball first and start on the 25 yard line, why, we'd have to drive 75 whole yards to try and score. What if we fumble ? What if we throw an interception ? It would be "better" if we just kicked the ball away instead of running the risk of making a mistake and having a turnover.

There was 1:11 left on the clock and we only needed to go 45 yards to be in position to put points on the board. I'm happy to have a coaching staff that says "hey, that's more than enough time to try and get another score".

You still exhibit no knowledge of the fact that there was no Amendola or Dobson available at that moment - - yes, 1:12 to go in a first half with a 10 point lead backed up in our own territory.

So Edelman, Boyce, Sudfeld and Thompkins (3 of whom were playing like deers in the headlights in their first pro game) were going to take the Pats 3/4's of the way downfield in 1:12??? What could ever go wrong????

I'm beginning to understand why you are such a Tebow fanatic.

 

[DaBruinz]

Maybe you should read all my posts and not concentrate and just reply when I give my criticism.

I don't "concentrate" only on the posts with which you offer criticism. However, it's kinda hard to find anything else other than that when it comes to your posts.

Now, if you would only stop jumping to conclusions when people make "IF" statements, life would be all that much better. So would your posting.

 

[shmessy]

Shmessy, when did starting at the 25 yard line become "deep in his own territory" ?

When you have a 10 point lead on the road, there is 1:12 left on the clock and your receivers are Boyce, Thompkins, Edelman and Sudfeld.

That's when.

 

[condon84]

1) Manuel had 150 yds total passing. Maybe you'd complain about Marilyn Monroe's beauty mark.

2) "HOF QB for a 2 minute drill"???? - - try 1:12, backed up deep in his own territory with a 10 point lead, no Dobson and no Amendola.

Sure, let's go 60+ yards in 1:12 throwing to Sudfeld, Thompkins and Boyce in all 3 of their first games as a pro!!!! What could possibly go wrong?



- - Hint: Here's what could go wrong - that 17-7 lead could evaporate into a 21-17 deficit within the next 6 minutes of playing time without ever getting the ball back after that inconceivable brainfart.

You're hindsight man this morning. No one knew Thomkins was going to perform as poorly as he was going to. Even after going into halftime, did you not think Thomkins was going to play closer to preseason form? I thought he was. We still had Edelman, and Vereen coming out of the backfield. Brady is at the helm, why not give it a shot? I don't automatically think a Brady led offense is going to turnover the ball. That's a Sanchez led offense mentality. The worst I thought could have happened was a punt.

 

[fnordcircle]

I can't imagine how dim your view of Tom Brady's play in crunch time must be if you're upset over the notion of trying to go down the field before the half with 80 seconds and 3 time outs on the clock.

The man has won Super Bowls in less time.

 

[shmessy]

I can't imagine how dim your view of Tom Brady's play in crunch time must be if you're upset over the notion of trying to go down the field before the half with 80 seconds and 3 time outs on the clock.

The man has won Super Bowls in less time.

With 3 rookies still learning their routes and playing in their first pro game and your best WR on the bench with an injury........

If this was 2007 and Randy Moss, Donte Stallworth, Ben Watson and Wes Welker were lining up, that would be a different situation.

As BB always preaches "Play situational football. Situations, situations, situations....."

This time, he did not practice what he preaches.

It was a 10 point lead.

The next time Brady had the ball in his hands, it was a 3 point deficit.

 

[Oswlek]

When was the last time a BB Pats team pinned their ears back and ran multiple blitzes on a running QB?

Vick? No.

Tebow? No.

Cordell Stewart? No.

Anyone who has paid any attention the past 14 years would know that, against a running QB, BB almost always plays contain on the edges, keeps DL's in their lanes and tries to confuse the QB on our secondary's coverage.

I'm surprised you and Ken wouldn't know that.

Not only that, but against a rookie running QB with a rookie head coach on week 1.

Anyone who didn't know it was going to be vanilla city needs to get their fan permits reviewed.

 

[Demosthenes]

You still exhibit no knowledge of the fact that there was no Amendola or Dobson available at that moment - - yes, 1:12 to go in a first half with a 10 point lead backed up in our own territory.

So Edelman, Boyce, Sudfeld and Thompkins (3 of whom were playing like deers in the headlights in their first pro game) were going to take the Pats 3/4's of the way downfield in 1:12??? What could ever go wrong????

I'm beginning to understand why you are such a Tebow fanatic.

