Jaws on Pats

[Buchanty]

I also subscribe to the tired from 71 reps theory. I would also suggest that he was also fatigued by the constant bumping and pulling that he got on almost every snap, many beyond the 5 yard from scrimmage and not one of them called by any of the refs.

I also couldn't blame him for a sense of utter frustration from the PI call against him earlier on, his 3rd of the season. No other single player has been called out more than once that I can tell (OK I havent checked all 32 teams but I am getting there). So he now has 3 and is getting shunted all over the yard and not a single flag is dropped against a physically aggressive secondary.....if I were RM I think I would be chewing nails and spitting rust as well.

And in the end it didnt matter, because he acted as the decoy so that Welker could perform... I like Jaws but that was an unnecessary comment, because it will give grist for the complainers' mill, and does not reflect the imbalance in the referees' judgement on what level of physicality constitutes interference (offensive versus defensive).

 

[xmarkd400x]

I thought Moss was being held a lot more than people noticed. I mean, good job by the Eagles. Do what you can if you can get away with it, but that play where his jersey came under his shoulderpads... you think that happend by itself?

 

[FrontSeven]

Did Jaws mention that Randy got a TD taken away from him?

He beat them. Does he have to beat them on every play? Is he allowed to have an off night? Isn't it OK to use him to draw coverage once in a while?

 

[NYCPatsFan]

You nailed it, FF. It is unbelievably arrogant the way some (mostly media) feel that when the games are close, it's due to the Pats playing flat rather than their opponents playing a hell of a game. The Eagles played a hell of a game on Sunday night. Full stop.

Why do you call it arrogance on part of the few who opine that the Pats seemed to be playing flat? No one is taking anything away from the Eagles, who played a hell of a game of Sunday, COMMA, but the Pats didn't seem to have a fire in them considering uncharacteristic penalties by the OL playing at home and many instances of communication gaps between the various players in the secondary.

 

[ClevTrev]

Why do you call it arrogance on part of the few who opine that the Pats seemed to be playing flat? No one is taking anything away from the Eagles, who played a hell of a game of Sunday, COMMA, but the Pats didn't seem to have a fire in them considering uncharacteristic penalties by the OL playing at home and many instances of communication gaps between the various players in the secondary.

I call it arrogance due to the fact that some (a minority of mostly media members) believe that when games are close, it's due to the Pats playing poorly rather than an opponent executing an excellent game plan. What? The Pats are so good that no one should ever play well in a competitive game? Come on, that's just arrogant.

The Pats executed very well in the Eagles game. The final result was a 3-point win. Therefore, the Pats played a close game against a competitive opponent. The Eagles were on that night, just like the Colts a few weeks earlier. The main contributor to the final result was that neither opponent was able to sustain the level of intensity for 60 minutes. To say that the close games were due to the Pats having a substandard game is a result of thinking that no team has a chance against the Patriots. That's arrogance.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

I call it arrogance due to the fact that some (a minority of mostly media members) believe that when games are close, it's due to the Pats playing poorly rather than an opponent executing an excellent game plan. What? The Pats are so good that no one should ever play well in a competitive game? Come on, that's just arrogant.

.... To say that the close games were due to the Pats having a substandard game is a result of thinking that no team has a chance against the Patriots. That's arrogance.

Can you give me the links that had a few of the media NOT praising the Eagles and claiming that the game was close only because the Pats played poor? In all the reports that I read and heard, everyone praised the Eagles and a few, in additon to admiring the Eagles, also mentioned that the Pats played poorly. That's what I am trying to point out. Just because they mention that the Pats played poorly does not mean that they are arrogant.

Not that it means that some are not arrogant. Many are, but in this case, I can't agree with you unless I see those reviews.

 

[fgssand]

Philly had a great gameplan and backed it up with an inspired, motivated and extremely sound performance.

The mark of a great team is to win a game while not playing your best while your opponent brings their best shot to you.

Last time I checked, NE won the game and NE is 11-0.

