Patriots are becoming too arrogant

[DaBruinz]

I guess I have exagerrated. I have been saying that Brady had Evans run the ball to set up for a field goal at 3:30 with the score tied. In fact, the patriots had 4:29 left at the Indy 29, when they had a 3rd and 10 (I've been saying 11). With absolutely no faith in the passing game (and with the top three runners injured), Evans ran for 4 yards to set up the field goal. I did not then or now question the call. Josh and Tom did what they thought gave us the best shot at winning. Then and now, I believe that having two average wide receivers in the game (certainly Indy's #3, #4 and #5) would have been sufficient to score another TD in the fourth quarter, and perhaps even run out the clock and win without an additional TD.

MG -
You are assuming that it was "no faith in the receivers," when, in reality, you see coaches run the draw on 3rd and long many times. Instead of a 47 yard field goal, it was a 43 yard field goal. To you and I, the 4 yards don't seem like alot. But for a rookie kicker, they can be. Particularly in the pressure situation of the AFCCG.

Also, the Pats had thrown on the 1st three plays of that series. The 1st went to Graham for 25 yards, which got them to the Indy 29 yard line. Now, instead of RUNNING the ball on 1st down from the 29, the Pats attempted to THROW. THAT tells me they have no faith in the RUNNING game. NOT that they have no faith in the Passing game. Personally, had the Pats RUN the ball on the 1st three plays, at the very least they might have cranked off enough time to get them close to the 2 minute warning. Not to mention, they might have actually picked up a 1st down. Even if they'd only run on the 1st two plays, it might have set up a 3rd and short situaton that would have allowed the Pats a much wider array of plays to chose from, besides killing critical time off the clock.

Also, the very next series, the Colts went 3 and out. Giving the Pats the ball back... It wasn't until the Colts 2nd series after the Pats last field goal that they actually scored the go ahead TD.

 

[mgteich]

Dabruinz,

We do agree on most. We certainly both strongly support the decisions of bb and pioli, especially with regard to Branch and Givens. And we disagree on little as far the current circumstance. I think more of Washington than you do. This is not a big deal. TC competition will decide the keepers. I consider Brown a member of the team, unless he decides to retire, which is likely.

WIDE RECEIVERS

1) With regard to Gaffney, I guess you are saying that there are 32 incompetent FO's, or at least as many as needed WR's. If Gaffney were a better than average possession receiver, he would have been playing somewhere. He isn't exactly an unknown quantity in the league.

2) I don't think you understand how good Stallworth and Moss are. I also believe that you will be pleasantly surprised with Washington and Welker, legitimate #3's, and starters if needed (both significantly better than Caldwell and Gaffney). Brady will work with them, and yes I do believe that that at least three will be fine after a couple of preseason games. Part of the reason is that this group will not need perfect passes in order to make a catch. Perhaps, I will be wrong and it will take a bit more time, but we will NOT have a repeat of last year.

3) I'm sure that almost all of us are pleased that we added Stallworth, Washington and Moss. Many didn't think that WR was an important need. Some of us did.

4) Yes, I try to forget Kight, Childress, Smith and Garbriel.


LINEBACKERS

We disagree on how effective the combination of Vrabel and Bruschi was last year, and should be expected to be going forward. I certainly accept that you may be right on this point.

We agree that the FO is likely counting on Woods and Alexander or both this year. I view this as building from within. In addition, as in the OL, we have brought in additional youngsters, one of whom will likely make the squad, as Mays and Woods did last year. We do indeed grow some of our backups internally.

My prefernce is for at least one backup veteran, probably two. The question is whether there is sufficient value available to want to move Vrabel back outside. For the record, I would love to have Vrabel, Colvin and Thomas outside, finally replacing McGinist in the OLB rotation.

The bottom line is that we have three youngsters from last year's squad: Alexander, Woods and Mays. We have Izzo. Any of the three kids could be upgraded, and yes, we could sign a ninth LB. However, only six linebackers will get many reps, other than on special teams. I think that I am being generous. I don't think the 3rd ILB gets many reps. And practically speaking, Green is a passrushing "LB" in amny situations.

