Why the offensive performance was underrated...

[patsox23]

Obviously, we scored 41 points without Branch, but that's not what I'm referring to. The fact is, the offense scored 41 points despite NO turnovers deep inside Washington territory, no cheap points on a crucial mistake, no defensive scores to inflate the 41 points, no one huge play that led to a TD.

All 41 points came on long-ish, sustained drives. An even better sign than the scoreboard showed, imo.

 

[Kdo5]

The offense was spectacular but one of the drives was 4 plays and 80 yards so I guess that one wasnt very long.

 

[dryheat44]

Obviously, we scored 41 points without Branch, but that's not what I'm referring to. The fact is, the offense scored 41 points despite NO turnovers deep inside Washington territory, no cheap points on a crucial mistake, no defensive scores to inflate the 41 points, no one huge play that led to a TD.

All 41 points came on long-ish, sustained drives. An even better sign than the scoreboard showed, imo.

Couldn't agree more. Nice sustained drives, keeping their defense on the field wearing them down.

With the added bonus of being a preseason game, the offense can practice a lot of plays.

 

[teamplay]

not to take anything away from a great performance, but BB's strategy all game was to work the passing game. In the regular season, he would have worked the clock and protected the ball...equivalent regular season score: 27-7.

 

[dryheat44]

not to take anything away from a great performance, but BB's strategy all game was to work the passing game. In the regular season, he would have worked the clock and protected the ball...equivalent regular season score: 27-7.

That's fine. It would have been just as impressive....although I don't know why you give the Skins a touchdown.

 

[jczxohn1]

The 'Skins message board was all nodding sagely about Gibbs post-game effort to whistle in the dark about getting blown out in the pre-season. He can't have been happy about what he'd just witnessed. If Portis isn't the incarnation of Superman, he'd better have one h*** of a lot of trick plays. Even then, when is he going to get around to practicing them against decent competition?

 

[old 55]

Evidently you found my reply useful this time...

Obviously, we scored 41 points without Branch, but that's not what I'm referring to. The fact is, the offense scored 41 points despite NO turnovers deep inside Washington territory, no cheap points on a crucial mistake, no defensive scores to inflate the 41 points, no one huge play that led to a TD.

All 41 points came on long-ish, sustained drives. An even better sign than the scoreboard showed, imo.

I appreciate the fact that you liked my point about the offense I made this afternoon under the "cut caldwell" post well enough to steal it and pass it off as your own idea. Classy, really classy.

See page #7 of the replies to the "cut caldwell" thread for anyone who would like to read the original point about the offensive performance I posted in a reply to Patsox23 who has recycled it as his own original thought.

 

[zoostation]

That's fine. It would have been just as impressive....although I don't know why you give the Skins a touchdown.

Because they would have been in the prevent D to eat up time. Give them short stuff over the middle etc..

It could of even turned into a 24 - 10 game. But a dominant 24 - 10 game.

 

[patsox23]

Re: Evidently you found my reply useful this time...

I appreciate the fact that you liked my point about the offense I made this afternoon under the "cut caldwell" post well enough to steal it and pass it off as your own idea. Classy, really classy.

See page #7 of the replies to the "cut caldwell" thread for anyone who would like to read the original point about the offensive performance I posted in a reply to Patsox23 who has recycled it as his own original thought.

You know what, old? I have literally NO IDEA what you're talking about and I am beyond offended by this post. You can get as uppity as you want about my thinking your idea that the Pats will cut Caldwell is a non-starter brain-dead idiotic one, but don't ever accuse me of anything like this again. That's below the belt and an apology is due.

 

[old 55]

RIGHT- you never read my response #69 - P7 of the Caldwell Thread

I posted a reply to you on page 7 of the "Cut Caldwell" thread - #69 -this afternoon.

I find it hard to believe that you never read it since you suddenly post a few hours later - this thread - talking about the exact same thing I mentioned in my reply to you this afternoon.

