Ridley: "Tom Brady runs that organization"

[eagle eye]

Ridley has to get things right before he speaks. He should have said this to keep all the fans happy.

'Oh yeah Tom Brady is the boss of that offense, I don't mean like he controls the offense completely because thats Josh McDaniels job, well its his job under Belichick who of course is under Bob Kraft'

Then we would only have a thread about how Ridley is so boring in interviews and a real kissass.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Don't be so bitter Rhody. He'll be gone soon and then maybe they will do it your way...:bricks:

Not bitter at all. Just speaking the truth as painful as it may be to the blinded-by-their-Tommy-love crowd.

 

[Ivan]

As a leader Brady is second to none and runs the offense and sets a tone for the team, if he ran the franchise Welker would already have a long term deal in place.

 

[Trycked]

B.S. Tom Brady controls anything...he can't even cut his own hair without first getting permission from the godmother Gisele.

 

[BradyManny]

Not bitter at all. Just speaking the truth as painful as it may be to the blinded-by-their-Tommy-love crowd.

Yes, I'm sorry some of us are actually fans of this team who appreciate being a perennial contender and get to witness this team compete at a high level each season.

For those of us that don't expect a title every season and blame it's best player when they come up just short, it's been a fun ride.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Yeah, you're right - this team would be so much better if it didn't have an explosive passing offense. It's strengths really are run blocking and defense, and if they just got away from that pesky pass offense which brings them down, they might go 19-0.

Great forum contribution, as always.

BTW - as for that "Colt offense", you do realize that the Colts and the Patriots have represented the AFC in four of the last six Super Bowls. It really sucks how we're one of the best teams every year. That must get tiring for someone as unnecessarily negative as you.

Yes, this team would be better off if they didn't have their entire universe revolve around their explosive passing offense. The dirty little not so secret story in the NFL is how they don't allow defense to be played in the REGULAR SEASON but do allow DB's to actually play the game and QB's to actualy get hit when the playoffs roll around. The playoffs are a DIFFERENT GAME and one the Patriots do not excel at since they became Bradycentric.
Have you noticed how the explosive passing offense goes bye bye when the playoffs roll around?? Oh that's right I forgot how the Patriots padded their O stats bigtime running up the score on the not really a playoff team Broncos this year. How many points against the Ravens?? The Giants?? How many in the 2nd half of those games??

You're right, the Colts and Patriots have been in 4 of the last 6 SB's. Their record is 1 - 3 and if Peyton Manning were facing any QB other than Rex UGH!! Grossman the record would be 0 - 4.
Thanks for making my point.
Unlike the Patriots the Giants are not a high powered sexy offense. Unlike the Patriots the Steelers are not a high powered sexy offense.
Let's check out their SB records in the past few years.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yes, this team would be better off if they didn't have their entire universe revolve around their explosive passing offense. The dirty little not so secret story in the NFL is how they don't allow defense to be played in the REGULAR SEASON but do allow DB's to actually play the game and QB's to actualy get hit when the playoffs roll around. The playoffs are a DIFFERENT GAME and one the Patriots do not excel at since they became Bradycentric.
Have you noticed how the explosive passing offense goes bye bye when the playoffs roll around?? Oh that's right I forgot how the Patriots padded their O stats bigtime running up the score on the not really a playoff team Broncos this year. How many points against the Ravens?? The Giants?? How many in the 2nd half of those games??

You're right, the Colts and Patriots have been in 4 of the last 6 SB's. Their record is 1 - 3 and if Peyton Manning were facing any QB other than Rex UGH!! Grossman the record would be 0 - 4.
Thanks for making my point.
Unlike the Patriots the Giants are not a high powered sexy offense. Unlike the Patriots the Steelers are not a high powered sexy offense.
Let's check out their SB records in the past few years.

One of your worst posts ever, and that's saying something....

 

[ScottieC]

Yes, this team would be better off if they didn't have their entire universe revolve around their explosive passing offense. The dirty little not so secret story in the NFL is how they don't allow defense to be played in the REGULAR SEASON but do allow DB's to actually play the game and QB's to actualy get hit when the playoffs roll around. The playoffs are a DIFFERENT GAME and one the Patriots do not excel at since they became Bradycentric.
Have you noticed how the explosive passing offense goes bye bye when the playoffs roll around?? Oh that's right I forgot how the Patriots padded their O stats bigtime running up the score on the not really a playoff team Broncos this year. How many points against the Ravens?? The Giants?? How many in the 2nd half of those games??

