The Pats Should CONSIDER Replacing Matt Patricia

[DaBruinz]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

Your post is unnecessarily harsh and I think you're wrong on a number of points.

You think that was harsh? I'm sure that most people will tell you that was tame from me..

1. I have not heard people complain about Patricia, true. But it's telling that we've never once heard a player praise Patricia. Over the course of two seasons, you'd think that at least one defensive player, if not more, would have done so. Conclusive? No. But indicative? Yes, I think.

That isn't what I asked you. I asked you how many times have they been asked about Matt Patricia. The answer is that they haven't. The Patriots modus operandi is for players to not give out more information than they need to. It is to only answer the questions asked and try to deflect from giving an answer that could be seen as negative.
The only thing that Matt Patricia not getting talked about is indicative of is the media not talking about Matt Patricia. It's not indicative of anything else unless you want to live in a fairy tale land of conspiracy theories.

2. The amount of time that BB was involved with the D was, in my view, unusual. I don't recall Bill spending that amount of time during games with the D during the SB years. Sure, there were times he was there. "In Cuts! In Cuts! That's the game!" Who could forget that awesome quote during the first Rams game in 2001? I just think he spent more time this year and I don't recall seeing him over there so consistently while the Pats were on offense.

And your view is clearly slanted towards wanting Patricia gone because you refuse to actually think. The amount of time BB spent with the D was not unusual in any way. Just because you can't recall BB spending "that amount of time during games with the D during SB years" doesn't mean it didn't happen. Again, you ignore the fact that he never took away defensive play-calling from Patricia. Which is clearly telling about what facts you use to base your opinion on.

3. Several members of the Boston media have noted over time that Bill no longer has older guys on the staff who are in a position to challenge hm as much. They've noted that guys like Rome and Charlie were older and had been colleagues with Bill earlier. That's where I'm getting it. It makes some sense to me.

*ROFLMAO* Several members of the Boston media? You mean guys like Shaunessy, Ryan, Borbes, Breer, etc, who have no idea about the inner workings of the Patriots. Who have never, once, been allowed to sit in on a Game Planning session like Mike Holley has.

So, you are getting it from sources who have no knowledge of the inner workings of the Patriots and you assume that they have some validity so it "makes sense to you"???

4. Your comments re Curran are way off. He is around the team all the time. Whether he has a TV show on Comcast or writes for a newspaper is of no moment. The fact is that he's in press conferences and I regularly hear him asking questions of Bill in that context. I regularly see him interviewing players on Comcast. He's in the Pats media world.

No. My comments about Curran are dead on. Unlike your comments about the Boston media. Curran has been on the outside (meaning he gets little to no inside information anymore) since the whole Cameragate incident. Just because he's in the press conferences and he asks questions doesn't mean a damn thing. Neither does him "interviewing players on Comcast". He's not been on the inside in a long time. I'm not the first person on this board to note it. Just because you are under some flawed misconception doesn't mean the rest of the board is.

5. Romeo was with the Pats when they won 3 SBs. He, as contrasted with Patricia, was constantly praised by the players as being a key guy in the Pats success. Guys referred to both his tactical skills and his almost fatherly style personality and coaching. Romeo's element is pretty clear to see. I agree that Mangini is a tougher sell. He sounds very smart and insightful to me on radio interviews. But I have much less confidence that Mangini adds a missing element.

The media asked the players questions about Crennel. I've yet to hear them ask any defensive player about Patricia. And I hate to break it to you, but you are making things up about when it happened. Guys weren't that effusive with praise until AFTER the 3 SBs.

Who cares if Mangini"sounds smart and insightful to you". That isn't the issue. The issue is that he burnt bridges on his way out of New England. Not just with Belichick, but with Bob Kraft. And he added insult to injury with Cameragate.

6. True that the D improved and was young. But I am not arguing that the D is terrible or that Patricia is hopeless. I just wonder if the D can be better and Bill can be freed up if we have Romeo (or Mangini or someone else better than Patricia).

Last, the purpose is more about discussing it. Maybe the Pats are better off with staying with Matt and continuity is really important. I tend to think not...

