Question for the Haters to answer why did BB bring back TBC

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

I live by two rules

Rule #1...In Belichick I Trust

Rule #2...in all other cases, refer to Rule #1

I hope your not serious, because that sounds extremely lame. I've seen people on this forum say this before but I never said anything until now.



Anyways, I love how this innocent question turns into why the Pats haven't won the super bowl in 4 years? So now I will get in on it. The facts are, the Pats haven't won a super bowl in 4 years. For a franchise that has arguably the greatest QB and coach in the NFL, 0 titles in 4 years is unacceptable.

Although the Pats haven't added a premier pass rusher, BB is somewhat trying to fix what hasn't worked in 4 years. From 2005-2008, BB tried to get away with an average secondary by relying on his ego and his front seven to pick up the slack. Unfortunately, that didn't work because of injuries, lack of depth and aging at the LB position. When you look back at the teams from 2001-2004 and 2005-2008, it's clear what helped the Pats win 3 super bowls in 4 years as apposed to 0 super bowls in 4 years. Not only did the Pats have an adequate pass rush, but the Pats had decent size CB's in Ty Law and Otis Smith with Tyrone Poole being the shortest. More importantly, these CB's were able to jam and disrupt receivers initial routes whenever it was called upon. When CB's are able to do this, even a mediocre pass rush will look better than it really is.

Ever since the Pats have lost the super bowl to the Giants, I've stated numerous times that the Pats needed to clean house and get more physical at the CB position. Now that the Pats have signed Springs and Bodden, you will see more man to man schemes with jams at the line instead of anticipating QB's throws like Samuel and Hobbs. Although it's still early, it was great to hear Kirwan say the biggest surprise was how physical the Pats secondary looks.

Now that the secondary could be on it's way to getting fixed, OLB is next on the list. In fact, I'm pretty sure it will be in 2010's free agency.

 

[signbabybrady]

The mistake was making him the starter by default. He was a fine 7th round pick, good STs, pass rush ability.

I don't think he is the starter by default....That would likely be Woods.

Unfortunately, We've lost six starting linebackers over the decade and replaced two.

That is a little misleading as at least one of the 6 was brought into replace another one of the 6..Referring to Colvin replacing Willie..I know Willie was here for a few years but Colvins injury kind of dictated that...and I assume by the two replacements you mean Thomas and Mayo....What about Guyton and Woods ( I know as starters it seems a little scary but they each fill roles).

Yes, we've had 5 man rotations of starter quality linebackers at least twice, Always four quality starters barring injury.

There still should be a pretty good rotation as Bru, Mayo, Guyton all bring a little different on the inside and Thomas, Woods, and Tully bring a little different to the outside....and that still leaves Crable and Lennon.

IMO which has been stated several timed in this LB debate is that We are little weaker on the top of the Depth chart than in the past and little thin on the outside until Crable can prove himself. But one thing left out of this is that Mayo and Thomas are everydown players leaving 2 spots for 4 or 5 guys.

 

[Deus Irae]

I hope your not serious, because that sounds extremely lame. I've seen people on this forum say this before but I never said anything until now.



Anyways, I love how this innocent question turns into why the Pats haven't won the super bowl in 4 years? So now I will get in on it. The facts are, the Pats haven't won a super bowl in 4 years. For a franchise that has arguably the greatest QB and coach in the NFL, 0 titles in 4 years is unacceptable.

Although the Pats haven't added a premier pass rusher, BB is somewhat trying to fix what hasn't worked in 4 years. From 2005-2008, BB tried to get away with an average secondary by relying on his ego and his front seven to pick up the slack. Unfortunately, that didn't work because of injuries, lack of depth and aging at the LB position. When you look back at the teams from 2001-2004 and 2005-2008, it's clear what helped the Pats win 3 super bowls in 4 years as apposed to 0 super bowls in 4 years. Not only did the Pats have an adequate pass rush, but the Pats had decent size CB's in Ty Law and Otis Smith with Tyrone Poole being the shortest. More importantly, these CB's were able to jam and disrupt receivers initial routes whenever it was called upon. When CB's are able to do this, even a mediocre pass rush will look better than it really is.