You're right, the Colts and Patriots have been in 4 of the last 6 SB's. Their record is 1 - 3 and if Peyton Manning were facing any QB other than Rex UGH!! Grossman the record would be 0 - 4.
Thanks for making my point.
Unlike the Patriots the Giants are not a high powered sexy offense. Unlike the Patriots the Steelers are not a high powered sexy offense.
Let's check out their SB records in the past few years.

Tyree does not catch a ball on his helmet and Wes catches that one ball with 4 min to go and your entire argument is trashed.

I'm sure you liked the previous 3 wins in the SB because they were blow out wins and support your argument.........wait.. :bricks:

 

[Pujo]

Yes, this team would be better off if they didn't have their entire universe revolve around their explosive passing offense. The dirty little not so secret story in the NFL is how they don't allow defense to be played in the REGULAR SEASON but do allow DB's to actually play the game and QB's to actualy get hit when the playoffs roll around. The playoffs are a DIFFERENT GAME and one the Patriots do not excel at since they became Bradycentric.
Have you noticed how the explosive passing offense goes bye bye when the playoffs roll around?? Oh that's right I forgot how the Patriots padded their O stats bigtime running up the score on the not really a playoff team Broncos this year. How many points against the Ravens?? The Giants?? How many in the 2nd half of those games??

You're right, the Colts and Patriots have been in 4 of the last 6 SB's. Their record is 1 - 3 and if Peyton Manning were facing any QB other than Rex UGH!! Grossman the record would be 0 - 4.
Thanks for making my point.
Unlike the Patriots the Giants are not a high powered sexy offense. Unlike the Patriots the Steelers are not a high powered sexy offense.
Let's check out their SB records in the past few years.

Both of the Pats SB losses came in very close games that literally came down to one or two plays, much like their 3 SB wins. You're giving yourself too much credit if you're acting like you can come to these grand conclusions from that.

 

[Deus Irae]

Tyree does not catch a ball on his helmet and Wes catches that one ball with 4 min to go and your entire argument is trashed.

I'm sure you liked the previous 3 wins in the SB because they were blow out wins and support your argument.........wait.. :bricks:

Exactly.....

It's always worth a laugh when people go on about the offense, while forgetting several things along the way:

1.) The defense was in decline post 2004, and has just bottomed out in the last 1-2 years (hopefully)

2.) 2001 was one "tuck rule" call away from never happening. Why is this significant? 2006 was ended by, among other reasons, a PI call that didn't even exist in the league (face guarding), 2007 was ended by, among other things, a play in which several blatant holds weren't called and an in-the-grasp was not called, and 2011 was lost, in part, because a safety was called on a play that's almost never whistled as a safety. In other words, in close games, a call/non-call on a close play can be the difference.

3.) 2007 had a hobbled Brady, injured Neal (replaced by an injured Hochstein), injured/depleted TE corps, injured Faulk, all of which were recent developments. Had those players been healthy and their Giants counterparts been injured, that game would have been about 45-3 Patriots.

4.) If Welker catches the ball, the Patriots win in 2011

5.) The Giants had multiple fumbles in 2011. If even one of those is recovered by the Patriots, the Patriots probably win the game. Which leads to...

6.) A too many men on the field penalty, by the defense, was another huge play in the 2011 loss.

7.) In 2007, if Meriweather holds on to the INT, the Patriots win.

8. ) In 2007, if Meriweather stays with his man, Manning probably never makes the throw to Tyree.

9.) In 2001, Brady was knocked out of a playoff game, while playing in the "protect the QB from all harm and mistakes" offense they were running that year. If Bledsoe doesn't get that early score against Pittsburgh, or the team doesn't get 2 special teams scores, there is no 2001 SB win.

