Price: Patriots super shortcoming was easy to spot Sunday

[DocHoliday]

The problem with your theory is twofold:

1.) It presupposes equality of the player lost

By the above, I mean that Gronk is far more of a talent than is Jordy Nelson. Look at the specifics of the Patriots injuries. Brady/Welker/Gronk/Gronk

Hobble Rodgers in the same way that Brady was hobbled in 2007, and Peyton has two Lombardis.

2.) It ignores the ability of the Patriots to survive the loss of other players

By the above, I mean that the team has great depth at many positions, and has often survived it in the past. However, on a 53 man roster, you're going to have some players who are simply irreplaceable in the sense that you're not going to be able to account for their loss with just a small dropoff, simply because of the combination of their excellence and the vagaries of roster management. In New England, there are probably 4-5 of those guys right now.

Brady
Welker
Gronk
Wilfork
probably Mayo

It's difficult to come to terms with what may just be some seriously bad luck. Since 2007 the Patriots have lost someone out of that six player list four times.

There's gotta be some way to diversify the talent a little bit.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I don't hate where you're going with this notion. It's an interesting Idea to look at. The problem with your theory is threefold:

1.) It presupposes equality of the player lost

By the above, I mean that Gronk is far more of a talent than is Jordy Nelson. Look at the specifics of the Patriots injuries. Brady/Welker/Gronk/Gronk

Hobble Rodgers in the same way that Brady was hobbled in 2007, and Peyton has two Lombardis.

2.) It ignores the ability of the Patriots to survive the loss of other players

By the above, I mean that the team has great depth at many positions, and has often survived it in the past. However, on a 53 man roster, you're going to have some players who are simply irreplaceable in the sense that you're not going to be able to account for their loss with just a small dropoff, simply because of the combination of their excellence and the vagaries of roster management. In New England, there are probably 4-5 of those guys right now.

Brady
Welker
Gronk
Wilfork
probably Mayo

3.) IR and missed games history has shown player loss to injury is usually high in New England, and often affects depth as much as, or more than, front line talent. Dane Fletcher might have been able to replace Spikes on some of those passing downs, for example.

Agree with your the this but think you've got a typo or something. Peyton did not play against Rogers' team in his 2nd SB.

 

[IllegalContact]

Far too simplistic an answer, and not the problem, as I've already demonstrated on another thread
demonstrated? oh....you mean expressed your opinion.....your answer is even more simplistic


Welker is this team's #1 target, and Gronk is the #2 target overall while also being the #1 red zone target. Gronk was the one who was missing. Not surprisingly, the offense was able to move the ball up and down the field but struggled finishing drives.

none of them are #1's.....the production doesn't translate.....with the way brady throws the ball, someone is going to get lots of production.

It fell apart from the CBs and the coverage on Pitta. Your comment on the safeties is misleading at best, and really off at worst. McCourty is not an awful safety.
no he isn't.....but he didn't play that well.....and the other safety was a major liability for the pats regardless of who they put there.....the CB's were covering WR's.......Pitta was not their fault......it comes down to the safeties and LB's (mainly spikes) on this one....but you are entitled to your own equally uneducated opinion


Are you high? If they spend a second round pick on a linebacker, Kraft needs to fire every single person in the front office.
not at the moment......again, you are entitiled to your opinion......spikes is a liability and he's gone in a year, so getting a upgrade there is a priority given how passing games target themiddle of the field.


Note the "etc..." at the end of my list. I was giving examples, not offering a full and complete breakdown of the entire game.
sound kind of simplistic

Nonsense. Of course, given that you're complaining about the Patriots not running the ball, it should be noted that the fumble, on a running play, was the biggest turnover of the game.
talk about being simplistic....they should not have run the ball more because of ridley's fumble.....good one.....ray rice fumbled the ball against the niners..........was running the ball a bad idea for the ravens?

My note was about it producing turnovers. It produced 0. That's not "fine" in any sense of the word.
the pats defense had plenty of stops and gave the offense field position advantage.......since you blame the running game for the most important turnover, maybe you need to put more empahsis on the fact that the ravens protected the ball and give them credit.

this attitute of 'knowledge' that you try to portray is kind of deceiving, but not so much so

 

[Deus Irae]

Agree with your the this but think you've got a typo or something. Peyton did not play against Rogers' team in his 2nd SB.

