Still Have Not Heard It Yet

[sb1]

disagree

bb met with jimmyg everyday, personally and separately, and brady knew it.

You know this for a fact? Are you in the locker room?

JG was never going to take Brady's job away from him barring a catastrophic injury. That's what we know, anything else is speculation.

 

[Kontradiction]

Why should something that BB, of all people, says at a press conference be taken at face value??

If he was pondering starting JG, scoffing at that question would absolutely have been what he would have done. He wouldn't want any public controversy until he actually made the switch.

(That said, I do not think he was even thinking about starting JG.)

Finally, why be so sure that it couldn't be possible that a non-trivial reason BB picked JG was to push Brady? BB is great at psychological stuff like that (go google for that story Tony Gonzales has about BB coached him into blocking on a Pro Bowl kickoff return). For whatever the reason, Brady absolutely turned things up a notch after the first few games of the 2014 season, especially his pocket movement.

I think the reaction was genuine. It was a ridiculous question to him which indicates he had no intention of turning to JAG. That should indicate to you that the notion of drafting Brady is a ridiculous one. Further, there was also nothing reported to indicate that that was the reason.

As for his footwork and pocket movement, I’ll turn the question to you: please source the games in which Brady’s footwork and pocket movement was different then. There are plenty of game films to pull from YouTube.

 

[Kontradiction]

You know this for a fact? Are you in the locker room?

JG was never going to take Brady's job away from him barring a catastrophic injury. That's what we know, anything else is speculation.

I asked him to source that earlier because it’s not something that comes up with a Google search. He said he heard Zo or someone else say it.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

You know this for a fact? Are you in the locker room?

JG was never going to take Brady's job away from him barring a catastrophic injury. That's what we know, anything else is speculation.

Well, no, but yes I heard this from either Zo or Perillo on 98.5 on 10.31.17. I am not making it up.

I can guarantee you others who were listening did, too.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

I asked him to source that earlier because it’s not something that comes up with a Google search. He said he heard Zo or someone else say it.

Correct.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

I think it's pats fatigue...like the 90s bulls, this is expected

Superbowls.... anything short isn't expected

Haters , fans or nonchalant people

Like anything else, people won't really appreciate it till its gone

I agree except with the cap and the Pats domination, fans have been promised no dynasties in the cap era.

Success fatigue was there for the Bulls in 1990s, but the Bulls didn't have Bullsnoia derived by the haters to deal with there.

 

[sb1]

Well, no, but yes I heard this from either Zo or Perillo on 98.5 on 10.31.17. I am not making it up.

I can guarantee you others who were listening did, too.

I'll look it up, thanks for the reference. I believe there was talk with JG about his future but I have my doubts that BB held separate daily meetings with JG alone on Patriot matters. That would not be how the Pats do things these days.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

I think JG was drafted as the eventual successor to Brady not to push him, he was insurance against a decline that didn't happen. I doubt BB would have used a highish draft pick just as a motivator.

And Brady didn't need pushing anyway, the whole spygate talk - implying Brady wasn't good enough to win Super Bowls on his own without his team cheating- would have been more than sufficient to do that on its own.

Well ,he didn't look too great during Spygate in SB 42 and years later in SB 46, with a myriad of subpar performances in between, where the D would have had to have bailed him out. When they didn't, everyone then blamed the D, to deflect from how subpar Brady was.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

These aren’t facts at all, which have been pointed out to you time and again. That you think Nink jumping offsides was the worst thing the defense did that day when they gave up an 88 yard scoring drive and lead speaks volumes. This is really quite simple:

1. Offense handed off the game to the defense with the lead.

2. Defense’s job was then to protect that lead.

3. Defense failed to protect to lead or even hold them to a FG.

4. Defense then tried to let them score because Belichick had no faith in them to generate a stop in that area and trusted the offense more.

Those four are facts. Meanwhile, in this thread, you’ve had to resort to making several things up (Brady’s footwork being different from 2007-2013, reason JG was drafted, JG being asked by Belichick to be in the meetings) or have been unable to source. This tells me that you you’re aware of the holes in your argument, but you’re going to stick with it purely out of confirmation bias instead of simply seeing things for how they actually were.