I do disagree with your notion that at some point we need to find our starting linebackers internally. I don't know why. Three of our four starters are from other teams. Let's bring in two more (one this year and next). Isn't this whole discussion necessary only because bb has only brought in one quality LB so far. We are waiting for a second. we don't need to have a strategy that requires ALL needs to be filled via the draft. bb and pioli have prefer to find veterans to bring in at LB. This strategy has generally worked well. There have been mistakes, and there have been time when talent was not there. This situation is true when we rely on the draft for such positions. Sometimes you have to draft ten at a position (TE) before you get what you want, and still need to sign a free agent.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

Just one final point, DaBruinz, before the wife and I go out for the evening.

In our playoff loss 2 years ago to that Western Team That Shall Go Unnamed, what would you say was the chief cause of that loss?

In our playoff loss last season, what was the chief cause of the Colts scoring a bazillion points in the 2nd half? If it's all on the ability of the linebacking corps to hold the fort on 3rd down, why didn't the Pats get to Manning at all in that half, when everyone in the nation knew what the Colts were going to do?

Think about that. There were other dynamics at work in that game that had a serious impact on it's outcome.

Yes, we can use more shoring up at the ILB position, but I want to know why, apart from Thomas, nothing has been done. We may be "addressing" that position viz a viz those 3 draftees/UDFAs that you've mentioned, but hell, we don't even know if any of them will as much as make the team! You may even consider "looking" at people for the spot(s) activity, but, like Einstein, I believe you should never confuse motion with action.

In a word, Belichick may be concerned about his linebacking corps, but if he is, he hasn't let on, instead chosing to make upgrades at other positions deemed more important. This is an important thought process for a man who has a long and distinguished career as a defensive guru.

Having said that, my final question is, are your insights more relevant, more concrete, more penetrating, than the man who must make the decisions? The man who knows his team (and the rest of the league)? The man who ostensibly knows what he's doing?

You may put your faith in the man when he says defense wins championships (for the record, I agree with that). Me? I'll put my faith in the man who makes the decisions, to make the decisions.

I just watch the games. He lives them.

 

[Jacky Roberts]

It's incredible how braindead your original post was. And patting yourself on the back doesn't make it any better.

Belichick/Pioli have proven THREE TIMES that their approach has a higher success rate than ANY OTHER approach in the NFL. What is so hard to understand about that. Simple fact right in front of your face.

Just as simplistically braindead is declaring that adding a top playmaker, whatever the position, will improve the odds that the team can win. Duhhh. You think that stating this obvious fact is somehow or another prophetic ? Rather, it is pathetic to claim any distinction whatsoever for something that is so obvious.

The league is loaded with teams who have the stars/superstars that you think the Patriots should be 'smart' enough to get. And yet these teams are NOT even close to as successful as the Patriots. So the notion that adding a star/superstar is a 'cure' is nonsense. How many teams have you seen season after season after season who add that 'critical' super star only to see the team do no better or even worse ?? ?? ?? ??

Now something impressive that you could have done was comment on something that so very few of the posters on this board really 'get'. What the Patriots have PROVEN (in the only way that counts - winning) is that the real solid strength of a team is the composition of the WHOLE roster. The teams that go out and get the stars simply don't address the tedious blue collar work of piecing together an entire roster that is solidly capable. In fact, when they spend too much of their cap resource on these few 'stars', they make themselves dead ducks as far as having the cap resource to fill in ALL of the rest of the roster with solid effective players. How hard is it to understand that with the salary cap, the compostion of a roster is a zero sum game - if you pay more for one position, there is exactly that amount LESS that you have to spend on the rest of the roster. All of these rants about paying some player a big sum of money because we 'absolutely need' them is totally bankrupt without saying what other part of the roster you intend to sacrifice to free up the dollars you want to spend. If you take the approach that 'there is no problem scrimping somewhere else on players that are not all THAT important' - this just shows your ignorance about what the Patriots have proved and shows your total inability to assess how important all of the other postions are. Belichick and Pioli have proved that their assessment of what they need in terms of effective players throughout the roster is better than any other professional staff in the NFL. And you think your judgment is better than theirs ? Ludicrous.

Also braindead is the notion that Belichick and Pioli don't understand how 'critical' your favorite position is in terms of a need for a 'star' player. How on earth do you think you see something that they don't ? Of course they see strength at the position as weaker than they would like. Where they differ from you is that they understand that there is not enough money to have stars at every position. In matter of fact, in a salary cap situation, there is not enough money to have stars in any but a FEW positions without hurting the rest of the roster. What they know, that you don't seem to have a clue about, is that there have to be some areas that are weaker than they would like. But if they do a good job (which they have proven they do) of getting the best value they can for every dollar they spend, then overall their team has an awfully good chance of being better than any other team and winning superbowls.

