Was this Josh McDaniels best game?

[MoLewisrocks]

Now you are giving legitimacy to what the mainstream media is saying?

You are so two-faced it's not even funny. First you rail on the mediots for their consistently insane analysis when it comes to the Pats, especially the past few years, and now you use that quote to somehow validate your extreme homer bias when it comes to McDaniels.

Nice. Next you'll be pulling some quote from the Gossip Queen and Barometer of Idiocy Peter King to validate your homerism.

Rightly or wrongly mainstream media and not a nauseatingly vocal message board minority creates perception that often becomes reality in sports. And btw Lombardi was an NFL player personnel exec for 20+ years including a stint with BB in Cleveland before he joined the media.

You're such a humorless little one trick pony it's not even worth engaging you. You're just the lightweight version of your myopic mentor...absent his occasional flashes of humor when he wasn't in total melt down mode...

 

[captain stone]

Using the empty backfield has helped this team become the dynasty of the half-decade...

Fixed it for ya.

I'm just going to say that I completely disagree, and leave it at that. Neither side is going to convince the other, anyway.

 

[Deus Irae]

Fixed it for ya.

I'm just going to say that I completely disagree, and leave it at that. Neither side is going to convince the other, anyway.

1.) You didn't fix anything. The Patriots are the dynasty of the decade.

2.) It's not about convincing you, it's about exposing the absolutely ridiculousness of your argument. Whether you agree or not, your argument is completely idiotic.

 

[JoeSixPat]

How in the world can a game in which the offense scores only 20 points be considered an OC's best game?

When you create and implement a fundamentally solid game plan that's developed and executed using a QB who until this season hasn't started a game since high school, and a running back who was undrafted and came off our practice squad for starters.

I thought it was assumed that most fans realize that a perfectly planned and executed game plan need not entail scoring 60 points (not that I'm saying this game was perfect - but it was a solid game plan showing that McDaniels can take players with far less talent than Brady and still win convincingly.)

Yes - a solid game plan can appear "boring" to some who would prefer a high risk/high reward game plan that has the potential of putting huge numbers up on the scoreboard - but that's the type of game plan that can lose you games just as quick as it can win you games by big margins.

Am I stating the obvious? Apparently not.

 

[Deus Irae]

Once again, we see an experienced offensive coordinator struggle at the end of the game tonight in the 49ers/Cardinals game. All the people who keep bashing McDaniels apparently never watch any O.C. except McDaniels.

 

[BionicPatriot]

The only thing I hated was the reverse to Moss, but every OC is stupid at times.

I think he did a great job not just this week but last week. This offense isn't going to score a **** load of points, and so what. Keeping the opposing offense off the field and getting points, chewing clock is the formula for success for this year's squad. The Pats flawlessly pulled off the offensive gameplan with the Colts. It singlehandily saved a defense getting beat on every little chance the Colts had. without the massive TOP in that game it would've been an ass kicking.

If the Pats can continue to play ball control this well they'll be a threat in the playoffs.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The 2001 defense was horrible, what are you smoking?

It appears that this is not sarcasm.

Presumably you're claiming that the Patriots went on their 9 game winning streak because of their unstoppable offense as opposed to a defense that gave up few points (but many yards). If so, you'd be one of only a handful that has said anything other than Tom Brady's main job in 2001 (much like Matt Cassel in 2008) was not to lose games as opposed to win games.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Damn right I do. I would never, ever use an empty backfield exc. in the most obvious passing downs. By using the EB, you have given the defense literally half as much of your playbook with which to concern itself, and you have given your QB nobody to block an unaccounted-for rusher.

And, likewise, you force the defense to react to the offense (presumably creating some favorable matchups that can be expoited, typically on a 3-step drop). It's a 2-edged sword like most everything else...