Your opinions of "handing the lead" ( a very small lead) to the D, ignores the rest of the game. Why do you act like everything before the last 2 mins is irrelevant? That's Ted Wells/Goodell level of suspicious to me. The game is 60 mins. The D may have failed to shut the door late, as valiantly as they played in the other 58 mins, as undermanned and young as they were, but

And, yes, I feel Brady's footwork is much better. He started working with a boxing trainer in LA, which I thought was a good move.

You seem to have some weird jealousy towards me because I have knowldge, am observant and have eyeballs on my tv screen.

 

[sb1]

Well ,he didn't look too great during Spygate in SB 42 and years later in SB 46, with a myriad of subpar performances in between, where the D would have had to have bailed him out. When they didn't, everyone then blamed the D, to deflect from how subpar Brady was.

Well, you know wins and losses are ultimately team stats. Brady was not all world during those games, some of it his fault, some of it his team around him, some of it coaching. I've also seen him be far worse and the Patriots win.

But blaming the QB solely for the Pats failures during that era and downplaying how lousy the defense really was at the time is a bit short sighted IMO.

I think hearing ad nauseum that you're a cheat and all your accomplishments are tainted is a powerful motivating factor on its own, regardless of having a young QB on the roster to push you.

 

[Kontradiction]

It's not as simple as "Brady/offense gave the D a lead so they did their job." If the QB/offense does a better job they hand over a bigger lead and/or less time on the clock.

SB46 is a great example. If Brady completes that pass to Welker (for the record, I'm on the it's-Welker's-fault side) then at a minimum more time comes off the clock. And given how shaky the 2011 defense was, it was the offense's job to not put the defense in a situation where one drive loses the game. So no, I don't think the offense did its job in SB46.

Sure it is. You're only trying to make it more complicated. The offense was playing without it's #1 option in the passing game being completely healthy. He was a decoy. Even still, it scored enough to win the game. The only thing the D had to do was protect the lead. That’s the defense’s job. The defense failed to protect that lead to the tune of 88 yards and a touchdown. That’s on top of them allowing the Giants to rush for 100+ yards and dominate T.O.P. The offense needed additional possessions. The defense didn’t give it to them. The defense failed the team in that game and were the DIRECT reason the Giants won.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

I'll look it up, thanks for the reference. I believe there was talk with JG about his future but I have my doubts that BB held separate daily meetings with JG alone on Patriot matters. That would not be how the Pats do things these days.

I am just telling you what I heard on the radio and I trusted the source and thought it was VERY telling.

Also, the comment after that info was this (paraphrased):

"BB never intended to draft a back up to be Brady's successor with ANY of the previous back up QBs, hence why he never really used a higher draft pick on one, other than Mallett in Rd 3, but that was more of an idea that some, including Mike Lombardi, said "mallett is a mid 1st rd talent without the red flags"....So, only JimmyG in Rd 2, was the guy they drafted with that intent and the BB meeting with him individually, shows us how much he thought of JimmyG as the POSSIBLE successor."

So, that was a true "value" pick with Mallett, and BB had like 6 picks in the top 100 picks in that draft anyway, if I am not mistaken. (2 picks in each of the first 3 rounds).

So, BB was really only drafting and developing back up QBs, pre 2014, for these reasons:

1. Save 3-5 million in cap space by not carrying a veteran QB. With Edleman as the emergency QB, BB only carried TWO (most of time, since 2009, minus the carry over years, when the prior back up/Hoyer, was in his last year of his deal).

2. Have a guy that COULD be ready that they developed in case of a 2008 with Cassel.

3. TRADE the developed QB, and get your pick back. Garoppolo, this year.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

Sure it is. You're only trying to make it more complicated. The offense was playing without it's #1 option in the passing game being completely healthy. He was a decoy. Even still, it scored enough to win the game. The only thing the D had to do was protect the lead. That’s the defense’s job. The defense failed to protect that lead to the tune of 88 yards and a touchdown. That’s on top of them allowing the Giants to rush for 100+ yards and dominate T.O.P. The offense needed additional possessions. The defense didn’t give it to them. The defense failed the team in that game and were the DIRECT reason the Giants won.

Agreed, but all the MORE reason to run the ball, though right? Why not go heavy set, activate Cliff Polite, and use some playaction on top of that?

To start the 4th qtr, a gimpy Gronk is running down field on an underthrown ball by Brady on 1st down?

Give it up already.

They had the game on on offense from the second the whistle blew because the Giants D is not as good as anyone has ever claimed. They got lucky in that we played, offensively, right into their hands.

