The Respect Issue

[mgcolby]

If people were making negative comments about the Patriots on this board (including myself) that is not jumping off the bandwagon.

A bandwagon jumper would have already moved on to another team or would not have taken the time to post here at all.

Most posters including myself were frustrated that the Defense was statistically, and by all of our eyes, one of the worst defenses in the league. They simply could not get off the field. The team I was watching earlier this year was not the team that I have been watching for the past 4-5 years under Belichick.

I don't know how any team can turn it on to the extent the Patriots have turned it on the second half of the year. Because I was critical does not mean that I didn't love and support this team.

If you are having a problem in the real world, you don't sit around hoping for a situation to get better, and say "things are going to get better" you do something about it and make some changes. Belichik made changes and critiqued his coaches and players, he didn't blindly say and hope that his team would get better.

What changes did he make, other then moving Vrabel inside and eventually finding Hawkins? He was forced to start Hobbs because of the injury situation, so you can't really count that. The only thing that changed was the health of the defense and its continuity. That goes for the entire team, they were hurt and when you're down to 3 starters on offense and 7 on defense it kind of puts a wrinkle in your talent level. What frustrated me the most was that people couldn't see the obvious. If we had the same injury problems in the latter part of the season as we did in the first part then we wouldn't be in the playoffs.

 

[gomezcat]

Its funny reading all of this and then thinking back 4-6 weeks ago, when half of this board had the Patriots dead and buried.

Comments such as "If this team makes the playoffs it has NO CHANCE to win a playoff game" were the consensus around here.

The idea that the team, under BBs guidance would improve by playoff time, was met with something like, thats a dreamworld, the players will be the same, so they won't improve.

About that time were the posts, with wide agreement that Brooks Bollinger was a lock to throw for over 300 yards against us. (I think he got about 110)

Where Brady is saying the team was given up on he is correct, because it happened HERE.

What Brady is really saying is that at 4-4, or 6-5, nobody believed the team could play as well as it has since then.
And he is saying now that, basically, underate the Pats all you want, because you will be wrong.

Or, out a different way, "No one thought we could do what we have done 6 weeks ago, and we are just getting started"

In fairness, the Pats D was having a very bad time of it 4-5 weeks ago. Witness the Indy game where Manning had all day. I don't think that anyone can deny that the D was not up to the job back then. I think most people thought that the Pats would make the playoffs, if only because the rest of the division isn't that good at the moment. Yes, there were quite a few posts talking about the demise of the "dynasty" and so on, but that is nothing new. All successful teams in any sport have their bandwaggoners who will jump on the team at the first sign of failure.
I think, however, most people were rightly concerned by the number of long TDs being conceded and a run D that wasn't really stopping people. You can bet your house that the Pats' coaches were concerned about it.
I count myself as someone who thought things were bad, understood the reasons for that to be injuries (mainly, with a lack of aggressive play calling) and thought that this season would be about giving the rookies and co-ordinators some experience.
Clearly, I underestimated the effect that the returns of Sey and Bru would have to the side, not to mention the improvement in the secondary, the pass rush and the play calling. I was wrong about that. But then, there were plenty of "we're going to blow out x " threads on the board, as well.......

Edit: the main points in my post appear to have been made by other posters, so apologies if it looks like plagiarism.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

What changes did he make, other then moving Vrabel inside and eventually finding Hawkins? He was forced to start Hobbs because of the injury situation, so you can't really count that. The only thing that changed was the health of the defense and its continuity. That goes for the entire team, they were hurt and when you're down to 3 starters on offense and 7 on defense it kind of puts a wrinkle in your talent level. What frustrated me the most was that people couldn't see the obvious. If we had the same injury problems in the latter part of the season as we did in the first part then we wouldn't be in the playoffs.

Negatory good buddy.

Starks, whom everybody was hating, played through pain while Hobbs was learning the system, this prevented Hobbs from coming in green as grass and being totally clueless (CBs need to be confident - getting beat on every play wouldn't have helped). Remember Hobbs came in and first played at nickelback to gain experience.

Scott and Gay were being switched back and forth before that, Scott looked good, Gay was in a sophmore slump or bothered by the ankle. Gay also played nickelback and SS.

Kaczur was playing swing tackle to gain experience - which paid off in spades.

There was the SS round robin.

Vrabel took some reps at ILB after he healed up and before Bruschi came back. Colvin had more time to work on his run stopping technique - he looked horrible against Oakland, right now he's a match for Willie.

Green, Wright, Hill, and Klecko all took turns subbing for Sey, and sometimes Wilfork.

The coordinators and position coaches were undergoing a baptism by fire, and BB let them make their own mistakes so they could learn first hand.

BB was giving Wilfork time to see what wasn't working - he took a few lumps there. Mangini and Johnson both had to learn how to coach him and how to position him relative to the rest.

Everybody hates Beisel, but he was learning and even Borges and Felger report improvement.

Mangini was trying Chad Brown and TBC as interior linemen on passing downs - Chad actually did okay at NT.