So, because you are under numerous false assumptions (about how much BB coached the D during the 1st 5 years of his tenure, when Romeo got Praise, Whether the media actually knows anything about the inner workings of the Patriots) you make all sorts of flawed conclusions. Well, I guess I understand how you got there. But that doesn't make anything you have said come close to the idea that the Pats should replace Patricia. All it's done is show that you place too much credence in the Boston Media (particularly ones who have little knowledge of the inner workings of the Patriots), you are willing to make SWAGS based on no information, and you are willing to ignore actual accomplishments.

 

[DaBruinz]

When you are getting only 3.5 yards a carry against the Ravens against their NICKEL D why would Josh call a run play?

The O-line gave up the most pressures it had given since the 49ers game. They practically had to go shotgun.

Sorry, but Baltimore wasn't in their "Nickel" defense 90% of the game the way Bedard suggests. In fact, it's an outright lie.

The Baltimore Front 7 of Suggs, Lewis, Ellerbe, Kruger, Ngata, McPhee, with Jones /Kemoeatu (rotating at LDE) were out there a majority of the time.

 

[DarrylStingley]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

You think that was harsh? I'm sure that most people will tell you that was tame from me..



That isn't what I asked you. I asked you how many times have they been asked about Matt Patricia. The answer is that they haven't. The Patriots modus operandi is for players to not give out more information than they need to. It is to only answer the questions asked and try to deflect from giving an answer that could be seen as negative.
The only thing that Matt Patricia not getting talked about is indicative of is the media not talking about Matt Patricia. It's not indicative of anything else unless you want to live in a fairy tale land of conspiracy theories.



And your view is clearly slanted towards wanting Patricia gone because you refuse to actually think. The amount of time BB spent with the D was not unusual in any way. Just because you can't recall BB spending "that amount of time during games with the D during SB years" doesn't mean it didn't happen. Again, you ignore the fact that he never took away defensive play-calling from Patricia. Which is clearly telling about what facts you use to base your opinion on.



*ROFLMAO* Several members of the Boston media? You mean guys like Shaunessy, Ryan, Borbes, Breer, etc, who have no idea about the inner workings of the Patriots. Who have never, once, been allowed to sit in on a Game Planning session like Mike Holley has.

So, you are getting it from sources who have no knowledge of the inner workings of the Patriots and you assume that they have some validity so it "makes sense to you"???



No. My comments about Curran are dead on. Unlike your comments about the Boston media. Curran has been on the outside (meaning he gets little to no inside information anymore) since the whole Cameragate incident. Just because he's in the press conferences and he asks questions doesn't mean a damn thing. Neither does him "interviewing players on Comcast". He's not been on the inside in a long time. I'm not the first person on this board to note it. Just because you are under some flawed misconception doesn't mean the rest of the board is.



The media asked the players questions about Crennel. I've yet to hear them ask any defensive player about Patricia. And I hate to break it to you, but you are making things up about when it happened. Guys weren't that effusive with praise until AFTER the 3 SBs.

Who cares if Mangini"sounds smart and insightful to you". That isn't the issue. The issue is that he burnt bridges on his way out of New England. Not just with Belichick, but with Bob Kraft. And he added insult to injury with Cameragate.



So, because you are under numerous false assumptions (about how much BB coached the D during the 1st 5 years of his tenure, when Romeo got Praise, Whether the media actually knows anything about the inner workings of the Patriots) you make all sorts of flawed conclusions. Well, I guess I understand how you got there. But that doesn't make anything you have said come close to the idea that the Pats should replace Patricia. All it's done is show that you place too much credence in the Boston Media (particularly ones who have little knowledge of the inner workings of the Patriots), you are willing to make SWAGS based on no information, and you are willing to ignore actual accomplishments.

Agree to disagree on virtually all of this.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

Agree to disagree. I think you can learn a lot from inference. I think the lack of positive commentary about Patricia is telling, for example. It's not at all odd to you that we've heard TONS of positive "buzz" about Crennel, Weis and McDaniels as coordinators and nothing about Patricia?

You do know that inference is just another word for assumption, yes? Can you learn things from assumptions? Yep. But, more often than not, you only end up looking foolish.

No one is going to trash Patricia in the press. That's clearly NOT the Patriot Way. But that it's been silent tells me something.