Another thing that is braindead is implying or judging that they don't want or won't go after stars. They have proven that they jump at the chance if they can get somebody they regard as a true star (rather than over-hyped and flawed) IF they can get a reasonable value package. There are any number of examples (Colvin, Dillon, Seau, Moss, et al). How hard is it to understand that they are totally ready to sign this type of player but ONLY if they don't have to sacrifice the strength of the rest of the roster.

It is ironic and amusing when you step back to realize that the reason the Patriots always have the cap space that so many folks bash them about if they don't spend it - is that they have continually been very disciplined about not just spending the money if they can't spend it for the effective value that they know they need to build an entire roster. Equally ironic and amusing is to consider that if the cap space they have was spent on every player that folks seem to think they 'have to' sign, regardless of the high price tag, they would have run out of money long ago and those same people would be bemoaning the fact that they 'mismanaged' their spending so badly that there isn't enough money to sign a star player 'this' time. Hugely amusing.

My point was everything I wanted to happen in that thread actually happened, specifically Moss.

I think looking back, lack of wideouts didn't hurt the Patriots in the playoffs as it did early in the season (Denver, NYJ, and Colt losses). In the playoffs, it was the d-backs (no Rodney) that really hurt. Regardless, I'm pumped about this season more than any season I can remember.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

My point was everything I wanted to happen in that thread actually happened, specifically Moss.

I think looking back, lack of wideouts didn't hurt the Patriots in the playoffs as it did early in the season (Denver, NYJ, and Colt losses). In the playoffs, it was the d-backs (no Rodney) that really hurt. Regardless, I'm pumped about this season more than any season I can remember.

Well it can't be any worse than when you decided you were going to give up on the Patriots early last year and stated you were giving your game tickets to your friends/co workers whatever then jumped back on the bandwagon once we made the playoffs

EITHER STAY ON OR JUMP OFF!

 

[PatrioticDynasty]

I know. I would much rather have a team like Indy where they have no defense.

Or maybe a team that spends money to bring in great players like Washington.

Or maybe a team like Philly that has no running game.

Or maybe a team that has great WRs like Dallas, cause if you have WRs that guarantees victories. Why else do you think Detroit has been taking them for these past few years?

Or maybe a team like Baltimore that has a recent #1 WR, another very good one that NE wanted and a former rushing champ as well as MVP QB. That offense must be good.

Or we could cheer for a team like Denver that is willing to pay money for their WRs unlike NE who was too cheap to pay Walker his money. With their running game, that has the makings of a dominant offense.

OR we could just get on the bandwagon with all the people who said that Miami would take advantage of NE's arrogance and propel themselves to an AFCE crown. That is coming any day now, so we might as well sell high and buy low.


Give me a break.

wait, wait...you forgot the best one: A team like arizona: the best #1 - #2 reciver tandum, a superstar 25mill RB and a heisman trophy QB....who, just let the bears "take the damn field" by the way....I want THAT TEAM!

P.D.

 

[shmessy]

Well it can't be any worse than when you decided you were going to give up on the Patriots early last year and stated you were giving your game tickets to your friends/co workers whatever then jumped back on the bandwagon once we made the playoffs

EITHER STAY ON OR JUMP OFF!

Wow!!!!!

I DO remember someone writing that last year. Was that really Jacky Roberts?

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Wow!!!!!

I DO remember someone writing that last year. Was that really Jacky Roberts?

Yes and that pissed me off..He said he was going to give his tickets to his coworkers/friends because the Patriots were headed for a LONG season..Then all of a sudden he comes out of hiding in late January

Classic bandwagon fan at its finest

 

[Krugman]

Mainefan,thats a great post!Your logic is impeccable....

 

[DaBruinz]

Dabruinz,

We do agree on most. We certainly both strongly support the decisions of bb and pioli, especially with regard to Branch and Givens. And we disagree on little as far the current circumstance. I think more of Washington than you do. This is not a big deal. TC competition will decide the keepers. I consider Brown a member of the team, unless he decides to retire, which is likely.

WIDE RECEIVERS

1) With regard to Gaffney, I guess you are saying that there are 32 incompetent FO's, or at least as many as needed WR's. If Gaffney were a better than average possession receiver, he would have been playing somewhere. He isn't exactly an unknown quantity in the league.