10.) Again, 2001: David Patten is knocked unconscious and fumbles the ball, but is ruled out of bounds and the ball stays with the Patriots. If that ball is given the the Bills, the Patriots might well have lost that (OT) game and would then have finished at 10-6 instead of 11-5, meaning that they'd have lost the division and would have gone to tiebreakers for a wild card spot. It would have changed how that year shook out.


At this point, after all we've seen since 2001, blaming the SB drought on the changes in the passing game is just a poor attempt at scapegoating. I'd love to see the team with a more potent running attack, but it's not the passing game which is causing the issues year after year.

 

[BradyManny]

Yes, this team would be better off if they didn't have their entire universe revolve around their explosive passing offense. The dirty little not so secret story in the NFL is how they don't allow defense to be played in the REGULAR SEASON but do allow DB's to actually play the game and QB's to actualy get hit when the playoffs roll around. The playoffs are a DIFFERENT GAME and one the Patriots do not excel at since they became Bradycentric.
Have you noticed how the explosive passing offense goes bye bye when the playoffs roll around?? Oh that's right I forgot how the Patriots padded their O stats bigtime running up the score on the not really a playoff team Broncos this year. How many points against the Ravens?? The Giants?? How many in the 2nd half of those games??

You're right, the Colts and Patriots have been in 4 of the last 6 SB's. Their record is 1 - 3 and if Peyton Manning were facing any QB other than Rex UGH!! Grossman the record would be 0 - 4.
Thanks for making my point.
Unlike the Patriots the Giants are not a high powered sexy offense. Unlike the Patriots the Steelers are not a high powered sexy offense.
Let's check out their SB records in the past few years.

Honestly, it's hard to discern what is and what isn't sarcasm in your posts. Since I can't respond to you line by line not knowing what's a sick joke and what you actually believe, here's some bullet responses:

- The Giants were the 5th best passing offense last season, and the last placed run offense. Whatever point you were trying to make about SB46 and balanced offenses is destroyed.

- Steelers v. Cardinals; Saints v Colts; Packers v. Steelers; Giants v. Patriots. All pass heavy teams. How you can try and make the point you're trying to make looking at these matchups...it's laughable.

- For the sake of argument, let's go out on a limb and pretend Tyree didn't make a catch off his helmet, or Mario Manningham's toe lands a quarter inch to the left...doesn't your argument get destroyed?

- The Patriots passing offense in the Super Bowl performed with about the same efficiency it had all year. Per possession, they had as many yards and almost as many points as they were doing all season. They were handcuffed by remarkably poor field position and time of possession. And if Brady and Welker complete that pass, what do you say about their performances then?

- If you've built a team good enough to get to the Super Bowl, you've built a team good enough to win the Super Bowl. The deciding factors in several of the Super Bowls we're referencing (you know, SB42 & SB46, your evidence of why Tom Brady sucks) came down to fluke plays by fluke players. If you really think that Bill Belichick can build this team so that a 5th string wide receiver doesn't make a catch off his helmet, well, then we are never going to be on the same page. Sh*t happens. Three times it went in our favor. The last two times, it didn't.

- Your entire premise is flawed. No one argues with you that the team would be better with a better defense and better running game. Of course it would. But that's not what our personnel has been of late - nor is it any easy thing to accomplish due to the state of the NFL right now. But irrationally, you place blame for its failures on the strength of the team: the passing offense. It would be akin to me complaining that I don't make enough money, so rather than trying to go find a job that pays me more, I just quit and forgo what income I do make. The passing offense is the source of the team's success recently. Take it away, and what are they?

 

[ScottieC]

It's always worth a laugh when people go on about the offense, while forgetting several things along the way:

1.) The defense was in decline post 2004, and has just bottomed out in the last 1-2 years (hopefully)

2.) 2001 was one "tuck rule" call away from never happening. Why is this significant? 2006 was ended by, among other reasons, a PI call that didn't even exist in the league (face guarding), 2007 was ended by, among other things, a play in which several blatant holds weren't called and an in-the-grasp was not called, and 2011 was lost, in part, because a safety was called on a play that's almost never whistled as a safety. In other words, in close games, a call/non-call on a close play can be the difference.

3.) 2007 had a hobbled Brady, injured Neal (replaced by an injured Hochstein), injured/depleted TE corps, injured Faulk, all of which were recent developments. Had those players been healthy and their Giants counterparts been injured, that game would have been about 45-3 Patriots.