Well my friend, this "Tebow fanatic" knows enough to understand that you are again misstating some facts. Such as the claim that the Pats needed to go 3/4's of the way downfield which is 75 yards. The fact is that they only needed to go 45 yards to be in position for a 47 yard FG attempt. Or perhaps even just 40 yards for a 52 yard attempt.

I find it kind of curious that you even made the 3/4'ers claim given that it's already been refuted a number of times. Did you disagree with the position yet didn't bother to contest it previously ? Did you miss the times that it has been explained ? Are you simply ignoring it because having to drive "3/4's of the way downfield" sounds more of daunting task and better makes your argument?

You've added Edelmen to your personnel grouping, but you again left out Vereen who has done very well working out of the backfield, and even lining up at a WR position. Personally, I disagree with you basically discounting Suddy as he hadn't shown that "deer in the headlights" look at that time, neither had Boyce. Even with Thompkins, he's on the roster and he's expected to perform.

With that out of the way, to answer your question, yes, I would have done the same thing given who was on the field, how much time was on the clock, where we were starting from and how far we had to go to be in scoring position.

 

[Oswlek]

When you have a 10 point lead on the road, there is 1:12 left on the clock and your receivers are Boyce, Thompkins, Edelman and Sudfeld.

That's when.

Meh. You still have to give it a shot with that much time. Yes, the games count, but you can't deny those guys valuable snaps if you want them ready for the playoffs. Plus, NE rightfully believed they had enough to win even if something went wrong there.

 

[shmessy]

Not only that, but against a rookie running QB with a rookie head coach on week 1.

Anyone who didn't know it was going to be vanilla city needs to get their fan permits reviewed.

Yup.

Look, as I noted earlier, chicks dig the long ball.

We will always see fans arguing for 1) blitzes as often as possible and 2) going for it with 1:12 to go and a 10 point lead with first game/almost professional WR's while your #1 WR is on the bench.

It is what it is.

 

[Demosthenes]

When you have a 10 point lead on the road, there is 1:12 left on the clock and your receivers are Boyce, Thompkins, Edelman and Sudfeld.

That's when.

That's a serious case of logic fail my friend. "Deep in your own territory" is completely independent from the score of the game, personnel, and time on the clock.

The ball at the 25 yard line is NOT "deep in your own territory"

 

[shmessy]

That's a serious case of logic fail my friend. "Deep in your own territory" is completely independent from the score of the game, personnel, and time on the clock.

The ball at the 25 yard line is NOT "deep in your own territory"

.....with 1:12 on the clock and your pass catchers being Thompkins, Boyce, Edelman, and Sudfeld.

You saw what the downside was: From a 10 point lead going into the lockerroom to not getting possession again until you are BEHIND by 3 points on the road. Let it ride!!!!!

Demo, you obviously believe in longshots. I admire your optimism and hopefulness.

BTW, I believe Tebow SHOULD get a shot with the Jaguars after yesterday's showing.

After all, THAT is a situation where a team has nothing to lose.

 

[fnordcircle]

With 3 rookies still learning their routes and playing in their first pro game and your best WR on the bench with an injury........

I dunno, I'll take what we had on the field yesterday over JR Redmond and Jermaine Wiggins. No time outs then I'm more inclined to agree but with 3 time outs you play some football.

You can't coach out of fear, not with a HoF QB at the helm of this team.

 

[VrabelJr]

Meh. You still have to give it a shot with that much time. Yes, the games count, but you can't deny those guys valuable snaps if you want them ready for the playoffs. Plus, NE rightfully believed they had enough to win even if something went wrong there.

Playoffs? Seriously? I'm not even making a Jim Mora reference. It's week one, let's not talk about the playoffs.

 

[shmessy]

I dunno, I'll take what we had on the field yesterday over JR Redmond and Jermaine Wiggins. No time outs then I'm more inclined to agree but with 3 time outs you play some football.

You can't coach out of fear, not with a HoF QB at the helm of this team.

Super Bowl 36????? They didn't have a 10 point lead in that situation, did they?

And Wiggins/Redmond had been with the team and in the system ALL YEAR LONG at that point. Was Troy Brown or David Patten injured on the sidelines? Nope.

You know what the situation was. And how the Rams were finally throwing lightning bolts. The Patriots knew where the momentum was pointing at that point and that they HAD to do something if they were to win that game. That game was slipping away from the Patriots.

Bringing up Super 36 only makes the argument about situational context stronger.