OT: Golden State Warriors Sputtering Toward the End

[RobertWeathers]

The Louie Anderson years were far more depressing, IMO

Wasn't there a host that committed suicide?

 

[letekro]

Wasn't there a host that committed suicide?

Yes Ray Coombs. On air, Louie looked like he wanted to follow suit

 

[realtime]

For Family Feud to be watchable, the show needs a great host. And, IMO, there have been only 3 -- Richard Dawson, Steve Harvey and Ray Coombs.

With anyone else -- Louie Anderson, John O'Hurley and Richard Karn are the others I've briefly witnessed -- the show has been an unmitigated disaster that could certainly rival SB XLII.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Yes Ray Coombs. On air, Louie looked like he wanted to follow suit

Ugh. Horrible....for both.

I remember reading about Louie having a bout with depression.

 

[RobertWeathers]

For Family Feud to be watchable, the show needs a great host. And, IMO, there have been only 3 -- Richard Dawson, Steve Harvey and Ray Coombs.

With anyone else -- Louie Anderson, John O'Hurley and Richard Karn are the others I've briefly witnessed -- the show has been an unmitigated disaster that could certainly rival SB XLII.

I think Richard Dawson married one of the contestants.

He always used to try and make out with the people on the show.

 

[Froob]

I think Richard Dawson married one of the contestants.

He always used to try and make out with the people on the show.

Probably the only reason he took that job. Savy move.

 

[Kontradiction]

Kontra,

Neal was injured because Tuck got by Mankins without Mankins so much as breathing on him, allowing Tuck to fly full speed into Neal's knee while sacking Brady. Watch the tape. 34:50 of this: .

There is no evidence--none--that the OL would have handled the Giants if Neal had stayed in there. With Neal, the offense mustered 51 yards over 3 drives, with 16 of those coming by way of penalty. Your assumption that all would have been fine if Neal had been healthy is just wishful thinking. It may have happened that way, but there is nothing in the first 3 series that supports that proposition.

Thanks for that. I had been working off of memory and now I want to kill myself now that I watched that. This actually illustrates what I was talking about, however. The right side of the OL holds up in pass pro on that play. Neal engages Alford first, then peels off to assist Kaczur (who was a step behind Strahan) and keeps Strahan off Brady while Koppen engages Alford. The right side is sealed off and the breakdown, on that particular play, comes from the left side as Mankins whiffs on Tuck. Neal was able to do that because he was able to seal off that gap on his first assignment before providing help to Kaczur. Hochstein was not able to do that. As a matter of fact, Hochstein had to get help from Koppen who could no longer help on Tuck (leaving Mankins in more one on one assignments for the rest of the game). You can watch the next offensive series after that. You can see the blocking assignments change. After the snap, Koppen either immediately looks to the right to provide help for Hochstein or engages the 1-tech (depending on how the Giants are lined up). There is no question whatsoever that the injury to Neal hurt the team.

You're welcome to believe what you want, though. Brady is not a mobile quarterback. His weakness is A-gap pressure. Without the ability to move as well as he normally can in the pocket, he was a sitting duck. When you combine that with the fact that pressure up the A and B gaps clearly picked up after Neal went down, it really doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that injuries significantly impacted that game and were the top reason the Patriots couldn't muster more than 14 points on offense that day.

 

[letekro]

Thanks for that. I had been working off of memory and now I want to kill myself now that I watched that. This actually illustrates what I was talking about, however. The right side of the OL holds up in pass pro on that play. Neal engages Alford first, then peels off to assist Kaczur (who was a step behind Strahan) and keeps Strahan off Brady while Koppen engages Alford. The right side is sealed off and the breakdown, on that particular play, comes from the left side as Mankins whiffs on Tuck. Neal was able to do that because he was able to seal off that gap on his first assignment before providing help to Kaczur. Hochstein was not able to do that. As a matter of fact, Hochstein had to get help from Koppen who could no longer help on Tuck (leaving Mankins in more one on one assignments for the rest of the game). You can watch the next offensive series after that. You can see the blocking assignments change. After the snap, Koppen either immediately looks to the right to provide help for Hochstein or engages the 1-tech (depending on how the Giants are lined up). There is no question whatsoever that the injury to Neal hurt the team.

You're welcome to believe what you want, though. Brady is not a mobile quarterback. His weakness is A-gap pressure. Without the ability to move as well as he normally can in the pocket, he was a sitting duck. When you combine that with the fact that pressure up the A and B gaps clearly picked up after Neal went down, it really doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that injuries significantly impacted that game and were the top reason the Patriots couldn't muster more than 14 points on offense that day.