Ever since the Pats have lost the super bowl to the Giants, I've stated numerous times that the Pats needed to clean house and get more physical at the CB position. Now that the Pats have signed Springs and Bodden, you will see more man to man schemes with jams at the line instead of anticipating QB's throws like Samuel and Hobbs. Although it's still early, it was great to hear Kirwan say the biggest surprise was how physical the Pats secondary looks.

Now that the secondary could be on it's way to getting fixed, OLB is next on the list. In fact, I'm pretty sure it will be in 2010's free agency.

The San Francisco 49ers of the 80's and 90's say "Hello".


You people really need to get a grip on the reality of the NFL.

 

[RayClay]

I don't think he is the starter by default....That would likely be Woods.

I of course meant 2006. I was damned disappointed in the playoff run that year, I won't deny that.

Under the present conditions, TBC is a bargain, he knows the system and has more pass rush ability than most of our "pass rushers" at OLB.

What about Guyton and Woods ( I know as starters it seems a little scary but they each fill roles).

I don't mean to bash either. I like them both, and am optimistic about Crables upside. All they need to do is play hard, and I'll be happy.

Think of it as a business. If you're just barely making expenses, what happens when business is poor? You fold, that's what.

If everything goes right, this LB corps is adequate. If one or both exhibits a weakness they can't correct, what happens? Same with problems, injuries etc. Pass rush? Again, if everything hits, maybe adequate. If not? No young starter has succeeded since Colvin, that I can recall, outside of the #1pick. That's why you draft.

I'm sure they'll try to fill the gaps with tank and the DBs, but as good looking as they are, they are not Rodney.

Not a hater. Legitimate questions: Do we have enough to last through the playoffs? Where are the LBs of the future?

 

[signbabybrady]

I of course meant 2006. I was damned disappointed in the playoff run that year, I won't deny that.

Under the present conditions, TBC is a bargain, he knows the system and has more pass rush ability than most of our "pass rushers" at OLB.


I don't mean to bash either. I like them both, and am optimistic about Crables upside. All they need to do is play hard, and I'll be happy.

Think of it as a business. If you're just barely making expenses, what happens when business is poor? You fold, that's what.

If everything goes right, this LB corps is adequate. If one or both exhibits a weakness they can't correct, what happens? Same with problems, injuries etc. Pass rush? Again, if everything hits, maybe adequate. If not? No young starter has succeeded since Colvin, that I can recall, outside of the #1pick. That's why you draft.

I'm sure they'll try to fill the gaps with tank and the DBs, but as good looking as they are, they are not Rodney.

Not a hater. Legitimate questions: Do we have enough to last through the playoffs? Where are the LBs of the future?

We know at least one man who is on speed dial and maybe two Seau and possibly Willie Mac.

I definitely agree that depth is the concern. But for me Mayo and Thomas are so good and evryone else has there roles that I think this group healthy is almost as good as what we have had the last few years.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

The San Francisco 49ers of the 80's and 90's say "Hello".


You people really need to get a grip on the reality of the NFL.

I guess I can count on you not complaining if the Pats underachieve and fail to win a super bowl this season.

 

[Deus Irae]

I guess I can count on you not complaining if the Pats underachieve and fail to win a super bowl this season.

It took the 49ers from 84 to 94 to win 4 Super Bowls, and that included a 4 year stretch without a title. The great Steelers teams of the 70's didn't win all their titles consecutively. The great Cowboys teams of the 90's only won 3 titles.

 

[Synovia]

I guess I can count on you not complaining if the Pats underachieve and fail to win a super bowl this season.

You do realize there are 32 teams in the NFL, right? You can be the best team in football, and your chance of winning the superbowl is still about 25% at the absolute highest. There are 12 teams in the playoffs, and your chances of beating any of them don't really go above about 65%.