Yeah, I was going to use the Saints/Colts game as the example, but I realized we'd been comparing GB to NE and made changes. I just mixed it up with the edit. It's fixed now.

 

[Deus Irae]

Far too simplistic an answer, and not the problem, as I've already demonstrated on another thread
demonstrated? oh....you mean expressed your opinion.....your answer is even more simplistic

No, I broke down the running game in another thread. Your argument is simply wrong.

none of them are #1's.....the production doesn't translate.....with the way brady throws the ball, someone is going to get lots of production.

That's the most ignorant thing I've read today. Congratulations.

no he isn't.....but he didn't play that well.....and the other safety was a major liability for the pats regardless of who they put there.....

So you were wrong. Good, we can move on.

the CB's were covering WR's.......Pitta was not their fault......it comes down to the safeties and LB's (mainly spikes) on this one....but you are entitled to your own equally uneducated opinion

My opinion was both correct and educated. You tried to read far too much into what I wrote, and you wrote something even you now concede was wrong as a result.

not at the moment......again, you are entitiled to your opinion......spikes is a liability and he's gone in a year, so getting a upgrade there is a priority given how passing games target themiddle of the field.

Your posts get more and more trollish as we continue, particularly given the point of my original post and the fact that you're now trying to broaden it in order to make points of your earlier non-points, since I have been on the "Spikes is poor in coverage" note since he first arrived.

I think we'll just stop here. Most of the remainder is just you being either clueless or a blatant troll, as is your wont.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I would revisit Moss for next season and draft a deep threat with size who goes after the ball. The bottom line is that they do need that aspect to their offense but aren't going to change their approach altogether and will still use that option sparingly, so spending big money for the deep threat doesn't make much sense. This team is a couple of pieces away so you don't make them worse on purpose.

That's about the second to last option I'd consider, right after I considered bringing Ocho back...

 

[neuronet]

The difference between Brady and Flacco is that Brady turns into a deer in headlights under pressure, and Flacco finds a way to scramble and make a play. Let's not fool ourselves guys, the way to beat Brady is to pressure him. The Ravens and Giants know this, and they do it. If Brady had QB'd for the Ravens, they would have been crushed and he would have been sacked 6 times. I don't think we'll win another one with Brady.

Troll. Go away.

 

[IllegalContact]

I'm laughing my arse of at your self proclaimed intelligence.......I've seen you be wrong just as much if not more than anyone else around here........there's no off switch on your genius, no siree.....

it's an opinion.........all the 'educated' in your thoughts is still nothing more than a guess

No, I broke down the running game in another thread. Your argument is simply wrong.

That's the most ignorant thing I've read today. Congratulations.

So you were wrong. Good, we can move on.

My opinion was both correct and educated. You tried to read far too much into what I wrote, and you wrote something even you now concede was wrong as a result.

Your posts get more and more trollish as we continue, particularly given the point of my original post and the fact that you're now trying to broaden it in order to make points of your earlier non-points, since I have been on the "Spikes is poor in coverage" note since he first arrived.

I think we'll just stop here. Most of the remainder is just you being either clueless or a blatant troll, as is your wont.

 

[BradyManny]

That's about the second to last option I'd consider, right after I considered bringing Ocho back...

As someone who defended Moss more often than not, I was reminded why I'm relieved he's no longer on our roster on his half-hearted attempts to corral some of those passes last night. He's soft. That said, he's still the second best receiver ever to play and if Randy Moss in his prime were to show up, no one would turn him down.

He just happens to be a shadow of the player he once was.

 

[Rob0729]

none of them are #1's.....the production doesn't translate.....with the way brady throws the ball, someone is going to get lots of production.

Welker was second in the league in receptions and 8th in receptions. If his production doesn't translate, that means there are only about a half dozen #1 WRs in the entire NFL.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

As someone who defended Moss more often than not, I was reminded why I'm relieved he's no longer on our roster on his half-hearted attempts to corral some of those passes last night. He's soft. That said, he's still the second best receiver ever to play and if Randy Moss in his prime were to show up, no one would turn him down.

He just happens to be a shadow of the player he once was.