Not necessarily true. Remember, by the time Gaffney was released by the Eagles, it was the end of training camp. How many teams are going to re-adjust their rosters just because an above average receiver hits the market? Not many.

2) I don't think you understand how good Stallworth and Moss are. I also believe that you will be pleasantly surprised with Washington and Welker, legitimate #3's, and starters if needed (both significantly better than Caldwell and Gaffney). Brady will work with them, and yes I do believe that that at least three will be fine after a couple of preseason games. Part of the reason is that this group will not need perfect passes in order to make a catch. Perhaps, I will be wrong and it will take a bit more time, but we will NOT have a repeat of last year.

MG - I am very high in Welker. I was one of the 1st touting that I wanted the Pats to sign him and that I was willing to give up the 2nd rounder in a heart beat. So, I doubt that I will be pleasantly surprised by him.

Washington making the team would surprise me. Here is a guy who has done next to nothing since getting into the league other than being injured the last 2 years. He wasn't able to beat out Chris "friggin" Henry for the #3 WR position. Even when Henry wasn't around. Washington isn't better than either Caldwell or Gaffney. All you have to do is look at the stats to know that.

If you had read my posts, I have Caldwell and Gaffney as the #4 and #5 receivers respectively. With the Patriots having all but Welker on 1 year deals, I don't see the Pats getting rid of vets who have been in the system and have produced.

3) I'm sure that almost all of us are pleased that we added Stallworth, Washington and Moss. Many didn't think that WR was an important need. Some of us did.

4) Yes, I try to forget Kight, Childress, Smith and Garbriel.

Most of us probably try and forget that Kight, Childress, Smith and Gabriel were on the team to start the season. But the Pats also had Watson and Graham (who they under-utilized IMHO).

LINEBACKERS

We disagree on how effective the combination of Vrabel and Bruschi was last year, and should be expected to be going forward. I certainly accept that you may be right on this point.

We agree that the FO is likely counting on Woods and Alexander or both this year. I view this as building from within. In addition, as in the OL, we have brought in additional youngsters, one of whom will likely make the squad, as Mays and Woods did last year. We do indeed grow some of our backups internally.

My prefernce is for at least one backup veteran, probably two. The question is whether there is sufficient value available to want to move Vrabel back outside. For the record, I would love to have Vrabel, Colvin and Thomas outside, finally replacing McGinist in the OLB rotation.

The bottom line is that we have three youngsters from last year's squad: Alexander, Woods and Mays. We have Izzo. Any of the three kids could be upgraded, and yes, we could sign a ninth LB. However, only six linebackers will get many reps, other than on special teams. I think that I am being generous. I don't think the 3rd ILB gets many reps. And practically speaking, Green is a passrushing "LB" in amny situations.

I do disagree with your notion that at some point we need to find our starting linebackers internally. I don't know why. Three of our four starters are from other teams. Let's bring in two more (one this year and next). Isn't this whole discussion necessary only because bb has only brought in one quality LB so far. We are waiting for a second. we don't need to have a strategy that requires ALL needs to be filled via the draft. bb and pioli have prefer to find veterans to bring in at LB. This strategy has generally worked well. There have been mistakes, and there have been time when talent was not there. This situation is true when we rely on the draft for such positions. Sometimes you have to draft ten at a position (TE) before you get what you want, and still need to sign a free agent.

MG -
As time has gone on, the number of 3-4 teams has increased, decreasing the number of available players who have the skills to learn the system and can step in. Up until 2005, 3 of the 4 starters were home grown in McGinest, Johnson and Bruschi. Since then, we've had to suffer through the Monty Beisel/Chad Brown experiment. Granted, I believe that the Pats were misinformed by Ted Johnson regarding his readiness and that is why they were caught off guard after Bruschi's stroke. But, even since then, they had to go out and get Seau, who had just retired a few days prior.

When you keep relying on others to develop your players, at some point there won't be anything to fill your stores with. Whereas, if you develop your own, you will have a constant supply. Its what the Steelers and Ravens have been doing for years with linebackers. There is no reason why the Patriots can't do it.

Now, I do realize that they had intended to grab Stewart Bradley and they were going to develop him. But Philly took him. So they clearly felt the need. Just that their luck wasn't there. Hopefully, next year, there will be a linebacker or two they can grab and develop because if Brushci and Seau both call it quits next season (which they could very well do if the Pats win it all) I think that they are going to be hard pressed to get the players they need.

