Victory Over Bills Mask Chronic Problems For Patriots

Discussion in ' - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Article, Nov 11, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Article Article In the Starting Line-Up

    Victory Over Bills Mask Chronic Problems For Patriots
    By: Bob George

    The Patriot offense is still a Rolls-Royce, whereas the defense is a Nash Rambler....

  2. goheels22002

    goheels22002 Supporter Supporter

    #50 Jersey

    Bob George ought to pick up a program on his way into the game and take a look at how young this defense is. This group of defenders will be the strength of the team in a couple of years as certain skill players on offense phase out.

    Comparing Tom Brady's career at 35 to a defense with 8 starters with less than five full seasons experience is unfair.

    He also ought to take his head out of his butt and recognize that the Patriots defense won the takeaway battle 3-0 and two of the last three Bills drives ended in a fumble at the One and an interception in the end zone. They got 3 official sacks and 1 more on the terrible call on Spikes for a blow to the head.

    It's too easy to write a column focused only on what drove you nuts while conveniently omitting what actually occurred.
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2012
  3. ALP

    ALP Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal


    no, im pretty sure nothing about it was "masked" was all on full display for the world to see
  4. PatsDeb

    PatsDeb Supporter Supporter

    LOL - it ain't masking anything as far as I am concerned!
  5. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox Supporter

    #50 Jersey

    Terrible article. Totally ignores the fact that GOHeels2002 brought up and one that I have brought up in previous threads.

    No point in saying anything more. If you can't get all the facts that are clearly applicable, then why bother with your article?
  6. jnug

    jnug On the Game Day Roster

    Well I agree that his article was not balanced. It is very close to the couple of posts I put in the post game thread but as has already been pointed out, addresses everything like it is a total negative without even mentioning the other side of the story.

    However by the same token, as has already been pointed out here on many occasions, many Pats defenders especially in the secondary have regressed with time, not improved. So claiming that some of these guys will be the cornerstone to some great defense at some point in the future would seem to ignore what we have already seen several times repeated.

    There are IMO simply not enough guys on the field for this defense with the physical talent to play in a league that has made so many rules changes favoring offense in recent years. You can see it in the way they react on the field, they way they move on the field. They have some qualities however that makes some of them effective against the run for example. Some of the qualities that make them effective against the run also makes them effective at jarring the ball loose from guys causing turnovers, that is if they are in position to make a hit in the first place. Some can hit but can't tackle. Some can neither hit nor tackle. The base defense overplays the run to avoid being carved up by it which along with some other flaws that relate to pass defense, means it ends up giving up miles of passing yards...still though that is the right decision to make "most of the time" for the defense that they have.

    So it is not all one way as that article suggests....hardly all one way. But that does not change that fact that this defense is short on talent. That appeared to be the basic premise for the article and in that sense the article is correct. IMO it is more correct than some assumption that these guys are the future cornerstone of some future great defense. How much into the future do you want to look for one? How long do you think the average player stays in the league before the meat grinder chews him up and spits him out?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page