4.) If Welker catches the ball, the Patriots win in 2011

5.) The Giants had multiple fumbles in 2011. If even one of those is recovered by the Patriots, the Patriots probably win the game. Which leads to...

6.) A too many men on the field penalty, by the defense, was another huge play in the 2011 loss.

7.) In 2007, if Meriweather holds on to the INT, the Patriots win.

8. ) In 2007, if Meriweather stays with his man, Manning probably never makes the throw to Tyree.

9.) In 2001, Brady was knocked out of a playoff game, while playing in the "protect the QB from all harm and mistakes" offense they were running that year. If Bledsoe doesn't get that early score against Pittsburgh, or the team doesn't get 2 special teams scores, there is no 2001 SB win.

10.) Again, 2001: David Patten is knocked unconscious and fumbles the ball, but is ruled out of bounds and the ball stays with the Patriots. If that ball is given the the Bills, the Patriots might well have lost that (OT) game and would then have finished at 10-6 instead of 11-5, meaning that they'd have lost the division and would have gone to tiebreakers for a wild card spot. It would have changed how that year shook out.


At this point, after all we've seen since 2001, blaming the SB drought on the changes in the passing game is just a poor attempt at scapegoating. I'd love to see the team with a more potent running attack, but it's not the passing game which is causing the issues year after year.

Well stated Deus.

I understand people want a better defense, or should I say a more consistent defense, either way I get that and I'm on that bandwagon.

But, if you get to the playoffs, you challenge for a Super Bowl, and you have one of the greatest players to ever play the game leading your offense.......what more do they want? Win every game? Please.

This team without Brady...think Dallas, Atlanta or much worse.

This team with Brady....check the record books.

 

[BradyManny]

At this point, after all we've seen since 2001, blaming the SB drought on the changes in the passing game is just a poor attempt at scapegoating. I'd love to see the team with a more potent running attack, but it's not the passing game which is causing the issues year after year.

Spot on Deus.

Patriots fans have felt both sides to the randomness that goes into deciding Super Bowls.

Using the Super Bowl to make general judgements on the team is too small a sample size. The team needed an outside receiver; a ton of help on defense. That is true whether Welker holds onto that pass or not.

Passing offenses win in this league now. They win in the regular season, they win in the playoffs. It might not be as pretty in January or February, but they still win.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Yes, I'm sorry some of us are actually fans of this team who appreciate being a perennial contender and get to witness this team compete at a high level each season.

For those of us that don't expect a title every season and blame it's best player when they come up just short, it's been a fun ride.

And some of us Patriot fans greatly appreciate what this team brings every year, don't expect or demand a title every year BUT also don't blindly kiss Patriot bum at every turn and worship at the feet of Tommy and Bill when it is not warranted. There are a lot of us Patriot fans that want this team to play a tougher and grittier style of football. We're not bedazzled by gawdy and utterly meaningless regular season stats and ESPN highlights.
Been there, done that and it doesn't work in February.
I'll take a crushing hit over a "purty" catch any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

 

[BradyManny]

And some of us Patriot fans greatly appreciate what this team brings every year, don't expect or demand a title every year BUT also don't blindly kiss Patriot bum at every turn and worship at the feet of Tommy and Bill when it is not warranted. There are a lot of us Patriot fans that want this team to play a tougher and grittier style of football. We're not bedazzled by gawdy and utterly meaningless regular season stats and ESPN highlights.
Been there, done that and it doesn't work in February.
I'll take a crushing hit over a "purty" catch any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

OK. Two problems:

1) Tom Brady doesn't play defense. Yet you blame him for anything bad that happens to us. Explain.

2) The Giants are a pass first team with tons of offensive weapons. The Packers are a pass first team with tons of offensive weapons. The Saints are a pass first team with tons of offensive weapons. They've won the last three Super Bowls.

They are all very similar to the Patriots, other than maybe they had better pass rushes and defensive playmakers - which again, has nothing to do with the passing offense. And had Gronk been healthy, there's little doubt the Patriots have more weaponry then the Giants and we walk away with a win.

 

[Steve102]

Exactly.....