For you to deny and act offended as if you hadn't actually read my reply is crap. You would have gone directly to the page and reply referenced to find out what this was about if you really didn't know what I was talking about and defended yourself by saying you hadn't seen it before you posted.

What's below the belt is passing off someone elses points as your own and then lying about it. The only apology that needs to be made is by you.

Here's my post from this afternoon - I'll let the other readers see and judge for themselves:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
old 55
Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Herndon VA
Posts: 185

we have agreement on that..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"What shall we start a thread on next - Rich Musinski will make the Pro Bowl!"

Patsox23,
I think we can probably agree that Rich will have to buy his own ticket for any Hawaii trips he ever takes. LOL

........

Lost in this whole thread is the fact that the Pats were amazing on Saturday. Most scores of 41 usually include a D type TD in the mix. This was 41 from scrimmage with no ST or D TDs included - without our two best WRs or even Dillon or Maroney running wild.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for no injuries that side tracked the season like last year.

Go Pats!!
--------------------------------------------

I THINK THIS POST PROVES THAT YOU LIFTED MY POST AND STARTED A THREAD THAT REWORDED WHAT I SAID TO YOU HOURS EARLIER.

 

[patsox23]

Re: RIGHT- you never read my response #69 - P7 of the Caldwell Thread

I swear on the lives of everyone in my family and on my children's EYES that I did not read your post. I do not appreciate you spreading lies about me just because you and I happened to make the same rather obvious point, and just because your ego is in a twist.

I DID NOT read your post, and you are sinking lower and lower. You owe me an apology, old. Not my fault, so don't put it on me.

 

[patsox23]

Re: RIGHT- you never read my response #69 - P7 of the Caldwell Thread

By the way, what in my history as a poster on this site would lead ANYONE to believe I would ever need or bother to "lift" anyone else's material - particularly when it comes to an observation that any number of us could have made about the productivity of the Patriots offense in a 41-0 game?

 

[old 55]

Re: RIGHT- you never read my response #69 - P7 of the Caldwell Thread

By the way, what in my history as a poster on this site would lead ANYONE to believe I would ever need or bother to "lift" anyone else's material - particularly when it comes to an observation that any number of us could have made about the productivity of the Patriots offense in a 41-0 game?

Right - you read and responded to my "USELESS" posts over the last couple of days but didn't read the one that ended up reworded in your thread.

Let's leave it at this - I don't believe you. I will let the others read all of the posts and believe what they want to.

 

[patchick]

Re: RIGHT- you never read my response #69 - P7 of the Caldwell Thread

Let's leave it at this - I don't believe you. I will let the others read all of the posts and believe what they want to.

Okey doke--I believe him. Come on, somebody has to "steal" the "original" idea that the Patriots scored without benefit of turnovers? Look at the vast volume of posts on this site in the last two days. Every single idea has been suggested at least twice; many ideas about, say, Deion Branch have been independently suggested 700 times.

If you feel that you were first with an idea just post a pointer to your earlier message without accusations or namecalling. You're a lot more likely to get props that way.

 

[Brownfan80]

Re: RIGHT- you never read my response #69 - P7 of the Caldwell Thread

Okey doke--I believe him. Come on, somebody has to "steal" the "original" idea that the Patriots scored without benefit of turnovers? Look at the vast volume of posts on this site in the last two days. Every single idea has been suggested at least twice; many ideas about, say, Deion Branch have been independently suggested 700 times.

If you feel that you were first with an idea just post a pointer to your earlier message without accusations or namecalling. You're a lot more likely to get props that way.

Look, we can let these two settle it the old fashioned way. You get the kiddie pool, I'll get the chocolate syrup. Then they can have the ultimate girl fight - bikini choco wrestling. Hot.