You're overthinking this. 2 sacks and 2 pressures in 3 series with Neal is not good. The question is not whether the line assignments changed when he went out, the question is could they block that front on anything other than the shortest of passes. The answer all day, with Neal or without, was "No."

 

[Kontradiction]

You're overthinking this. 2 sacks and 2 pressures in 3 series with Neal is not good. The question is not whether the line assignments changed when he went out, the question is could they block that front on anything other than the shortest of passes. The answer all day, with Neal or without, was "No."

With Neal, blocking assignments were easier to adjust. Without him, the RG position suffered a significant downgrade and the assignments didn't change from there throughout the game. With Neal, Koppen is able to provide Mankins more help with Tuck. Without Neal, Koppen isn't. Like I said from the get go, the line works as a unit. When one of those positions is downgraded significantly and the replacement isn't cutting it, the unit as a whole suffers. Now add a immobile quarterback when healthy and give him a gimpy ankle and what you have is injury being the primary factor for the offense being bogged down. When the offense being bogged down is the primary factor for the Patriots losing the Super Bowl, it's easy to draw the conclusion from there.

 

[realtime]

With Neal, blocking assignments were easier to adjust. Without him, the RG position suffered a significant downgrade and the assignments didn't change from there throughout the game. With Neal, Koppen is able to provide Mankins more help with Tuck. Without Neal, Koppen isn't. Like I said from the get go, the line works as a unit. When one of those positions is downgraded significantly and the replacement isn't cutting it, the unit as a whole suffers. Now add a immobile quarterback when healthy and give him a gimpy ankle and what you have is injury being the primary factor for the offense being bogged down. When the offense being bogged down is the primary factor for the Patriots losing the Super Bowl, it's easy to draw the conclusion from there.

I'm sure letekro is all over this, but are you really saying that as between two completely ineffective offensive line combinations, having a more flexible one would have been the difference between winning and losing? More flexible or not, either combination proved to be completely ineffective.

If anything, what you have been describing is an indictment of the Patriots coaching staff and personnel management in 2007-08. If the health of a single offensive guard the caliber of Stephen Neal is the difference between winning and losing a key game, then the team has failed miserably from both a coaching and talent acquisition standpoint.

 

[letekro]

With Neal, blocking assignments were easier to adjust. Without him, the RG position suffered a significant downgrade and the assignments didn't change from there throughout the game. With Neal, Koppen is able to provide Mankins more help with Tuck. Without Neal, Koppen isn't. Like I said from the get go, the line works as a unit. When one of those positions is downgraded significantly and the replacement isn't cutting it, the unit as a whole suffers. Now add a immobile quarterback when healthy and give him a gimpy ankle and what you have is injury being the primary factor for the offense being bogged down. When the offense being bogged down is the primary factor for the Patriots losing the Super Bowl, it's easy to draw the conclusion from there.

Kontra, they couldn't block that front. Would they have been able to do it marginally better with Neal? Probably, since Neal is a better player than Hochstein (although the offense didn't miss a beat when Neal was down in the regular season). But they had two laughable mismatches to deal with--Kaczur vs whomever and Mankins vs Tuck. Furthermore, as you know, the Giants did some blitzing up the A and B gaps. It is not clear how you would expect the Supermen Neal and Koppen to cover for everyone else and pick up those blitzers at the same time.

You have made your mind up to pin that loss on an injury to an interior lineman who was out for half the year and who was never recognized by his peers or the press as a worldbeater. That theory doesn't make much sense to me but clearly I am not going to be changing your mind.

 

[EatSleepWinRepeat]

Super edgy post, bro.

Nothing can be as edgy as suggesting Stephen freaking Neal was the difference between an undefeated season and losing the most important game in sports history.

And I'm not your bro, scrub.

 

[The Brandon Five]

This thread has devolved into a self-flagellating analysis of SB 42 that has to have half the forum on suicide watch.

Kill me.

 

[Kontradiction]

I'm sure letekro is all over this, but are you really saying that as between two completely ineffective offensive line combinations, having a more flexible one would have been the difference between winning and losing? More flexible or not, either combination proved to be completely ineffective.

If anything, what you have been describing is an indictment of the Patriots coaching staff and personnel management in 2007-08. If the health of a single offensive guard the caliber of Stephen Neal is the difference between winning and losing a key game, then the team has failed miserably from both a coaching and talent acquisition standpoint.

Games are won and lost due to injuries. Patriots fans should know that better than most. We've had two of the last three seasons sank because of them. As I said before, that happens when you have roster limitations. Further, teams adjust all the time. Having a superior player blocking a gap that's integral to your pocket quarterback's success will a lot of times be the case between a drive continuing and a drive stalling (which happened with great success after Neal went out). And I wouldn't say they were completely ineffective. The Pats marched for a relatively easy score with a clean pocket for Brady with Neal and were held to 7 the entire game after that.