.65*.65*.65 = 27%

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

It took the 49ers from 84 to 94 to win 4 Super Bowls, and that included a 4 year stretch without a title. The great Steelers teams of the 70's didn't win all their titles consecutively. The great Cowboys teams of the 90's only won 3 titles.

You answered my response indirectly with something you already told me. Then this should be the year the Pats win another super bowl, right?

 

[Deus Irae]

You answered my response indirectly with something you already told me. Then this should be the year the Pats win another super bowl, right?

Given that any number of things can happen between now and the final seconds of the Super Bowl, and that the best team doesn't always win, how the hell should I know? They were the best team in 2007 and lost because of bad injury timing and a fluke catch. Things happen. Rational people understand this.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Given that any number of things can happen between now and the final seconds of the Super Bowl, and that the best team doesn't always win, how the hell should I know? They were the best team in 2007 and lost because of bad injury timing and a fluke catch. Things happen. Rational people understand this.

Burress's touchdown catch was a fluke? Seriously, after Tyree's catch, the Pats still had a chance to stop them but failed. That loss might go down as one of the biggest choke jobs in NFL history. Rational people won't blame a fluke catch for the reason why the Pats lost.

 

[Deus Irae]

Nice come back.

What come back? It was a response to an inane comment you made, nothing more. If you can't understand how the catch off the helmet impacted that game, you're not worth more effort than I gave.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

What come back? It was a response to an inane comment you made, nothing more. If you can't understand how the catch off the helmet impacted that game, you're not worth more effort than I gave.

I'm sorry, did the game end after that? Were the Giants awarded 6 points because of that catch? Obviously, that catch crushed the Pats mental toughness and couldn't recover after that. However, that's a terrible excuse.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm sorry, did the game end after that? Were the Giants awarded 6 points because of that catch? Obviously, that catch crushed the Pats mental toughness and couldn't recover after that. However, that's a terrible excuse.

Yes, because it's only if a bad call is made on the very last call of a game that a team can lose because of a call, and it's exactly the same with plays.

 

[PushnPencils]

Burress's touchdown catch was a fluke? Seriously, after Tyree's catch, the Pats still had a chance to stop them but failed. That loss might go down as one of the biggest choke jobs in NFL history. Rational people won't blame a fluke catch for the reason why the Pats lost.

Burress's catch was no fluke, just par for the course scorching of our version of Neon Deion.

As for choking, I don't buy that either. Regular season games against Philly, Baltimore and the Giants were foundations on what the Giants did to beat us.

The pressure they brought against Brady was a blueprint created by Jim Johnson RIP.

The inability to stop 3rd down conversions as well as other stuff were signs of the teams downfall. I may be to this day suicidally upset at the unfulfillment of that season....but it was no choke job....no more a choke than our victory over the Rams in 2001.

 

[RayClay]

We know at least one man who is on speed dial and maybe two Seau and possibly Willie Mac.

Trouble is, they have rotary phones.

 

[signbabybrady]

Hey Bro,

are you really talking about a 4 year SB drought like we didn't go 18-1.....I know in the end we all want to be on top but nothing not even the best secondary ever put together can guarentee you victory.

Where BB and this team has seperated itself from most of the league is its ability to compete for the SB year in and year out. I would say maybe two or three teams other than us have been able to do that and they have 3 SBs between them without a 4th appearance.

Nothing wrong with wanting a SBwin every year and nothing wrong with being upset if it doesn't happen in the end but you should be able to look back at a season and see the success like last years 11-5 team or the 18-1 team (things that don't always happen)

 

[Hardboiled]

Trouble is, they have rotary phones.

Well done.

 

[captain stone]

Trouble is, they have rotary phones.

Post of the Day.

The sad reality is, I'd rather have Junior, Willie & Rosie than Alexander, Ninkovich & Woods.

 

[DW Toys]

Your answer is as good as mine. I think TBC will be a fine backup, but nothing more. There are times when he can get after the QB, but he relies too much on his speed. With that said, BB will get the most out of TBC in pass rushing situations.

James Harrison is 6'0" and 242. Not a bad pass rusher who relies on speed.
DW Toys