Andy, I'm over 6ft tall, does this mean I'm claiming that I'm the only person over 6ft tall?
Thats not what your argument is.
Your argument is more like, you struggle to get through 4 foot doorways.
The Patriots have struggled against good defenses.
No more than the typical amount all teams struggle vs good defenses compared to what they do against bad. Its a phony argument. You are arguing, it would seem, that they struggle DISPROPORTIONATELY vs good defense, so they need to fix the part of the offense that should destroy good defenses. Its just a weak argument.
A very good defense, by default, means they make it difficult on the offense, but much of this is also a matchup issue, how well can one adapt when the opposition takes away what you do best?
Thats just my point, it isn't a matchup issue, because the Patriots do not disproportionately struggle against good defenses.
If the passing game is going to be the focal point of the offense, and Welker be the focal point of your passing team, how are you not making yourself one dimensional?
Your are confusing best dimension with only dimension.
By your argument every team has a focal point therefore every team is one dimensional.
Let's take your argument regarding the salary cap: if there's too much going to one player there's less to go around to the others. Why wouldnt that be true with how you construct your offense?
It is true, but where does my philosophy toward the salary cap say you shouldn't have highly paid players? I am saying highly paid players are signed at the expense of other areas. That doesn't mean never sign highly paid players, it means you have to get those right. Keeping the guy who has been critical, along with Brady, to having a dynamic offense that is among the few very best in the NFL year in and year out, is an example of getting that right.
I can use that same argument with the Giants: if they made a certain play in the game they might have gained a big advantage tipping the scales even more in their favor. Also, if we ran more perhaps Brady wouldnt have been injured when sacked by Tuck, maybe then the pass to Welker is dead on and he makes the catch. We can go on and on playing what ifs, the fact is that they didnt get the job done, I think the smart thing to do is ask how the team can best improve rather than to just keep things the same.
There is a difference between change and improvement.
We know where the team stands. It is good enough to compete to win a SB and came a play short of doing so. (That isn't a bunch of whatifs its one play that decides the game) I guess you think you can tear it down and rebuild it better with your ideas. I am not confident that is the case. The offense works as it is. Make the adjustments you normally do, but taking the risk of reinventing an offense is a good idea for a bad offense, and not such a good one for a very good offense.
Yet again, how well can the team switch gears when the defense focuses on Welker? It's fine to have Welker as a focal point but it's not fine to become dependent on it, especially when doing so significantly weakens other aspects of your team. One needs to be able to win more then one way.
We have won a hell of a lot of games, scored a ton of points and had a great offense with Welker here. We have many more than ways than one.
How would getting rid of a very good player give you more ways to win?
Again, you are confusing best dimension with only dimension.
- I thought yards were a bad measurement to assess the defense, that points are what mattered, isn't that the argument you made when defending the defense?
When did I DEFEND the defense. And when did I, or anyone with a clue, say only points matter and yards are totally irrelevant?
Yards arent the best way to gauge a defense does not mean yards are not relevant.
However, the Patriots scored a ton of points too.
- I think post-season wins are a better measurement of a teams ability, we used to laugh at the Colts for being regular season scoring machines but post-season jokes, is that not what the Pats have become?
No it is not.
[/quote] A more diversified passing game, in additional to the running game, will not be change for it's own sake but changes that result in a stronger and more resilient offense.[/QUOTE]
Saying we have among the best passing offenses in the NFL and the best way to make the team better is to get rid of all the WRs and bring in all new ones, is endorsing change for the sake of change. I'm sorry you want to call it something else, but thats what it is.