The Miami game showed one thing crystal clear, our reserves, if allowed to play consistently together, would be fully capable of taking on middle of the road teams like Miami and Atlanta. Many of them got a lot of reps this year and learned from it, not a bad thing to have going for you as you start a playoff run.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

In fairness, the Pats D was having a very bad time of it 4-5 weeks ago. Witness the Indy game where Manning had all day. I don't think that anyone can deny that the D was not up to the job back then. I think most people thought that the Pats would make the playoffs, if only because the rest of the division isn't that good at the moment. Yes, there were quite a few posts talking about the demise of the "dynasty" and so on, but that is nothing new. All successful teams in any sport have their bandwaggoners who will jump on the team at the first sign of failure.
I think, however, most people were rightly concerned by the number of long TDs being conceded and a run D that wasn't really stopping people. You can bet your house that the Pats' coaches were concerned about it.
I count myself as someone who thought things were bad, understood the reasons for that to be injuries (mainly, with a lack of aggressive play calling) and thought that this season would be about giving the rookies and co-ordinators some experience.
Clearly, I underestimated the effect that the returns of Sey and Bru would have to the side, not to mention the improvement in the secondary, the pass rush and the play calling. I was wrong about that. But then, there were plenty of "we're going to blow out x " threads on the board, as well.......

Edit: the main points in my post appear to have been made by other posters, so apologies if it looks like plagiarism.

You'll hear from my lawyer sir!

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

You'll hear from my lawyer sir!

Mr. Donald Yee, Esquire?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Mr. Donald Yee, Esquire?

I wonder if he'll come back in the off-season to explain contracts to us again?

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

I wonder if he'll come back in the off-season to explain contracts to us again?

He's either already here in a completely different persona or he passed away. There's no way he could have stayed away this long, especially after the season we've had.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

He's either already here in a completely different persona or he passed away. There's no way he could have stayed away this long, especially after the season we've had.

No way he's here in a new persona, someone as prolific and unique (what a gentlebeing I is!) would stand out even if he changed his name to WonderBra.

 

[gomezcat]

You'll hear from my lawyer sir!

Yeah, and my lawyer is Johnny Cochrane's apprentice, so watch it!

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Yeah, and my lawyer is Johnny Cochrane's apprentice, so watch it!

I prefer mittens. Besides, Johnny didn't help him much in the civil trial as I remember.

 

[Ring 6]

In fairness, the Pats D was having a very bad time of it 4-5 weeks ago. Witness the Indy game where Manning had all day. I don't think that anyone can deny that the D was not up to the job back then. I think most people thought that the Pats would make the playoffs, if only because the rest of the division isn't that good at the moment. Yes, there were quite a few posts talking about the demise of the "dynasty" and so on, but that is nothing new. All successful teams in any sport have their bandwaggoners who will jump on the team at the first sign of failure.
I think, however, most people were rightly concerned by the number of long TDs being conceded and a run D that wasn't really stopping people. You can bet your house that the Pats' coaches were concerned about it.
I count myself as someone who thought things were bad, understood the reasons for that to be injuries (mainly, with a lack of aggressive play calling) and thought that this season would be about giving the rookies and co-ordinators some experience.
Clearly, I underestimated the effect that the returns of Sey and Bru would have to the side, not to mention the improvement in the secondary, the pass rush and the play calling. I was wrong about that. But then, there were plenty of "we're going to blow out x " threads on the board, as well.......

Edit: the main points in my post appear to have been made by other posters, so apologies if it looks like plagiarism.

I was very vocal at the time (surprise, surprise) but my contention was absolutely not with the "they way we are playing today....." crowd. That was legit. You'd be crazy to think after the Indy game that we could go anywhere without improvement.

My problem was when my opinion, that basically said:
"This is BILL BELICHICK. I am completely comfortable that the fortunes of this team depend on HIM fixing the defense by the time the playoffs come around, and that is the best problem we could have, so I won't worry about our chances in the playoffs until BB has thye opportunity to get the team coached up over the second half of the season and playoff ready"
and the responses of many, not all, were that it was a pipe dream, would never happen, and "If the Pats make the playoffs there is no way they will beat anyone".

 

[onegameatatime]

6 weeks ago, I was predicting a 10-6 season, maybe 11-5, and a one-win playoff season. I will still be counting the days until weekend, and will be depressed if they lose, and reaklly, really, really want them to win.

The Pats have gotten the respect they deserve. They are talked about as a potentially dangerous team. but let's face facts. They got stomped by the Chargers, Chiefs, Colts, and Broncos, and out-muscled by the Panthers. Other than the Chargers game, the scores understated how outplayed they were.

Hopefully the D had coalesced and the front 7 can provide some pressure. But, we have not goten it done aagainst good passing teams so far, and have been the source of great games for the likes of Holcomb and Frerotte.

 

[gomezcat]

I was very vocal at the time (surprise, surprise) but my contention was absolutely not with the "they way we are playing today....." crowd. That was legit. You'd be crazy to think after the Indy game that we could go anywhere without improvement.

My problem was when my opinion, that basically said:
"This is BILL BELICHICK. I am completely comfortable that the fortunes of this team depend on HIM fixing the defense by the time the playoffs come around, and that is the best problem we could have, so I won't worry about our chances in the playoffs until BB has thye opportunity to get the team coached up over the second half of the season and playoff ready"
and the responses of many, not all, were that it was a pipe dream, would never happen, and "If the Pats make the playoffs there is no way they will beat anyone".

Fair enough. If I'm honest, I expected there to be some improvement when Bruschi and Seymour came back but certainly didn't expect to see the level of improvement in the secondary that we have had. That's a case of me underestimating BB's ability. At some point, I will learn not to do that!
I expected things to be back on track by the start of the 2006 season, though.

 

[mikey]

Well, what was said, in spades, was If the Patriots continue to play like this they aren't going far in the playoffs. I think that WAS warranted. So yeah, I understand where Brady's coming from. However, I think we can all agree that the Patriots played much better weeks 11-17 than 1-10.

I agree.

We have to divide the season into "pre-Starks" and "post-Starks".


.