 

[maverick4]

Presumably you're claiming that the Patriots went on their 9 game winning streak because of their unstoppable offense as opposed to a defense that gave up few points

Crazy talk. The 2001 Pats defense gave up a ton of points, it was not a league dominant defense. This is just more crazy talk from McDaniels lovers who try to diminish Weiss and ignore the fact that McDaniels has always had a dominant D behind him.

 

[Deus Irae]

Crazy talk. The 2001 Pats defense gave up a ton of points, it was not a league dominant defense. This is just more crazy talk from McDaniels lovers who try to diminish Weiss and ignore the fact that McDaniels has always had a dominant D behind him.

The 2001 defense was 6th in the NFL in points allowed:

2001 New England Patriots Statistics & Players - Pro-Football-Reference.com

 

[Rob0729]

Crazy talk. The 2001 Pats defense gave up a ton of points, it was not a league dominant defense. This is just more crazy talk from McDaniels lovers who try to diminish Weiss and ignore the fact that McDaniels has always had a dominant D behind him.

The Pats gave up the fewest points in the league the second half of the 2001 season. They weren't high for the full year because they gave up a lot of points early on. From week 8 on here are the point totals they gave up each week: 10 to Atlanta, 11 to Buffalo, 24 to St. Louis, 17 to NO, 16 to the Jets, 16 to Cleveland, 9 to Buffalo, 13 to Miami, and 6 to Carolina. Even in the playoffs they gave up 13 to Oakland, 17 to Pittsburgh, and 17 to St. Louis. Their total ranking was skewed because they gave up 30 to Miami, 26 to SD, and 31 to Denver in the first seven weeks. So in the back 12 games of 2001, the Pats had only one game where they gave up more than 17 points even with facing one of the best offenses in league history twice. Their defense was better in the second half of 2001 than any year post Crennel. Sorry to let facts get involved in a good argument though.

Last year, McDaniels and the rest of the offense made the defense look a lot better than it was because the game was over in many games by half times and opposing teams became one dimensional. In 2005, people were complaining about Monty Beisel and Chad Brown in the middle and the defense was very passive until near the end of the year. In 2006, the defense started out strong early and started to be inconsistent later in the season which started the annual calls about the age of the LBs and their ability to go a full season.

As for 2003, that is hands down the best defense of the Patriots history and possibly a top 10-20 defense of the the history of the NFL. In 2004, the defense wasn't much worse.

 

[maverick4]

Here is the main point. McDaniels lovers suddenly sound like Colts fans in giving the credit to the 01-04 Patriot defenses as justification for why Weis won 3 Superbowls. They completely ignore the fact that McDaniels has worked with a top 5 defense for much of his tenure, not to mention having the luxury of lots of high draft picks and signings on the offensive side of the ball.

Charlie Weis in 2001 won a Superbowl with Jermaine Wiggins, free agent castoff Antowain Smith, a 6th round QB, David Patten, and an offensive line of spare parts. Troy Brown was his only legit star. Our final Superbowl drive had JR Redmond playing snaps.

 

[Rob0729]

The 2001 defense was 6th in the NFL in points allowed:

2001 New England Patriots Statistics & Players - Pro-Football-Reference.com

More importantly, they were #1 in the second half of the season. It isn't how you start, it is how you finish. In 2001, the Pats defense finished strong. In recent years, it started strong and was limping a bit to a lot going into the playoffs.

 

[Rob0729]

Here is the main point. McDaniels lovers suddenly sound like Colts fans in giving the credit to the 01-04 Patriot defenses as justification for why Weis won 3 Superbowls. They completely ignore the fact that McDaniels has worked with a top 5 defense for much of his tenure, not to mention having the luxury of lots of high draft picks and signings on the offensive side of the ball.

Charlie Weis in 2001 won a Superbowl with Jermaine Wiggins, free agent castoff Antowain Smith, a 6th round QB, David Patten, and an offensive line of spare parts. Troy Brown was his only legit star. Our final Superbowl drive had JR Redmond playing snaps.

