McDaniels to Brady: "We are not changing a thing"

[upstater1]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

Eight pages of crap. The Giants beat us. They deserved to win, they beat us on offense,defense, special teams and coaching. There is enough blame to go around so that every member of the team has to have a gut check every time they look in the mirror. Remember, they played and LOST the most important game in the history of football.....we only watched it.

Right. Who said any different? We're blaming the Patriots.

 

[upstater1]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

The legend of Charlie Weis is far greater than Weis himself. People forget how agravating he was with his over reliance of the FB draw on third downs (he cost us the game vs. Washington in 2003 with that one as I vividly remember). Or how many three and outs we had especially in the 2003 season (a 37% third down percentage rate and 15th in the NFL). McDaniels even with no weapons in 2006 has never had worse than 42.1% conversion.
People also forget that Weis used to like to give up on the run after the first half quite a bit (again especially in 2003).

Weis was a very good OC, but way overrated by Patriots fans. I remember quite a few people hoping he would get the Buffalo job after the 2003 season because he had a very mediocre year and if it wasn't for the Pats having the best defense in Patriots history that year and one of the best in NFL history (IMHO), the offense would have been exposed far more (it was 17th in yards and 12th in points and that is factoring in the 5 TDs the defense scored that year).

Speaking of the 2003 defense, why doesn't Pees get nearly as much crap as McDaniels? The defense since Crennel left has never been nearly as good. Definitely not as good as the 2003 season. We won three championships largely on a great defense and an offense that doesn't make a lot of costly mistakes. Yet, everyone always blame the offensive side of the ball and McDaniels even after having the most prolific offense in NFL history with a good, but not great defense.

I'm sorry, but we could have won the 2001 and 2003 Super Bowl with any good OC. It was the defense that carried those teams to victory. Yet people focus on the offensive side of the ball when it appears that Belichick is most concerned about the defensive side. Why else would he and not Peas be working with the starting defense when the offense is on the field and why would he break from tradition and hire an established coach to be a special defensive assistant and secondary coach?

Ooooh, we had 3 and outs with Patten as our top WR and a hobbled Antowain Smith as the RB? What a surprise. I was never aggravated by Weis. I loved his play calling. In fact, when Belichick was hired, I was dying for Weis to come over with him.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

Ooooh, we had 3 and outs with Patten as our top WR and a hobbled Antowain Smith as the RB? What a surprise. I was never aggravated by Weis. I loved his play calling. In fact, when Belichick was hired, I was dying for Weis to come over with h im.

I'd take our offensive skill players from 2003 over 2006 in a heartbeat and our 2006 offense was better than the 2003. The 2003 David Patten would have started over Reche Caldwell. And a hobble Antowain Smith wasn't much worse than a Corey Dillon that was so old that he couldn't last into the second half of most games. Besides, Deion Branch was our top WR in 2003 and he was far better even then than Reche Caldwell. I like Caldwell, but he was a #2 or #3 WR playing the primary WR role.

Why were you dying for Weis to come over from the Jets when Parcells was so frustrated with Weis that he stripped him of his playcalling responsibilities in 1999 which was why Weis came with Belichick? Weis was a good OC, but he was never a great OC until 2004 when we had the best RB in the league (Dilon had the most yards per game played).