And yes, a more flexible OL combination means Mankins gets more help with Tuck. It also means the Pats don't have to employ as much max protect throughout the entire game, leaving Faulk to patrol the flats more and leaving Ben Watson, who was a match-up nightmare, free to actually run routes instead of helping in pass protection. Neal's loss hurt. Neal's loss and Brady's gimpy ankle are what this discussion is all about, though. It got made into a thread by Stephen Neal with the guy I'm debating with. He continues to ignore the fact that Brady (you know... the guy who was the primary reason for the record setting offense and the undefeated record) was injured too.

Kontra, they couldn't block that front. Would they have been able to do it marginally better with Neal? Probably, since Neal is a better player than Hochstein

Bingo.

1. Neal was better in pass protection.

2. Neal was a better run blocker.

3. Neal could handle Alford (or the 1-tech) one on one.

4. Neal's presence meant that Kaczur could get help with Strahan.

5. Neal's presence meant that Mankins could get help with Tuck.

His loss was absolutely huge against a front that was a nightmare match-up against the Pats from the get go.

You have made your mind up to pin that loss on an injury to an interior lineman who was out for half the year and who was never recognized by his peers or the press as a worldbeater. That theory doesn't make much sense to me but clearly I am not going to be changing your mind.

I'm not pinning the loss on Neal. That was a straw man you created. For whatever reason, you're under the impression that I think his loss is the only reason the Pats lost that game. It's not. Add Brady's gimpy ankle to that mix and consider the fact that Brady NEEDS a clean pocket to step up into as a pocket passer, and you have the conclusion. But fair enough. I'm not changing your mind either.

 

[Kontradiction]

Nothing can be as edgy as suggesting Stephen freaking Neal was the difference between an undefeated season and losing the most important game in sports history.

And I'm not your bro, scrub.

Scrub? Is that supposed to be a good cut down? Rather a scrub than some lowlife 29 year old loser who trolls the forum under the guise that he's just "tellin' it like it is to all the blind homers". You don't have the required brain power or football acumen to participate in this conversation, so do the rest of us a favor and let the adults talk.

 

[Kontradiction]

This thread has devolved into a self-flagellating analysis of SB 42 that has to have half the forum on suicide watch.

Kill me.

While it still hurts, I was actually able to objectively watch that loss a couple of months later and study what went wrong against that front. That said, I hadn't actually watched any video of it until letekro posted the entire game. Pretty puke inducing stuff still to this day.

 

[varjao]

It would be nice if Jordan and the guys were to attend this game in first row seats with their Bulls jerseys. I think this GSW team is so good and nice to watch no one want them to fail.

 

[EatSleepWinRepeat]

Scrub? Is that supposed to be a good cut down? Rather a scrub than some lowlife 29 year old loser who trolls the forum under the guise that he's just "tellin' it like it is to all the blind homers". You don't have the required brain power or football acumen to participate in this conversation, so do the rest of us a favor and let the adults talk.

Right, because calling a post "edgy" and someone a "lowlife" and a "loser" are far superior cut downs from that ivory tower you live in from the confines of your own little mind . Nothing screams inferiority complex like talking about how intellectually superior you are to someone and then disliking their posts because they disliked yours first (the equivalent of someone with the IQ of a parrot).

The truth is you're a petty, likely short in stature "internet tough guy" with a Napoleon complex and a distressing lack of emotional maturity to the point where you will blame anything and everything other than mental weakness and a lack of execution on the fact the Patriots lost Super Bowl 42.

Try accepting accountability for once in your life and save the ad hominens and incendiary comebacks for someone that gives an f.

 

[Kontradiction]

Right, because calling a post "edgy" and someone a "lowlife" and a "loser" are far superior cut downs from that ivory tower that exists in your own little mind . Nothing screams inferiority complex like talking about how intellectually superior you are to someone and then disliking their posts because they disliked yours first (the equivalent of someone with the IQ of a parrot).

The truth is you're a petty, likely short in stature "internet tough guy" with a Napoleon complex and a distressing lack of emotional maturity to the point where you will blame anything and everything other than mental weakness and a lack of execution on the fact the Patriots lost Super Bowl 42.

Try accepting accountability for once in your life and save the ad hominens and incendiary comebacks for someone that gives an f.

I hope you had fun typing that.

Enjoy my ignore list. I doubt I'm missing many X's and O's breakdowns or just quality posts in general by moving you there.

 

[rochrist]

Nothing can be as edgy as suggesting Stephen freaking Neal was the difference between an undefeated season and losing the most important game in sports history.

And I'm not your bro, scrub.

Salty too.