All it should tell you is that the media hasn't asked questions about Patricia. Anything else is an assumption on your part and has no basis in anything but your imagination.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

Agree to disagree on virtually all of this.

Of course you do. Because, when actually challenged by facts, you'd rather stick to your SWAGS, INFERENCES, and ASSUMPTIONS.

 

[Sciz]

Sorry, but Baltimore wasn't in their "Nickel" defense 90% of the game the way Curran suggests. In fact, it's an outright lie.

The Baltimore Front 7 of Suggs, Lewis, Ellerbe, Kruger, Ngata, McPhee, with Jones /Kemoeatu (rotating at LDE) were out there a majority of the time.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...e-patriots-failed-measure-up.html#post3355456

 

[DarrylStingley]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

I thought someone like Ray Horton would have been perfect.

Horton might have been perfect but he called Bill (and Josh) out after the Cards beat the Pats this year. Said that he knew what the Pats were going to do before they did it. He really made an ass out of himself and his comments got a lot of attention.

So based on that, I doubt he and Bill are exchanging XMas cards.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

Patricia didn't have the title but he was the coordinator last year too.

And you're simply wrong that you can't learn from silence. You can.

Imagine if we were sitting by the pool with 10 of our friends, and 10 gorgeous women walked by and each time our group erupted and made all kinds of positive comments about their looks.

Ten minutes later a very homely woman walked by and the group was totally silent.

In absence of any commentary from the group, you would not have facts about what they thought of the homely woman's looks.

But you could draw an inference from the silence.

Here it's the same.

Pats players were loud in their praise of Charlie, Romeo and Josh. We heard lots of positive "catcalls" about them. Pats players have been -- unless I missed it -- silent with regard to Matt.

Sure, there are no facts. We have no interviews to point to. But we can learn from silence. Just like we could learn what it meant about how the crowd perceived the homely woman.

Sorry, but no Pats Player during the 1st 3 SBs was loud in their praise of Charlie and Romeo unless the players was actually ASKED by the media about said coach.

Again, you've yet to answer whether or not any Defensive player has been asked about Patricia. Oh wait. You did. You said none of them have been asked that. So, if the media isn't asking, why would the players be talking about him?

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

I'd certainly consider replacing him. Look at it this way - what have we seen to show he's added value to the defense? Not much. The unimpressive D might not be his fault but he's a party in it's lackluster performance and thus is fair game to be canned.

Honestly, what are the odds that someone would come in and do worse of a job? For that reason alone I think a change is worth the risk.

 

[DaBruinz]

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...e-patriots-failed-measure-up.html#post3355456

Yes, I know what Bedard claimed and he's full of garbage. I mistakenly said it was Curran in my last post.

I'm sorry, but I've watched the game 3 times and the Ravens only went to their Nickel/Dime package when the Pats lined up 4 or 5 receivers on the line. And that wasn't until late in the game after the Pats went down 21-13.

 

[Get it shawtaay]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

What has Matt Patricia done that is so wrong, other than not be a household name? Its not like the defense is getting out-schemed or outsmarted out there. They just don't have the talent to measure up. The Pats front four couldn't get anywhere - Flacco could have checked his email back there - and if he blitzed it would leave Rice open. What do you want the guy to do? Go out and tackle someone himself?

 

[DarrylStingley]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

Of course you do. Because, when actually challenged by facts, you'd rather stick to your SWAGS, INFERENCES, and ASSUMPTIONS.

We're in a situation in which we will not have direct evidence. The lack of same doesn't make you right.

Circumstantial evidence is sometimes all we have. We have it here, and I'm OK with assuming things based on observation and drawing inferences.

You are not and for some reason you think you have the exclusive truth on this. You don't, you are not correct in my view and that's fine.

But we're not going to agree and I don't see any value in going tit for tat given how wide our disagreement is.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

We're in a situation in which we will not have direct evidence. The lack of same doesn't make you right.

Circumstantial evidence is sometimes all we have. We have it here, and I'm OK with assuming things based on observation and drawing inferences.

You are not and for some reason you think you have the exclusive truth on this. You don't, you are not correct in my view and that's fine.

But we're not going to agree and I don't see any value in going tit for tat given how wide our disagreement is.

