Let's talk football: Brady, Wilson both get to the Super Bowl without enough weapons

[LightSkinSmurf]

I didn't cherry pick anything. I quoted your first sentence and left it at that. It's not my fault if you can't see the obvious because you're too much of a homer. The Patriots finished #3 in scoring last year, so that team mustn't have needed any more offensive weapons either, by your logic, yet Belichik saw fit to bring in LaFell and Wright for some reason, while cutting Kenbrell Thompkins. The defense had also finished in the top 10 in scoring in 2012 and 2013, yet Belichick still brought in Browner and Revis. Let me know when the Patriots field a team of 53 All Pros and have absolutely no holes in their roster, though.

Last years team didn't reach the SB, did they? Anybody that knows me knows I'm not one of those homers that speaks nonsense. Just because I don't agree with your opinion that the patriots don't have enough weapons that doesn't make me a homer. Last years team didn't have enough to reach the SB. They were decimated by injuries by the time they got to the AFC championship and they ran into a far better team. This years team is healthy and they had enough weapons to reach the SB and they had enough weapons on offense to win a playoff game almost single handedly *ravens* and they had enough weapons to be 4th in the league in scoring.

So tell me, when you say the patriots don't have enough weapons, they don't have enough weapons to do what??? Because clearly you aren't talking about anything that matters. Considering their offense was efficient all year and they are in the SB right now. I never said last years team had enough weapons. I said this years team did. You continue to bring up other teams like they have something to do with this years team. I am ONLY talking about this years team.

Here is my logic in case you're still confused. THIS YEARS team has enough weapons IMO. What am I basing that off of? Most importantly the fact they reached the SB, but also the fact they were 4th in the league in scoring. You are saying they don't have enough weapons. So what exactly are you basing that off of? Because clearly its not by stats *4th in the league in scoring and 1st since the playoffs started*or them failing to advance in the playoffs. So whatever you're basing it off of is clearly irrelevant because its not stats or results.

Also, nobody said anything about having no holes in their roster. Having holes in the roster and "not having enough weapons" are not the same thing. Nobody has a perfect team. Doesn't mean they don't "have enough weapons" to win tho.

 

[Deus Irae]

Last years team didn't reach the SB, did they?

That's completely irrelevant to the point, and it shows that you absolutely don't get it. The team made it to the SB in 2011, but Belichick still realized that the team needed to fix the WRs and DBs. You are now arguing something that's been discussed time after time after time. I've been dealing with homers like you on this subject since 2009, and one thing has run true throughout. With the exception of the end of last season, when, for a few short weeks even the insane homer posse seemed to grasp the point, the homers ignore what is blatantly obvious to the rest of the world, just as you're doing now. Brady's been carrying a lot of garbage since 2009.

This team's WR3 had just 27 receptions in the regular season, and the other 3 WRs (Tyms, Thompkins, Dobson) combined for a whopping 14 more while the backup TEs scored in with just 29, yet you're tossing out gibberish about being 4th in the league in scoring. Again, they were 3rd in the league in scoring last season. And, again, the Ravens won a Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer. Now, unless you've finally got something that's not nonsensical, I'm done with you on this. I wanted this thread to be about the two teams overcoming some important offensive shortcomings and making the Super Bowl, not about yet another homer who can't admit that such obvious shortcomings existed.

 

[LightSkinSmurf]

That's completely irrelevant to the point, and it shows that you absolutely don't get it. The team made it to the SB in 2011, but Belichick still realized that the team needed to fix the WRs and DBs. You are now arguing something that's been discussed time after time after time. I've been dealing with homers like you on this subject since 2009, and one thing has run true throughout. With the exception of the end of last season, the homers ignore what is blatantly obvious to the rest of the world, just as you're doing now.

This team's WR3 had just 27 receptions in the regular season, yet you're tossing out gibberish about being 4th in the league in scoring. Again, they were 3rd in the league in scoring last season. And, again, the Ravens won a Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer. Now, unless you've finally got something that's not nonsensical, I'm done with you on this.