The SB 46 loss is WORSE than SB 42 because they easily should have known WHY they lost SB 42.

 

[Kontradiction]

Your opinions of "handing the lead" ( a very small lead) to the D, ignores the rest of the game. Why do you act like everything before the last 2 mins is irrelevant? That's Ted Wells/Goodell level of suspicious to me. The game is 60 mins.

I haven’t ignored the rest of the game throughout this entire thread. I’ve cited three other areas where the defense failed as well: T.O.P., 30 completed passes out of 40 attempts, and over 100 yards given up on the ground to an otherwise mediocre rush offense. The 88 yard TD drive was just the icing on the cake.

The D may have failed to shut the door late, as valiantly as they played in the other 58 mins, as undermanned and young as they were, but

Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. An admission that the defense failed. Given this, I’m now not sure how you can continue to pin this on Brady. You just flat out admitted they lost the game.

And, yes, I feel Brady's footwork is much better. He started working with a boxing trainer in LA, which I thought was a good move.

He also constantly works on his mechanics and throwing motion as well. That’s what makes him the GOAT. That doesn’t mean that either were an issue prior to him doing that. Again, if you feel his footwork was worse or even off compared where it is now, please source it. There are a wealth of free videos to pull up from that era. Show me the games where his footwork and pocket movement were off and tell me how they were.

You seem to have some weird jealousy towards me because I have knowldge, am observant and have eyeballs on my tv screen.

Lmaoooo. I actually like seeing posts like this. It’s usually the first sign that your opponent knows he/she is getting their asses handed to them.

 

[Kontradiction]

Agreed, but all the MORE reason to run the ball, though right? Why not go heavy set, activate Cliff Polite, and use some playaction on top of that?

To start the 4th qtr, a gimpy Gronk is running down field on an underthrown ball by Brady on 1st down?

Give it up already.

They had the game on on offense from the second the whistle blew because the Giants D is not as good as anyone has ever claimed. They got lucky in that we played, offensively, right into their hands.

The SB 46 loss is WORSE than SB 42 because they easily should have known WHY they lost SB 42.

They ran the ball enough. They had 19 rushing attempts that were largely unsuccessful because the offensive line had a starting LG nursing a bum knee and an undersized center going against Lindval Joseph in his prime. The outside runs, if you look at the game log, were not having much more success because the Giants were able to drop a safety down into the box due to them not having to worry about a threat at the intermediate or deep levels. So no, simply "RUN DA BALLL" doesn't work either. The Patriots ran just enough to keep them honest while putting the game in the hands of the guy that could best win it for them. And he did enough until the defense, as you've even admitted, failed.

 

[fnordcircle]

You seem to have some weird jealousy towards me because I have knowldge,
am observant and have eyeballs on my tv screen.

Welcome to patsfans? People debate for pages on end. People smarter than me and smarter than you. People are responding to you because you're raising points that are either debatable or they view them outright wrong.

If you post something interesting or provocative someone is probably going to respond to it. That you think responding to your posts equates to stalking suggests you are thin-skinned, but I mean, the majority of posts are indicative of that as well because every time you get push back from someone you try to steer away from the debate and into ad hominem territory. Calling people bullies, millennials, attacking their motives, etc.

Look, sometimes people are just going to disagree with you. Make your case as best you can and debate until you realize you're banging head against the wall and then take a break. That's what I do, anyways. No use getting wound up over this ****, it's just old nerds on the internet arguing.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

They ran the ball enough. They had 19 rushing attempts that were largely unsuccessful because the offensive line had a starting LG nursing a bum knee and an undersized center going against Lindval Joseph in his prime. The outside runs, if you look at the game log, were not having much more success because the Giants were able to drop a safety down into the box due to them not having to worry about a threat at the intermediate or deep levels. So no, simply "RUN DA BALLL" doesn't work either. The Patriots ran just enough to keep them honest while putting the game in the hands of the guy that could best win it for them. And he did enough until the defense, as you've even admitted, failed.

Don't agree. Woodhead got too many carries. Woodhead is not an in between the Tackles guy. That's my point.

We never lost with BJGE as the true, defacto lead back in 2010 and 2011. It was only when we went finesse, with Woodhead as the feature back, did we get punched in the mouth.