I have always said that the Pats won at least two of their Super Bowls on stellar defense and efficient, but unspectacular offense (i.e., they didn't turn the ball over). I have never, ever changed my story. I have always said that the Pats defense carried the 2003 team to the Super Bowl. I have always said that 2004 was the year that it was very balanced

I do agree that Weis' idea to chip shot Marshall Faulk and get physical with Tory Holt and Isaac Bruce was brilliant.

Did you watch the actual game? Yes, the final drive was brilliant, but of all three Super Bowls that one had the least to do with Weis and his gameplans, calls, or adjustments. The Pats scored 13 points on offense in that game. They won because the defense grounded the greatest show on turf. The Patriots' offense punted 8 out of 11 drives in that game and five of them were five plays or less with three 3 and outs. Weis' gameplan was not effective in that game and his adjustments, other than the final drive when the Rams were in a different defensive strategy (keep the ball carrier in bounds and make them run out the clock before they can get into field goal range), weren't that much better.

Don't you think McDaniels could have scored 13 point like Weis did in that game. Perfect example of Weis' legend being greater than his actual production. Weis did not perform well in that Super Bowl at all.

Again, sorry to bring facts into an argument that is supported on legends and tall tales.

 

[Deus Irae]

Here is the main point. McDaniels lovers suddenly sound like Colts fans in giving the credit to the 01-04 Patriot defenses as justification for why Weis won 3 Superbowls. They completely ignore the fact that McDaniels has worked with a top 5 defense for much of his tenure, not to mention having the luxury of lots of high draft picks and signings on the offensive side of the ball.

Charlie Weis in 2001 won a Superbowl with Jermaine Wiggins, free agent castoff Antowain Smith, a 6th round QB, David Patten, and an offensive line of spare parts. Troy Brown was his only legit star. Our final Superbowl drive had JR Redmond playing snaps.

In 2005, the defense was 17th, and the offense was 10th. The team still won a game in the playoffs before losing to Denver.

In 2006, the defense was 2nd, and the team's receivers were in Seattle and Tennessee. The team still made it to the AFCCG and the offense got the team a huge lead before the defense collapsed.

In 2007, the Offense was #1 in NFL history, and the team went 16-0.

One day, perhaps, you'll have a point. That day is not today.

 

[maverick4]

Don't you think McDaniels could have scored 13 point like Weis did in that game. Perfect example of Weis' legend being greater than his actual production. Weis did not perform well in that Super Bowl at all.

With McDaniels right now, even with 3 years experience, we still don't win the 2001 Superbowl if he was OC instead of Weiss.

Simply look at their last drives in crunch time. With Jermaine Wiggins, JR Redmond, a bunch of no-name castoffs, he calls the correct plays in crunch time to take advantage of the Rams defense. He also calls the right sequence of plays in 03 and 04 to bail out the defense after they gave up late scores.

With an all star cast in crunch time, McDaniels calls a bunch of slow developing deep bombs, over and over, until we finally run out of downs against the Giants. Same story with other season ending games, when our D gives up a late score, the game is over because McDaniels cannot recover or he improperly calls plays such that they end in game-ending int's or loss on downs.

That, in a nutshell, is the difference. You can try to defend McDaniels for having a perfect game plan every game until you are blue in the face, but the fact is when it is crunch time the guy has faltered, over and over and over, ever since he has been OC, even though he has had much better weapons, and a great defense behind him as well.

 

[Rob0729]

With McDaniels right now, even with 3 years experience, we still don't win the 2001 Superbowl if he was OC instead of Weiss.

Simply look at their last drives in crunch time. With Jermaine Wiggins, JR Redmond, a bunch of no-name castoffs, he calls the correct plays in crunch time to take advantage of the Rams defense. He also calls the right sequence of plays in 03 and 04 to bail out the defense after they gave up late scores.

With an all star cast in crunch time, McDaniels calls a bunch of slow developing deep bombs, over and over, until we finally run out of downs against the Giants. Same story with other season ending games, when our D gives up a late score, the game is over because McDaniels cannot recover.