Spot on. The 2009/10 Moss never took the ball from anyone and had aggressive CBs make picks or easy pass defendeds against him. Once he started costing Brady picks, TFB lost faith in him. Do NOT want the 2013 Moss. I wish we hadn't let Eraserhead go.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm laughing my arse of at your self proclaimed intelligence.......I've seen you be wrong just as much if not more than anyone else around here........there's no off switch on your genius, no siree.....

it's an opinion.........all the 'educated' in your thoughts is still nothing more than a guess

Thanks for showing that it was you trolling and not just you being ignorant. The former is just par for the course with you, but the latter would have been gross negligence on your part given the circumstances. Now, have a nice day.

 

[BradyManny]

Spot on. The 2009/10 Moss never took the ball from anyone and had aggressive CBs make picks or easy pass defendeds against him. Once he started costing Brady picks, TFB lost faith in him. Do NOT want the 2013 Moss. I wish we hadn't let Eraserhead go.

Agree with all of the above.

Good point about the Underwood cut. That flew under the radar as we thought we had a glut of receiving options at that point in the offseason. We could've used him...

 

[hwc]

I think the Pats have the big mismatch receiving target who can win the physical battle down field. The problem is that he was on IR for the AFC championship game.

The Ravens aren't doing it with blazing speed. They are doing it by winning jump ball battles. Rob Gronkowski wins jump ball battles, too. More than anything else, the Pats were derailed by Gronk's back-to-back injuries down the stretch. That's the way the cookie crumbles. It's not like Belichick didn't see the importance of stressing defenses with big physical receivers.

 

[Sweft]

Welker doesn't have the physical ability to take the abuse that a #1 reciever is subject to. If you watched the Ravens game, you would see that as the game progressed, Welker was shaking his head and his body language was bad. Welker didn't want to take any more hits, period. That's what his body language said. He's a small guy and he got pounded. I don't blame him.

Gronk is physically more a #1 than Welker i can ever be. A #1 must be able to take abuse.

 

[CheeseMonkeys]

I'm laughing my arse of at your self proclaimed intelligence.......I've seen you be wrong just as much if not more than anyone else around here........there's no off switch on your genius, no siree.....

it's an opinion.........all the 'educated' in your thoughts is still nothing more than a guess

Don't bother arguing with that guy. If you argue against what he says, he will take offense to it. Then he will throw you on his ignore list because he can't stand it when people disagree with him. He thinks everyone is just "trolling"... seems like an issue with self esteem.

 

[Sweft]

Brady QBR vs Ravens 62
Flacco QBR vs 49ers 124

I don't know why people are defending Brady but he has been absolutely atrocious in big games. He's become a good regular season QB, and a horrible post season QB. I don't blame Brady, maybe they should focus more on the D. The coaches are at fault for putting too much pressure on Brady. Build up the D and run the ball to give the D rest and pressure off of Brady. We can't live and die by Brady.

 

[brdmaverick]

As the #3 scoring offense of ALL TIME I find it mind boggling that again and again many want to point to the Patriots offense as the problem. Yes, they had a bad game, and lost. That doesn't mean that their offensive philosophy is flawed though.

 

[DocHoliday]

As the #3 scoring offense of ALL TIME I find it mind boggling that again and again many want to point to the Patriots offense as the problem. Yes, they had a bad game, and lost. That doesn't mean that their offensive philosophy is flawed though.

So the Patriots just 'had a bad game' the last three years? No coincidence at all that it sputters against the Ravens, Giants, and (apparently) the Seahawks?

You're asking too much of your defense if you can't even put up 20 points. No question the D needs to get better, but there is something wrong with this offense. Scoring 40 points several times a season means zero if you can't maintain some semblance of it in the postseason.

Bad luck (Gronk) is a big part of it, but you can't hope for good luck. You gotta do your best to win in spite of it.

 

[Sweft]

As the #3 scoring offense of ALL TIME I find it mind boggling that again and again many want to point to the Patriots offense as the problem. Yes, they had a bad game, and lost. That doesn't mean that their offensive philosophy is flawed though.

#3 scoring offense in the regular season, against mediocre teams. That doesn't mean ANYTHING in the post season, where the teams aren't soft or mediocre. Your stats in the big games will tell you how elite your offense is. We did fine without Gronk in the regular season, and obviously, it didn't mean anything in the post season. You have to stop worshipping regular season numbers, they mean squat.