Well, there isn't even circumstantial evidence. All we have are your SWAGS, Inferences, and Assumptions.

No. I don't think I have the exclusive truth on this. On the contrary. All I have stated is that you are making assumptions based on no facts, not even circumstantial ones.

For you top say that I am not correct when I am using facts to support my claims is just laughable. You haven't used any facts to this point. None. In fact, you even admit that the media hasn't asked defensive players about Patricia and you INFER/ASSUME that Patricia is bad because the players haven't been effusive about him.. Yet, you can't comprehend the problem with that assumption.

So, please stop because you've already shown you have absolutely no willingness to deal in facts. You would rather just deal with your assumptions/ inference and lack of any evidence than with reality.

 

[DarrylStingley]

Re: That Pats Should Replace Matt Patricia

Well, there isn't even circumstantial evidence. All we have are your SWAGS, Inferences, and Assumptions.

No. I don't think I have the exclusive truth on this. On the contrary. All I have stated is that you are making assumptions based on no facts, not even circumstantial ones.

For you top say that I am not correct when I am using facts to support my claims is just laughable. You haven't used any facts to this point. None. In fact, you even admit that the media hasn't asked defensive players about Patricia and you INFER/ASSUME that Patricia is bad because the players haven't been effusive about him.. Yet, you can't comprehend the problem with that assumption.

So, please stop because you've already shown you have absolutely no willingness to deal in facts. You would rather just deal with your assumptions/ inference and lack of any evidence than with reality.

I am not going back and forth with you because I think your way of conversing is counter productive and not likely to lead to a good discussion.

And to be crystal clear, I never "admitted" that no one in the media has asked defensive players about Patricia. Good luck finding my post where I "admitted" that.

What I said is that I have not seen any quotes about how great Patricia is. I have not seen any defensive players say anything positive about him at all.

Now it's possible I've just missed it. I certainly don't read everything and I don't listen to Boston sports radio except for podcasts from WEEI and 98.5. So maybe some players have indeed praised Matt.

 

[LetsGoPats36]

I'm sure it's been said already, but it needs to be repeated;

Mangini can ****ing suck it.

 

[Sciz]

Yes, I know what Bedard claimed and he's full of garbage. I mistakenly said it was Curran in my last post.

I'm sorry, but I've watched the game 3 times and the Ravens only went to their Nickel/Dime package when the Pats lined up 4 or 5 receivers on the line. And that wasn't until late in the game after the Pats went down 21-13.

First five snaps of the game (but I'll keep doing more if I need to)
20 - Reed
31 - Pollard
29 - Williams
24 - Graham
23 - Brown
22 - Smith
32 - Ihedigbo

First snap: (Williams is off the screen the left; after this one I realized how impractical the back view is)

Second snap:

Third snap:

Fourth snap:

Fifth snap:

 

[shmessy]

First five snaps of the game (but I'll keep doing more if I need to)
20 - Reed
31 - Pollard
29 - Williams
24 - Graham
23 - Brown
22 - Smith
32 - Ihedigbo

First snap: (Williams is off the screen the right; after this one I realized how impractical the back view is)

Second snap:

Third snap:

Fourth snap:

Fifth snap:

Thank you for giving this actual facts and data instead of the personal attacks and bloviations we've seen by a few others.

 

[Get it shawtaay]

Great stuff Sciz. Nice to see some objectivity in here.

 

[Sciz]

Here are the 12 snaps from the second drive. It includes two of the three base snaps in the game.

6th snap: (Pats took off Welker, Ravens matched with base)

7th snap: (Again, no Welker and base)

8th snap:

9th snap:

10th snap:

11th snap:

 

[Sciz]

12th snap:

13th snap:

14th snap:

15th snap:

16th snap:

17th snap: (Ridley run for no gain on 3rd and 2)

That's all I'm going to do for now. If people still don't believe that the Ravens played nickel basically the entire game, then I'll gladly do more.

By the way, there's one base snap remaining, and that was where the Pats used 7 offensive linemen and the Ravens matched with a 3 safety, 0 CB defense. The two Welkerless snaps and that heavy goal line snap were the only three snaps Welker missed all game, and the only three snaps the Ravens didn't use their nickel defense in.