That, in a nutshell, is the difference. You can try to defend McDaniels for having a perfect game plan every game until you are blue in the face, but the fact is when it is crunch time the guy has faltered, over and over and over, ever since he has been OC, even though he has had much better weapons, and a great defense behind him as well.

Personally, I don't see as many drives stalling with McDaniels. Weis always had more trouble converting third downs more than McDaniels ever did. I think McDaniels might not had to had come down to the final drive.

I do agree that McDaniels was stupid to call for Caldwell to drop a pass that he was wide open and for Brady to look down Troy Brown so Marlin Jackson could get a jump on the ball in the AFC Championship game vs. the Colts. Those weren't player mistakes or anything. They were designed that way. Sometimes the players actually have to execute the plays. I will give you the final drive in the Super Bowl last year though.

So Weis' achillies heal was third and longs and McDaniels is final drives with everything on the line. If Weis called a better game in the Rams' Super Bowl, they wouldn't have needed that final drive. If McDaniels continues to call good games, he may never have to rely on a final drive in an important game.

I am not trying to knock Weis. Really, I'm not. I am just pointing out that the legend that people has created about this guy in their mind is not the Charlie Weis who actually called the game at least in 2001 through 2003 seasons. He has almost or as many flaws as McDaniels. I know for a fact if the Pats are in a 3rd and 8 situation, I will take McDaniels' call over Weis any day. There are other situations I would take Weis' calls over McDaniels especially final drives in tight games.

Also, in 2001, Weis was in his fifth year as an OC and 11th year working on the offense at the Pro level. McDaniels is in his third year as an OC and fifth year working on the offensive side of the ball. Before 2004, McDaniels was a defensive assistant.

BTW, way to ignore the fact that Weis didn't call a good game overall.

 

[maverick4]

So Weis' achillies heal was third and longs and McDaniels is final drives with everything on the line. If Weis called a better game in the Rams' Super Bowl, they wouldn't have needed that final drive. If McDaniels continues to call good games, he may never have to rely on a final drive in an important game.

This is absurd that you are claiming if McDaniels was OC, the Pats would have won the Superbowl comfortably without needing a final drive against the Rams, it shows just how biased you are. McDaniels had bad receivers one year, but the rest of that team was amazing in 2006 including the #2 defense that year. He has always had a strong D behind him, not to mention WAY better offensive weapons. McDaniels never dealt with what Weis did in 2001. That final Superbowl drive had JR Redmond, Jermaine Wiggins making key players where they were put in successful positions, and small receivers in Patten and Brown, against the #4 defense in the league.

I know Weis is not the perfect OC, and he did call curious plays at times, but he knows how to win when it matters. You are completely wrong about not having to rely on final drives to win games. Weis had to win the Superbowl late in games 3 times even though we had a strong D. We have seen how in the past 3 years, we HAVE needed crucial drives, against Denver, Indy, and NY, and we have failed every time because of stupid play calls. Next you will defend why it was a great strategy to call 3 straight slow bombs to end the Giants game.

Let's take two boxers, one has more flashy KO and TKO stats, the other doesn't have the sexy stats, maybe fights conservatively and plays a more boring style against the ropes, but he has 3 championship belts. Who do you think is a better big game fighter?

 

[Rob0729]

This is absurd that you are claiming if McDaniels was OC, the Pats would have won the Superbowl comfortably without needing a final drive against the Rams, it shows just how biased you are. McDaniels had bad receivers one year, but the rest of that team was amazing in 2006 including the #2 defense that year. He has always had a strong D behind him, not to mention WAY better offensive weapons. McDaniels never dealt with what Weis did in 2001. That final Superbowl drive had JR Redmond, Jermaine Wiggins making key players where they were put in successful positions, and small receivers in Patten and Brown, against the #4 defense in the league.