 

[DaBruinz]

Just one final point, DaBruinz, before the wife and I go out for the evening.

In our playoff loss 2 years ago to that Western Team That Shall Go Unnamed, what would you say was the chief cause of that loss?

The chief cause of that loss was poor officiating. Second to that, it was poor special teams play by players who are normally sure handed. BTW, what does that have to do with ANYTHING in this thread?

In our playoff loss last season, what was the chief cause of the Colts scoring a bazillion points in the 2nd half? If it's all on the ability of the linebacking corps to hold the fort on 3rd down, why didn't the Pats get to Manning at all in that half, when everyone in the nation knew what the Colts were going to do?

Think about that. There were other dynamics at work in that game that had a serious impact on it's outcome.

How about YOU think about something? How about you think about your attributing to me things that I didn't say? I never said anything about the 3rd down play of the colts.

My take on the play-off loss last year was a combination of things.
1) Lack of ability of the Pats to cover the Colts 3rd,4th and 5th receivers. Dallas Clark made Eric Alexander look foolish and when the Pats tried to use TBC to get to Manning, it just made matters worse. Alexander couldn't even cover guys like Aaron Moorehead.

Oh, the Pats didn't get to Manning because the line didn't have time to get a pass rush on him. They didn't have time because the 3rd, 4th and 5th receivers were getting open and the personnel on the field couldn't cover them. For whatever reason, the Pats didn't have Chad Scott available and had to rely on Alexander in the slot. It just didn't work.

2) Lack of the offense to sustain drives in the 2nd half. This is primarly because of the lack of a running game in the 4th quarter. Dillon, Faulk and Maroney were all out of action with injuries, leaving the Pats to rely on Heath Evans to get the job done. Some people want to blame Caldwell's 2 drops, but one of them didn't matter and on the other one, there is no telling whether he would have got into the endzone even if he had caught it because there was a defender racing over to get to him.

4) Poor officiating. The officials totally tanked a call on Kelvin Hayden that should have resulted in a 1st and Goal from the Colts 1 for the Patriots. They blew a pass interference call on Hobbs that they called FACE GUARDING, yet the Director of Officials is on record as saying that there is no such rule and Hobbs clearly did NOT interfere with Wayne's ability to catch the ball. Not with the incidental contact that they made.

Yes, we can use more shoring up at the ILB position, but I want to know why, apart from Thomas, nothing has been done. We may be "addressing" that position viz a viz those 3 draftees/UDFAs that you've mentioned, but hell, we don't even know if any of them will as much as make the team! You may even consider "looking" at people for the spot(s) activity, but, like Einstein, I believe you should never confuse motion with action.

Actually, the Pats had every intention of adding a day 1 ILB in Stewart Bradley. Unfortunately the Eagles too him.

Now, why is it that you INSIST on stating things I have said and pretending like you were the one who said it? I already acknowledge that we don't know whether the 3 guys they added will make the team. That doesn't invalidate my concern. My concern that there is a hole at the SILB position. A position that Bruschi really isn't capable of performing well in. I am also concerned about the lack of depth at both the ILB and OLB positions. Right now, the Patriots are in for a world of hurt should one of the LBs go down. And that is a strong likely-hood with the way that injuries hit this team.

In a word, Belichick may be concerned about his linebacking corps, but if he is, he hasn't let on, instead chosing to make upgrades at other positions deemed more important. This is an important thought process for a man who has a long and distinguished career as a defensive guru.

Having said that, my final question is, are your insights more relevant, more concrete, more penetrating, than the man who must make the decisions? The man who knows his team (and the rest of the league)? The man who ostensibly knows what he's doing?

You may put your faith in the man when he says defense wins championships (for the record, I agree with that). Me? I'll put my faith in the man who makes the decisions, to make the decisions.

I just watch the games. He lives them.

I have plenty of faith in Belichick. That doesn't mean I am an ignoramous who just sits there and nods my head and pretends that Belichick is perfect. I know he's not. And just because Belichick hasn't done anything about the SILB position on the Pats doesn't mean that my concerns aren't valid. Nor does my having concerns lessen myself as a fan or show a lack of knowledge on my part.

I have never claimed that Moss and Stallworth weren't upgrades to the WR position. They are. And when there is a high supply of a position so that you can get it for the price you are willing to pay, then I am all for doing the upgrades. But that doesn't mean that WR was the PRIMARY issue that cost the Pats the game against the Colts.