 

[dryheat44]

Re: RIGHT- you never read my response #69 - P7 of the Caldwell Thread

Okey doke--I believe him. Come on, somebody has to "steal" the "original" idea that the Patriots scored without benefit of turnovers? Look at the vast volume of posts on this site in the last two days. Every single idea has been suggested at least twice; many ideas about, say, Deion Branch have been independently suggested 700 times.

If you feel that you were first with an idea just post a pointer to your earlier message without accusations or namecalling. You're a lot more likely to get props that way.

Exactly. I'm putting everybody on notice that I'm pissed at all of them for repeating my posts about Beisel sucking and Klecko out of place without properly crediting me.

Oh, and I won't get into the fact that I wrote that Brady was good WAY before you guys did. How can you view my posts, rehash what I said, and not give me credit?

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Welcome back to the TOPIC of this THREAD:

I think that the most impressive thing about the whole preseason is the offensive efficiency in the sense that we are scoring on almost 100% of the drives, either 3 points or 7 points.

Think of 2001-2003, when we went thru long parts of games with no offensive production whatsoever, just dink and dunk and go '3 and out'. Give the ball back to the D and let them score!

2004 was our second best Pats Offense ever in franchise history, and only by one point, but we still had a lot of '3 and outs'.

2005 was a step backwards again, reminding me of 2002, when Antowain disappeared from the Offense.

Just imagine if we can come close to being this efficient on offense for the whole year. VERY UNLIKELY, unless we get WR help, but it is enough to get excited about in the Pre-Season!!!

 

[patsox23]

Thank you, patchick and 5 Rings, for your support of my position. I don't know how someone can make such defamatory remarks out of bitterness just because I called him out about Reche Caldwell getting cut.

Fact is, I even backed off my initial jerkiness and apologized, at least to some degree. Somehow, though, the ego gets away from us, all of us (myself included), and tempers flare and accusations, unfortunately, get made. I'm still perfectly willing to accept old 55's apology or move forward without it. But FTR, I honestly did not read that post. It may look suspicious, but there would be NO REASON whatsoever for me not to reference his post when I started this thread. I give that sort of credit all the time, and his ridiculous thoughts on Caldwell wouldn't have influenced me on that other topic in the least.

 

[the taildragger]

Welcome back to the TOPIC of this THREAD:

I think that the most impressive thing about the whole preseason is the offensive efficiency in the sense that we are scoring on almost 100% of the drives, either 3 points or 7 points.

Think of 2001-2003, when we went thru long parts of games with no offensive production whatsoever, just dink and dunk and go '3 and out'. Give the ball back to the D and let them score!

2004 was our second best Pats Offense ever in franchise history, and only by one point, but we still had a lot of '3 and outs'.

2005 was a step backwards again, reminding me of 2002, when Antowain disappeared from the Offense.

Just imagine if we can come close to being this efficient on offense for the whole year. VERY UNLIKELY, unless we get WR help, but it is enough to get excited about in the Pre-Season!!!

sat night reminded me a lot of '03...empty backfield, spread 'em out...move the chains and control the clock with passing game in lieu of running game. Of course we were much more efficient with better pass protection and a threat like Watson

watson is our #1 weapon and needs to be established right now as a threat. even when he's not catching balls, he's drawing coverage and opening up other guys. I actually heard felger say Branch is still a bigger weapon this year than Watson...not this year Mike, not this year...I don't care who has more yards, it comes down to who the defenses are most concerned with, and in '06 their first priority has to be watson...not even close.

keep watson, maroney, and hopefully jackson/branch on the field...with this QB, and refortified line, and add in the way our D opens up with a lead...we become unstoppable...could dominate in historic fashion.

 

[patsox23]

keep watson, maroney, and hopefully jackson/branch on the field...with this QB, and refortified line, and add in the way our D opens up with a lead...we become unstoppable...could dominate in historic fashion.

I agree. If we can get Branch back in the fold, and get Jackson on the field and playing up to what we hope his potential is, it's going to be a very diverse offense, extremely tough to defend.