I know Weis is not the perfect OC, and he did call curious plays at times, but he knows how to win when it matters. You are completely wrong about not having to rely on final drives to win games. Weis had to win the Superbowl late in games 3 times even though we had a strong D. We have seen how in the past 3 years, we HAVE needed crucial drives, against Denver, Indy, and NY, and we have failed every time because of stupid play calls. Next you will defend why it was a great strategy to call 3 straight slow bombs to end the Giants game.

Let's take two boxers, one has more flashy KO and TKO stats, the other doesn't have the sexy stats, maybe fights conservatively and plays a more boring style against the ropes, but he has 3 championship belts. Who do you think is a better big game fighter?

First, I never said the Pats would win comfortably. I never even said the Pats would definitely have a lead with McDaniels. I said they "might have come down to the final drive". Neither of us know if McDaniels would have done a better or worse job or not. He might not have scored 13 points or he might have scored 31 points. Who knows? It is a hypothetical. But other than that last drive, Weis didn't call a good game. So it isn't inconceivable that McDaniels might have called a better game.

The Pats did not fail against Indy in the AFC Championship game because of stupid calls. They failed solely on execution. Also, I don't remember any stupid calls in the Denver playoff game other than McDaniels not yelling to Brady not to throw into coverage when he was throwing backwards and throw it out of bounds since he was out the pocket. You always want to blame McDaniels for poorly executed plays. If Caldwell holds onto the ball at the end of the game against the Colts, the Pats may win that game. Same if Brady doesn't look down Troy Brown two plays later. Those are player mistakes.

So let's have the 3 time champ go into the ring without a mouth piece and see how he does. I guarantee you that McDaniels could have won in 2003. Probably in 2001. Maybe in 2004. None of us know. What you refuse to acknowledge is that the other side of the football played a big role in those Super Bowl seasons. Those defenses were better than the ones that McDaniels has had to compliment his offenses. We will never know for sure who was the better OC until you actually put them both in the same situations with the same offensive personnel and same defense to support it. I do know the Pats got to the Super Bowl in the 2003 season based almost exclusively on defense.

 

[maverick4]

The Pats did not fail against Indy in the AFC Championship game because of stupid calls. They failed solely on execution. ... You always want to blame McDaniels for poorly executed plays.

So let's have the 3 time champ go into the ring without a mouth piece and see how he does. I guarantee you that McDaniels could have won in 2003. Probably in 2001. Maybe in 2004. None of us know. What you refuse to acknowledge is that the other side of the football played a big role in those Super Bowl seasons.

We hear it every year it's becoming the most predictable cliche, to blame it all on execution instead of McDaniels' ******ed end drives.

You keep basing your love of McDaniels on stats like 3rd down conversion, while totally ignoring the fact McDaniels has had WAY more weapons and talent than Weis ever had until say 2004, while also ignoring that the defense has been great too while McDaniels has been here.

His entire tenure has had superior talent to Weis' offenses. McDaniels had tons of offensive talent in 2006 even with his crappy receivers, his defense that year was #2 and before going into the playoffs was amazingly good, and even with his crappy receivers the overall unit was way better than what Weis had to work with in 2001.

You can talk all you want of the 01-04 defenses, but fact is the championships all came down to a key drive late in the game in order to win it, and they pulled through every time.

We had key drives the last three seasons, and they have been pathetic. A bunch of slow developing deep bombs, over and over, completely telegraphed to the Giants. An int intended for Brown when everyone knew who the ball was going to.


This argument is starting to eerily parallel 01-04 debates between Patriot and Colts fans about why Brady or Peyton was better. You can list all the stats you want to make Peyton sound better and blame every major Colts playoff loss on execution, and you will never understand why you keep coming up short.

It's the same thing with McDaniels. You are way too in love with the stats to realize the guy has been flat out horrible in the 4th quarter of big games. You are in love with Peyton i.e. McDaniels, whereas I go with the OC and player with the rings, while you are sitting there with no clue why you keep losing.