Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by SVN, Jan 25, 2013.
Matt Chatham is really coming to his own, appreciate his insight.
Thanks for posting the link.
I found this part of the article interesting "What I do know is the answer has nothing to do with being ‚Äúout-physicalled‚ÄĚ or the loss of a cornerback whose play has been so misunderstood and exaggerated by local and national media in the last three months that Mother Goose wouldn‚Äôt touch the story".
Sounds like in his opinion Talib isn't as good as everyone thinks.
I dont buy what Chatam is selling.
The Ravens were more physical. Brady slid with his foot in the air because he was tired of getting hit or stepped on. Hernandez got rocked, Welker was rocked, Ridley knocked out of the game. Pollards nickname is "Bonecrusher."
Who on the Pats is a fierce hitter? Chung?
Mayo laid out Pitta (iirc) but that was the only big hit from NE that I recall.
he expands on this here
Matt Chatham, former Patriots LB, recaps the AFC Championship game
Too many rookies and young players starting, which results in mistakes.
He's a smart football guy, but I don't really care for his condescending attitude.
But people tend to imply the Pats folded from it (the physical nature) and that is bull. They fought and they fought hard.
Matt does a great job of digging beneath the hood for his break down. Maybe he comes across condescending but its delivered in a way that makes sense if you step back and think about it and put your emotion aside.
Spikes is a ferocious hitter.
not really...all the players out there besides jones, hightower and dennard..have played at least a year. Still young and learning but it's not like half the D is a rookie. Mccourty at FS and talib and dennard were pretty good for us once we made the switch..just sucked talib was injured this year
When I read this article as I hear is "I'm more knowledgable than other reporters and fans." But there isn't much substance to what he's saying. Were there mental errors, of course? But that doesn't mean losing Talib didn't have a big impact.
Hernandez and Welker dropped catchable passes after they were hit. Wilfork disappeared. The Ravens WRs werent afraid of the NE DBs.
On one of McCourtys KO returns, he looked like he wanted to run the other direction right out of the stadium.
I would think that Talib going out and then having to compensate for his absence would lead to an increase in mental errors.
Exactly. He says it's not about talent, it was all about making mental errors. By why did they all of a sudden start making a bunch of mental mistakes? Probably had something to do with losing their best DB.
Chatham is right. It was more than the absense of Talib and alck of physicality. It was also the absense of Chandler Jones (2 snaps), Kyle Love (1 series). And ground and pound Rideley (concussion).
You can add the missing Ras-I Dowling, Dane Fletcher. And the Offense sputtering from a lack of Gronkowski, Stallworth, and Edelman and later Ridley too.
Let the 2000 Ravens' redux, have their last bow in the Sun, they deserve it. But Last Hurrah's are still... the end of an era.
Who will oppose the Patriots in 2014? The Texans and Broncs, with an outside shot by the Bengals. The Steelers, Colts, Ravens, and Dolphins are more pretenders than contenders, with lots more rebuilding and revamping necessary.
Who wants to wager against a third, consecutive, AFCCG appearance?
Not one of Chatham's better efforts
That's the part that I don't get about Chatham's analysis.
Sure, I get that the Pats had defensive lapses on Sunday. Most of those seem to have occurred after Talib went out and they had to move Arrington outside, and the Ravens started attacking. I don't see how Talib's absence isn't indirected related to those lapses.
If adding Talib had a "domino effect" on the defense, losing him - or losing another key player such as Jones - had a domino effect in the opposite direction. We saw that happen recently with San Francisco losing Justin Smith and then experiencing a dramatic decrease in defensive performance, and in Seattle losing Chris Clemons with a similar effect.
Sure there were coaching errors and basic defensive lapses. But saying they were completey unrelated to the fact that the Pats were without some of their key players? I don't understand that.
Bedard says that the Pats' "lack of depth" failed them. But in the salary cap era, what team can afford depth all the way through the back end of the roster? Most teams are scrounging the list of castoffs for depth at this time of year.
You follow the Patriots and never heard of Brandon Spikes?
Simple explanation also right one | Boston Herald
One line in here particular is something that I've been preaching since this game happened:
Bernard Pollard ran a 4.57 when he was a draft prospect. There's no way anybody on this forum would be okay with having a guy like that in coverage, but when he's playing for another team, everybody overlooks that.
Separate names with a comma.