How is that irrelevant to the point when that is a huge part of my point?! My point was the patriots had enough weapons to be 4th in the league in scoring, 1st in the league in the playoffs this year, and they had enough to reach and possibly win the SB. Your argument is they don't have enough weapons because amendola only had 27 receptions in the regular season lol, ok, got ya.

 

[Deus Irae]

How is that irrelevant to the point when that is a huge part of my point?! My point was the patriots had enough weapons to be 4th in the league in scoring, 1st in the league in the playoffs this year, and they had enough to reach and possibly win the SB. Your argument is they don't have enough weapons because amendola only had 27 receptions in the regular season lol, ok, got ya.

If regular season offensive scoring ranking meant your offense was flawless, the Broncos would be the defending Super Bowl champs, the Patriots would be facing the Packers on Sunday, the Jets would never have beaten the Patriots in the 2010 playoffs, and the 2007 Patriots would have gone 19-0. As I've said repeatedly, you don't get it. Since you're still just posting nonsense, we're done.

 

[LightSkinSmurf]

If regular season offensive scoring ranking meant your offense was flawless, the Broncos would be the defending Super Bowl champs, the Patriots would be facing the Packers on Sunday, the Jets would never have beaten the Patriots in the 2010 playoffs, and the 2007 Patriots would have gone 19-0. As I've said repeatedly, you don't get it. Since you're still just posting nonsense, we're done.

You say I don't get it and then you continue to put words in my mouth. I never once said the patriots offense was flawless. I never once said belichick shouldn't go out and try to improve the team in the offseason. You should always try to do that if you can. You keep jumping to all of these extremes to try to make a point. The goal is to win a superbowl. So if you win the SB you had enough weapons to win the SB, period. Pay attention to this part, I THINK THE PATRIOTS HAVE ENOUGH WEAPONS TO WIN THE SB AND I THINK THEY HAVE A GOOD OFFENSE. That is what I'm arguing and that is my stance. Nothing more, nothing less.

So again, the patriots or brady didn't have enough weapons to do what? Because they had enough weapons to rank high in the league in offense and they had enough to reach the SB. So what don't they have enough weapons to do? I keep asking this question and you keep dodging it. Your argument makes no sense.

 

[LightSkinSmurf]

I wanted this thread to be about the two teams overcoming some important offensive shortcomings and making the Super Bowl,.

You edited your post so I didn't see this until now but wanna respond. What offensive shortcomings ? The team averaged nearly 30 points a game and averaged 40 in the playoffs and have their number one key offensive player healthy *gronk*. You are creating false realities that don't exist. If a team plays well offensively all year then they didn't "overcome" offensive shortcomings. The offense is a huge part of the reason they are where they are now. Its a good offense and its been a good offense all year. They did struggle a bit in the beginning, Ill give you that lol... But for the better part of this year, the offense has been a strength to this team.... And I just feel like you're trying to paint this picture like they are where they are despite not being good on offense or "having enough weapons" and I simply disagree, that's all. We can move on now.

 

[RayClay]

How are we determining what "enough" is here? They both got to the Superbowl and one will win it, shouldn't that qualify as "enough".

Must be using an alternative dictionary.

 

[RayClay]

If regular season offensive scoring ranking meant your offense was flawless, the Broncos would be the defending Super Bowl champs, the Patriots would be facing the Packers on Sunday, the Jets would never have beaten the Patriots in the 2010 playoffs, and the 2007 Patriots would have gone 19-0. As I've said repeatedly, you don't get it. Since you're still just posting nonsense, we're done.

Or, they could have gone 18-0 and lost the big game.

Are you saying we were 4th in scoring because of our running game?

 

[letekro]

If Gronkowski had a "WR" next to his name and not a "TE", nobody would be claiming a lack of weapons. As it is, they have arguably the most dominant pass receiver in the league, and then 4 versatile, reliable targets after that, plus a nice mix of backs to carry the ball. Biggest weakness is interior offensive line, which is not usually considered a "weapon." I would like to know, by Deus's standard, which team has "enough" weapons? Is it the Broncos? The Thomas brothers are great (though not Gronk great) but Sanders never did much in the league until he teamed up with Manning. Then you have a completely finished Welker and a weak group of backs. If that's the gold standard, I'd say the Patriots are, at worst, not too far off that standard.