That's pretty good!

 

[PatsFanVancouver]

Actually, this was one of the teams that I thought had a chance against the Pats. I thought the spread was too high when I saw it. The Eagles are a talented team. They played very well. Most of the Pats were not that sharp with their execution in this game. However, some of that was due to the Eagles who looked jacked up.

I too thought Brady was forcing balls into Moss, and also, not checking down quicker when he was covered.

In general, the Eagles showed a few things necessary to be competitive with the Pats. Play at full intensity right from the start and continue, utilize quickness advantages on offense, limit the Pats offensive possessions. They almost succeeded if not for Feeley's brain cramp at the end.

I agree with Jaws on the "blueprint" thing. Also, you need the right personnel in the right positions to pull off what the Eagles tried.

I'm a little worried about injuries. First Morris. Now Colvin.

 

[ClevTrev]

Can you give me the links that had a few of the media NOT praising the Eagles and claiming that the game was close only because the Pats played poor? In all the reports that I read and heard, everyone praised the Eagles and a few, in additon to admiring the Eagles, also mentioned that the Pats played poorly. That's what I am trying to point out. Just because they mention that the Pats played poorly does not mean that they are arrogant.

Not that it means that some are not arrogant. Many are, but in this case, I can't agree with you unless I see those reviews.

Ha Ha Ha, bring you the witches broomstick, right? Open your eyes and read some posts and some sports articles. It's not that hard, and if you swing a stick in a dark room, you're bound to hit some who feel any team giving the Pats a challenging game is an indication of a poorly played game by the Pats, because they are too good to be challenged. That, in it's purest form, is arrogance.

 

[abejarano12]

Jaws is the only person with the guts to say that there is now Blueprint to stop the Patriots. As for Randy's play. Yeah he did look a bit lazy but I'm sure things are already taken care of he will be ready to burn the Ravens. So NO Moss is trying to destory the Patriots talk ever!

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

Maybe it is just me...but did it appear to anyone else that the entire Patriot team did not really have the "fire"????
I am not saying they were completely flat, but I did not see or is it sense because I am reaching that I did not see the same intensity in almost all the players....?

Not taking anything away fro the eggles....maybe the good play they brought to the game was what I was seeing and stretched it to the Pats "intensity" but I didn't think so. Did anybody see the same thing as me or was I too many rum and cokes into the game?

I agree with this..... Moss wasn't alone out there. There was some uncharecteristic bonehead plays out there. Light made a couple really bad penlties. Kazur got out classed. Gay had a bad game......... The list kinda goes on. It's gonna happen now and again. The mark of a good team is finding a way to win when you'er not playing your best ball. even more impressive is that philly was playing damn good ball.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

Ha Ha Ha, bring you the witches broomstick, right? Open your eyes and read some posts and some sports articles. It's not that hard, and if you swing a stick in a dark room, you're bound to hit some who feel any team giving the Pats a challenging game is an indication of a poorly played game by the Pats, because they are too good to be challenged. That, in it's purest form, is arrogance.

Well, I always have my eyes open when reading and hence find it difficult to believe your assertion because all the media reports that I read praised the Eagles.

Whereas, you claim that some - "mostly media members", in your words -(note that I never included the rants of the fans in this query) are not giving credit to the Eagles.

All I requested was a link to the media reports that you claim to have read so that I too can change my opinion if need be. Guess it is a bit difficult huh?

 

[ClevTrev]

Well, I always have my eyes open when reading and hence find it difficult to believe your assertion because all the media reports that I read praised the Eagles.

Whereas, you claim that some - "mostly media members", in your words -(note that I never included the rants of the fans in this query) are not giving credit to the Eagles.

All I requested was a link to the media reports that you claim to have read so that I too can change my opinion if need be. Guess it is a bit difficult huh?