It's always worth a laugh when people go on about the offense, while forgetting several things along the way:

1.) The defense was in decline post 2004, and has just bottomed out in the last 1-2 years (hopefully)

2.) 2001 was one "tuck rule" call away from never happening. Why is this significant? 2006 was ended by, among other reasons, a PI call that didn't even exist in the league (face guarding), 2007 was ended by, among other things, a play in which several blatant holds weren't called and an in-the-grasp was not called, and 2011 was lost, in part, because a safety was called on a play that's almost never whistled as a safety. In other words, in close games, a call/non-call on a close play can be the difference.

3.) 2007 had a hobbled Brady, injured Neal (replaced by an injured Hochstein), injured/depleted TE corps, injured Faulk, all of which were recent developments. Had those players been healthy and their Giants counterparts been injured, that game would have been about 45-3 Patriots.

4.) If Welker catches the ball, the Patriots win in 2011

5.) The Giants had multiple fumbles in 2011. If even one of those is recovered by the Patriots, the Patriots probably win the game. Which leads to...

6.) A too many men on the field penalty, by the defense, was another huge play in the 2011 loss.

7.) In 2007, if Meriweather holds on to the INT, the Patriots win.

8. ) In 2007, if Meriweather stays with his man, Manning probably never makes the throw to Tyree.

9.) In 2001, Brady was knocked out of a playoff game, while playing in the "protect the QB from all harm and mistakes" offense they were running that year. If Bledsoe doesn't get that early score against Pittsburgh, or the team doesn't get 2 special teams scores, there is no 2001 SB win.

10.) Again, 2001: David Patten is knocked unconscious and fumbles the ball, but is ruled out of bounds and the ball stays with the Patriots. If that ball is given the the Bills, the Patriots might well have lost that (OT) game and would then have finished at 10-6 instead of 11-5, meaning that they'd have lost the division and would have gone to tiebreakers for a wild card spot. It would have changed how that year shook out.


At this point, after all we've seen since 2001, blaming the SB drought on the changes in the passing game is just a poor attempt at scapegoating. I'd love to see the team with a more potent running attack, but it's not the passing game which is causing the issues year after year.

Thanks for this post. It hits pretty much on all my points I wanted to say.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Some people are just incapable of writing a post that's worth your time to read.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

- The Patriots passing offense in the Super Bowl performed with about the same efficiency it had all year. Per possession, they had as many yards and almost as many points as they were doing all season. They were handcuffed by remarkably poor field position and time of possession. And if Brady and Welker complete that pass, what do you say about their performances then?

That isn't true, while 1.89 seems really close to 2.79 it's really a large difference in this case. That's the difference between having the Steelers' offense and the Pats'... I think the large discrepancy between the difference in points and yards compared to the regular season definitely points the finger at the poor field position playing a large role in the offenses struggles.

However the devils advocate in me says if they'd put up 0.65 yards over their season average rather than under it that could've been enough to actually make a difference in such a tight game. Maybe that shift of 12 yards is them getting a first down on the first drive and instead of a safety and TD the Giants only get a FG or maybe even nothing... Maybe it'd be a TD instead of a FG on their second drive... Maybe it'd be a first down and a FG on their next to last drive... Or some combination of things... Just hard to look at a game as tight as this and write off any minor dip in production as inconsequential.

I think the points you and Deuce have made here are spot on; the real problem is it's unimaginably hard to win a SB and any little thing or combination of little things can derail the train.

 

[BradyManny]

That isn't true, while 1.89 seems really close to 2.79 it's really a large difference in this case. That's the difference between having the Steelers' offense and the Pats'... I think the large discrepancy between the difference in points and yards compared to the regular season definitely points the finger at the poor field position playing a large role in the offenses struggles.

Yeah, but consider one of those possessions was the safety and another amounted to a bunch of hail mary heaves. When you discount, the effective efficiency is the same.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Yeah, but consider one of those possessions was the safety and another amounted to a bunch of hail mary heaves. When you discount, the effective efficiency is the same.

I can understand not wanting to count the final drive, but what is the reason for not wanting to count the safety?

If you do discount the final drive you end up with 2.13 which is still quite a ways off the season avg.