 

[Triumph]

Yes, Denver and Green Bay, the teams with more firepower in each conference, both imploded. But beyond that, the Patriots and Seahawks both beat a physical opponent (Ravens/Panthers) and an offensive power (Colts/Packers) to get where they are, even though they were both realistically short of offensive talent, particularly in the WR area.


A tribute to the defenses?
A tribute to the coaches?
A tribute to the QBs?
Just the luck of matchups?


Discuss.

Not really.

Gronk is like a huge WR and the Pats spread 300 targets and 3000 receiving yards amongst 3 players - Gronk, LaFell and Edelman. Vereen, Almendola and Wright were role players. No different than the days of Branch, Givens and Brown serving as the big 3.

The Broncos basically relied on 2 players to spread 300 targets and 3000 receiving yards with - D Thomas and Sanders. D Thomas was targeted 184 times and twice as many as any NE WR/TE/RB. Same with GB. Nelson and Cobb sharing 300 targets and producing 3000 receiving yards while he rest of the offense basically role players.

 

[Rob0729]

The Pats' receiving corp is good, not great. You factor in Gronk and Vereen and they are top 1oish range. To say Brady doesn't have enough weapons is just more of Deus' agenda. Their receiving corps may not be as good as the Broncos (which is overrated since they had two great starting WRs and not much else after Julius Thomas got hurt) and Green Bay, but that doesn't mean they didn't have enough weapons.

And doesn't the fact that both the Patriots and Seahawks being in the Super Bowl and both are two time participants over the last few years tell you that having a top flight receiving corp may be overrated.

This thread is just Deus laying the ground work for him to claim he was right for blasting the Pats for getting rid of Welker even if they win on Sunday. I can't wait to see what his angle will be for continuing his assertion that Jamie Collins was a bad draft pick.

I will agree that the Seahawks' receiving corp sucks.

 

[DarrylS]

From a different perspective the Pats are probably the best balanced team that I can remember, hate to use the three phrases "three phrases" .. but it is what it is.

Do you all remember when BB had no confidence in his Defense?? Times have changed, and as football is complimentary our O is better, because our D is better and because our ST's are better...

To differentiate and isolate the Offense and their "weapons" makes no sense.. in a team sport such as this.

Realistically no team will never have enough offensive weapons in the salary cap era..

 

[Triumph]

Lack of weapons is foolishness.

Having 4 probowl WRs would create mayhem. Theres not enough opportunities to keep every player happy. Spreading the field with Almendola and Vereen accomplishes the same goal of having the defense commit resources to those players.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

There seems to be a disconnect between our perceived lack of weapons and how productive our offense is. It's like the 2010 Falcons averaging 25.9 points (5th), then adding Julio Jones in the draft for 2011, then scoring 25.1 points (7th). You could argue that the 2011 Falcons were way more dangerous with the addition of Jones (agreed), but you couldn't really say they were more productive.

We don't have a true #1 WR, Edelman would be a slot guy on most teams, and it's doubtful any of our other WRs would start on another team. We've got an All Pro TE in Gronk, but it seems like that shouldn't be enough to have a top 5 offense.

Yet we've had a top 5 offense each of the past 5 years despite similar lack of top-end WR talent, so you have to ask yourself, what really is the value of a big target in terms of winning games? Seattle got rid of their biggest weapon and it helped fuel their turnaround. And while their defense gets the majority of credit, let's not overlook that they are complemented by a top 10 offense as well.

Obviously the QBs play a huge part of that, but I'm not sure adding a big weapon would change things. Seattle would still want to run the ball 25 times a game, and Brady is at his best on the shorter stuff.

I don't think either team lacks weapons. We've made conscientious choices about the type of weapons that work best for us, and while we don't have a rocket launcher like some teams do, we've got enough to do the job, and that we're comfortable using.

 

[patchick]

In a league build around the pass, the Patriots had 2 WR and 1 TE for most of the season. That's not enough.