OK, let me clarify my statement, because I wasn't completely clear: When I stated "a minority of mostly media members," I was referring to comments by Jaworski, Felger, and others on TV and radio either stating directly or implying by their statements that the Pats or some player(s) were not playing well. Jaworski's comments are well documented on this message board; yet, I agree with his game assessment praising the Eagles efforts. I don't readily agree with his observation on Moss, as I don't believe he has all the information to make an accurate assessment.

Some in the local radio and TV media have not been as kind to the Eagles. As I stated, that was mostly a minority, and I did not read these types of statements in any game summary (print) article. The majority came from posters on multiple message boards assuming the closeness of the game was due to lack of effort by the Pats rather than a tremendous effort by the Eagles.

I stand by my statement about the arrogance exhibited by the examples referenced.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

OK, let me clarify my statement, because I wasn't completely clear: When I stated "a minority of mostly media members," I was referring to comments by Jaworski, Felger, and others on TV and radio either stating directly or implying by their statements that the Pats or some player(s) were not playing well. Jaworski's comments are well documented on this message board; yet, I agree with his game assessment praising the Eagles efforts. I don't readily agree with his observation on Moss, as I don't believe he has all the information to make an accurate assessment.

Some in the local radio and TV media have not been as kind to the Eagles. As I stated, that was mostly a minority, and I did not read these types of statements in any game summary (print) article. The majority came from posters on multiple message boards assuming the closeness of the game was due to lack of effort by the Pats rather than a tremendous effort by the Eagles.

.

Thanks. I didn't know that the local radio/TV media were not kind to the Eagles. (I can't access the local ratio/TV in Boston and hence go by what I read in the other outlets but try to keep this forum as the main source of information for the Pats. But from what I read here - aren't a good % of the local guys anti-Pats??)

I was saluting the Eagles performance even during the game and greatly admired their performance. Based on what I saw/read on the TV after the game and other analysis (on national TV I guess), I thought everyone praised the Eagles gutsy performance. Hence my request to you when I read your post that some in the media were not giving credit to them.

And on Jaw's comments: I greatly respect his insight into the game but wish he had kept his mouth shut on Moss' performance on a game in which Moss was double-teamed and whacked around. As I mentioned in another related thread on the subject: why can't people give Moss the benefit of the doubt after how he has carried himself for the last ten games and monitor his performance for at least two games before coming to these grandoise conclusions and 'disappointment' on him?? Jeez...

 

[ClevTrev]

Thanks. I didn't know that the local radio/TV media were not kind to the Eagles. (I can't access the local ratio/TV in Boston and hence go by what I read in the other outlets but try to keep this forum as the main source of information for the Pats. But from what I read here - aren't a good % of the local guys anti-Pats??)

As I said, it was a minority, and I'm based in No. VA with the New England sports package via DirecTV, so I get NESN, Comcast Sports NE, and Boston radio via the Internet. My take is that with so many sports-related programs and all radio & TV outlets competing for viewers, it can get pretty wild in terms of "editorializing to attract viewers." That being said, a few like Felger who is from Wisconsin but went to BU, are from out of the area. Yet, I'd hardly categorize them as anti-Pats as some of these guys depend on the team's success. Felger tends to embrace the contrarians role.

I was saluting the Eagles performance even during the game and greatly admired their performance. Based on what I saw/read on the TV after the game and other analysis (on national TV I guess), I thought everyone praised the Eagles gutsy performance. Hence my request to you when I read your post that some in the media were not giving credit to them.

The vast majority of the media praised the Eagles' effort and game plan, rightly so.

And on Jaw's comments: I greatly respect his insight into the game but wish he had kept his mouth shut on Moss' performance on a game in which Moss was double-teamed and whacked around. As I mentioned in another related thread on the subject: why can't people give Moss the benefit of the doubt after how he has carried himself for the last ten games and monitor his performance for at least two games before coming to these grandoise conclusions and 'disappointment' on him?? Jeez...

Agreed. His contributions to the team are noteworthy; yet, it appears some want to be the first to report on his "new" indiscretions.