Against good or great D's, we used too much Woodhead and went too finesse. You have to fight fire with fire.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

Welcome to patsfans? People debate for pages on end. People smarter than me and smarter than you. People are responding to you because you're raising points that are either debatable or they view them outright wrong.

If you post something interesting or provocative someone is probably going to respond to it. That you think responding to your posts equates to stalking suggests you are thin-skinned, but I mean, the majority of posts are indicative of that as well because every time you get push back from someone you try to steer away from the debate and into ad hominem territory. Calling people bullies, millennials, attacking their motives, etc.

Look, sometimes people are just going to disagree with you. Make your case as best you can and debate until you realize you're banging head against the wall and then take a break. That's what I do, anyways. No use getting wound up over this ****, it's just old nerds on the internet arguing.

I am not doing anything. I am being stalked. Show me where Brady played as wekll in the 2007 and 2011 postseasons compared to any tiem from 2001-2004 or 2014-2017 and I'll concede right now.

It's fine to disagree but to not accept Brady has actually played some games fo rthis team where he gets a C or even a D Grade (2011 AFC title game), and just because the D doesn't bail him TWO POSTEASON GAMES IN A ROW (SB 42 and SB 46 losses), yes, I've got an issue with that kind of arrogance from some Pats fans who try to tell many of us, that "Brady plays well all the time", as they pin the collective Ds balls to the wall in an offensive era off a freaking Lockout with no OTAs, no camp, nothing.

And, mind you, that's right AFTER Brady got a huge raise (well deserved), Mankins acted like a complete jerk being greedy, and Welker did his little routine, ruining it for the team.

I like facts, and yes, I form opinions off those facts.

There is nothing "provocative" acknowledging that Brady didn't play well,which in turn, helped us lose those games. It's what happened.

This is like an Ace pitcher in baseball under-performing in the postseason and acting like it had nothing to do with why you lost the series.

Same deal with a goalie in hockey. Let's instead move more blame to the lesser talented players, and those who actually played really well (Sterling Moore).

Ready for this one? Sterling Moore had a superior postseason in 2011, than Tom Brady.

 

[fnordcircle]

I am not doing anything. I am being stalked.

You posted something. Someone replied. You replied. They replied. You replied. They replied. Etc.

Not stalking, you are engaging people in a debate. This is how it works in a discussion board.

When I want the argument to end I stop replying, as I suspect I will have to do with this tangent with you despite the fact I'm actually, in my own way, trying to stop you from constantly winding yourself up.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

I haven’t ignored the rest of the game throughout this entire thread. I’ve cited three other areas where the defense failed as well: T.O.P., 30 completed passes out of 40 attempts, and over 100 yards given up on the ground to an otherwise mediocre rush offense. The 88 yard TD drive was just the icing on the cake.



Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. An admission that the defense failed. Given this, I’m now not sure how you can continue to pin this on Brady. You just flat out admitted they lost the game.



He also constantly works on his mechanics and throwing motion as well. That’s what makes him the GOAT. That doesn’t mean that either were an issue prior to him doing that. Again, if you feel his footwork was worse or even off compared where it is now, please source it. There are a wealth of free videos to pull up from that era. Show me the games where his footwork and pocket movement were off and tell me how they were.



Lmaoooo. I actually like seeing posts like this. It’s usually the first sign that your opponent knows he/she is getting their asses handed to them.

Not even worth responding to, with you still pretending Brady plays an A game every time on the field simply because of his previous laurels from 2001-2004 under Weis.

There is no way you can be considered a real Pats fan if you're trying too sell us that he always plays well.

You're only a Brady fan if you're trying to sell us that, ignoring how god awful he was in the 2007 and 2011 title games, alone. So, you can JUST be a Brady fan only, give him special execptions, pretend he is above reproach, and the rest of us will be diehard, fair and objective fans who know the game.

Not that the 2010 divisional rd game or the 2012 AFC title games were any better. Did you see him ducking ghosts pass rushers and staring over at O'Brien like a lost puppy like I did? Because I didn't dream that up. THAT happened.

I always felt bad for the Ds having to defend so many short fields and to deal with so many 3 and outs from our own offense. The offense was putrid, and it's FACTUALLY easier with bloated stats all over the place, starting with sweeping rule changes since 2006.

Oh no! A team had an 88 yard drive! That never happens elsewhere in the NFL! Nor does 4 YPC!

Devastating stuff!

lmao