2 WR, 1 TE, and 1 RB. The Patriots had four players with > 50 receptions on the season. Meanwhile the "so many weapons" Broncos and Packers each had two. So the "number of weapons" bit just doesn't fly. Perhaps what you meant is "they don't have a dominant classic wideout"?

(Now the Seahawks are another matter. Just one 50+ receiver, and their top producer would have ranked 4th on the Pats.)

 

[Froob]

We really lucked out that Golden Tate when to Detroit.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

A tribute to the defenses?
A tribute to the coaches?
A tribute to the QBs?
Just the luck of matchups?

OK. First, I'll stipulate to both teams' shortness of "offensive talent particularly at WR," but it's not unreasonable to debate the point when you have Brady and Lynch in the mix.

I think both teams are where they are because of:

1) Their Defenses. In the Pats' case, if you don't score on them in the first half, you're pretty much out of the game. They have basically shut teams down in the second half since the Bye. In the Seahawks' case, their D has been lights out since November and those are stats that have been regurgitated Ad nauseam this week. It was their Offense and Special Teams early on that nearly threw the GB game away. They needed a bit of luck to win that game and Brandon Bostick obliged.

2) Coaching. I don't know how he does it, but Pete Carroll seems to be the life of that team. I don't think Russell Wilson is the natural leader that TB is. It's Carroll who has them acting like a bunch of school kids who get to play football for money. The downside of that is that sometimes Carroll's approach can leave a team believing its own headlines, which I think happened at the beginning of the GB game (a mistake that I wish he had saved for this week, but one that he won't repeat). He's not the genius or disciplinarian that BB is, but he has something going on there. Belichick, on the other hand, is a football genius. Yes, the players had to execute on the field, but the difference in the Ravens game was the Pats' simply out-coaching the Ravens. It's the play calling and coaching that gets the most of the weapons it has on Offense.

3) Both teams have a QB who can take the game into his own hands or feet (in Wilson's case). But there is an edge to Brady here.

4) Except for the misplay of the onside kick and its subsequent recovery, I don't think luck of matchups or anything else has anything to do with it for either team.

What does that mean for Sunday? If both D's play up to their potential, the difference will either be Brady or a little bit of luck. Neither team is a stranger to luck (no pun intended in the Pats' case), so that part could go either way, which is how I see the game.

 

[Sicilian]

I think our weapons were fine this year. If we go into next year with the same exact grouping, I'll actually feel pretty good (consistency is a big key to success as well). What helped this year though was health. Aside from Gronk easing in a bit at the beginning and Edelman's brief absence, our weapons have been reliably on the field. In that sense, we were a bit lucky as the depth is not there. Amendola can fill in for Edelman for a few games, that's about the only depth we have at the moment.

When healthy though, we had plenty of weapons this year.

 

[varjao]

Well, I don't agree with the notion that the patriots don't have enough weapons.........I mean, didn't they rank pretty high in offense this year? That, plus the fact they made it to the SB..........I just don't see where this "without enough weapons" argument even comes from. I think they have a pretty darn good offense.

It is a good offense without enough weapons. 2 WR and 1 TE is short of an usual NFL offense, that doesn't mean they can't be efficient, it's 2 different concepts. They could be #1 offense, that doesn't change the facts. It's numbers not quality.

Also with a hungry Tom Brady as your QB you can expect at least a top 5 offense every year and Tom Brady is always hungry.

That season could be another disaster with 1 injury in one of these 3 receivers, we could even make the case that we went very lucky because Edelman and Gronk are injury prone and both play careless. Belichick seriously need to address again the receiving corps next free agency for Brady pursuit his 5th ring.

 

[tasmlab]

We really lucked out that Golden Tate when to Detroit.

I was talking to a Detroit fan before the Lions/Pats game and we joked that nobody in the Pat's WR core was talented enough to make the Detroit roster. For all their talent, they can't score points.

Pats arguably have 2 of the best offensive weapons in the history of the game if you count Brady and Belichik. Maybe three with Gronk. BB built his fame by embracing the middle class of football player.