arrellbee
Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job
- Joined
- May 11, 2005
- Messages
- 1,084
- Reaction score
- 0
The biggest reason is probably much as you say - what was the defense taking away and what was more of an opportunity.JR4 said:So dear NEM, you conclude because what they did with Cincy in the passing game they should have done with Denver and Miami. Right?
Do you even consider the opposing team's defense
in the process of drawing your conclusions about the passing game?
Do you even consider how the opposing team set it's defense on given plays?
Do you consider what other teams did agaist Miami? Like Houston that
passed more than 50% shorts left and right. Did you see the coaches tape to see why Houston didn't use the middle much?
"the inane mis-use of the middle " ? what are you talking about. They ran left, right, off tackle and yes up the middle. They even gained yards up
the middle once. The run game for the most part left, right, middle, was not very effective against Miami.
Another factor, following along with comments ad nauseum over the last few weeks, may be that the short patterns are more likely to get worked out first and/or have a little higher probability of success with Brady and his WR still learning to work together.
NEM seems to be just stuck on "the plays should have been different". I have a sneaking hunch that if the game had featured mostly longer passes we would have been treated with a diatribe about how the Pats are ignoring the short game. Just a hunch. And it doesn't seem to matter much whether we win or not. Or even win superbowls or not. Ah, well.