PostGame Thread OFFICIAL POST GAME THREAD: Patriots Lose to Steelers 21-14

[Real fan 02]

You never saw that?

I just realized it. First some odd reason

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Great post. I'd add if the opportunity presents it's self, and it makes sense for now and the future to acquire a WR that will be here when we get good again then I believe Vrabel does it. The most important thing here is we have the QB.

The Pats have a very good QB...whether he is 'the QB' is TBD...we all pray that he is.

 

[Real fan 02]

The Pats have a very good QB...whether he is 'the QB' is TBD...we all pray that he is.

‘This kid can play’ — Hall of Famer praises Patriots QB Drake Maye

One Hall of Famer is all in on Drake Maye.

www.masslive.com

 

[Mike the Brit]

When you go to a game you get caught up in the emotion. I mean, that's the point, isn't it? I won't deny that I came away very disappointed and it took me a few days to be prepared to re-watch a game I knew the Pats were going to lose -- and make crass mistakes time and again. But I've done that and digested what I could, and I'm still disappointed. There were good things as well as bad ones, but enough of the latter to have me very concerned.

I also won't deny that four of the players I'm most troubled by are ones I had the most hopes for.

1. Stevenson. Goes without saying. I've always said that those who think that others are just as good with the ball in their hands don't know what they are talking about. He wasn't responsible for the terrible running in the first half of the Raiders game. That was the O-line. And McDaniels was smart not to try to run the ball up the middle in the second half. But more than one fumble in a single game ... What can I say?

2. Maye. I so want Maye to be the franchise quarterback, and I think he has all of the basic qualities. But this game was not good. It wasn't the interception in the end zone, so much -- I've watched it on All-22 several times and I just can't tell what would have happened if it hadn't been tipped -- or even the stupid strip sack, but the two interceptions that should have been but weren't. They were just terrible decisions.

I worry that Maye is one of those players who, when things go wrong, goes to pieces. That's what happened after the interception in Week 1. There were some positives, though. I thought that this game showed the best balance yet between running as a weapon and not being reckless. And he has a real connection with Hunter Henry. If only he was as much in sync with his other pass-catchers.

3. Douglas. I love Pop. He was a warrior last year with very little support. And I can't tell where he is supposed to be. But everything I could see this week showed that not only were he and Maye not in rhythm, but that that was for a good reason: the depth of Douglas's routes and when he turned to make himself available didn't look to be where he needed to be when he needed to be there.

4. Marcus Jones. Another player I love, but he doesn't look to be an outside corner. I don't complain about Davis getting beaten by Metcalf, but Jones wasn't even close on Austin's touchdown.

But, yes, there were good things too.

In general, I thought that last season, the terrible co-ordinators apart, the greatest weaknesses were the offensive line (thanks, Eliot!) and the defensive front seven. The offensive line is still not good, as we saw, but it isn't in a state of total collapse, and the defensive line is now genuinely good. Milton Williams has made a huge difference and Landry and Chaisson were impressive too. What a difference from the game in New York last season when they let Rodgers carve them up.

Should Stevenson and Douglas be benched? Only if there are better alternatives. It's not about "sending a message" or "holding people accountable". That's just 98.5-speak for "Do something, I don't care what!" Of course, the players have the message. Not being accountable would mean that the players aren't working to correct their mistakes. If that's the case (or they just can't) then bench them by all means. Otherwise, they are important parts of the team, and I trust Vrabel to manage them in the best way possible.

 

[Real fan 02]

When you go to a game you get caught up in the emotion. I mean, that's the point, isn't it? I won't deny that I came away very disappointed and it took me a few days to be prepared to re-watch a game I knew the Pats were going to lose -- and make crass mistakes time and again. But I've done that and digested what I could, and I'm still disappointed. There were good things as well as bad ones, but enough of the latter to have me very concerned.

I also won't deny that four of the players I'm most troubled by are ones I had the most hopes for.

1. Stevenson. Goes without saying. I've always said that those who think that others are just as good with the ball in their hands don't know what they are talking about. He wasn't responsible for the terrible running in the first half of the Raiders game. That was the O-line. And McDaniels was smart not to try to run the ball up the middle in the second half. But more than one fumble in a single game ... What can I say?

2. Maye. I so want Maye to be the franchise quarterback, and I think he has all of the basic qualities. But this game was not good. It wasn't the interception in the end zone, so much -- I've watched it on All-22 several times and I just can't tell what would have happened if it hadn't been tipped -- or even the stupid strip sack, but the two interceptions that should have been but weren't. They were just terrible decisions.

I worry that Maye is one of those players who, when things go wrong, goes to pieces. That's what happened after the interception in Week 1. There were some positives, though. I thought that this game showed the best balance yet between running as a weapon and not being reckless. And he has a real connection with Hunter Henry. If only he was as much in sync with his other pass-catchers.

3. Douglas. I love Pop. He was a warrior last year with very little support. And I can't tell where he is supposed to be. But everything I could see this week showed that not only were he and Maye not in rhythm, but that that was for a good reason: the depth of Douglas's routes and when he turned to make himself available didn't look to be where he needed to be when he needed to be there.

4. Marcus Jones. Another player I love, but he doesn't look to be an outside corner. I don't complain about Davis getting beaten by Metcalf, but Jones wasn't even close on Austin's touchdown.

But, yes, there were good things too.

In general, I thought that last season, the terrible co-ordinators apart, the greatest weaknesses were the offensive line (thanks, Eliot!) and the defensive front seven. The offensive line is still not good, as we saw, but it isn't in a state of total collapse, and the defensive line is now genuinely good. Milton Williams has made a huge difference and Landry and Chaisson were impressive too. What a difference from the game in New York last season when they let Rodgers carve them up.

Should Stevenson and Douglas be benched? Only if there are better alternatives. It's not about "sending a message" or "holding people accountable". That's just 98.5-speak for "Do something, I don't care what!" Of course, the players have the message. Not being accountable would mean that the players aren't working to correct their mistakes. If that's the case (or they just can't) then bench them by all means. Otherwise, they are important parts of the team, and I trust Vrabel to manage them in the best way possible.

I think we have to really look at the big picture. This is a organization with it's 3rd coach in the last 3 season, still a bottom half of the league roster. Vrabel has brought some coaches in and some players in.. however he just like Parcells he needs another draft or 2.

Drake has what a modern day franchise QB has as a skill set. He's growing into a great young player and leading his team.

If you look around the league and see what some QBs have to work with most notably McCarthy in Minnny as opposed to what Drake has. You have to be impressed with what Drake is able to do with this offensive roster.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Drake has what a modern day franchise QB has as a skill set. He's growing into a great young player and leading his team.

Last week wasn't good evidence for that.

As someone (I think, Lazar) pointed out, Maye is inconsistent. His best plays are terrific, but he doesn't yet put bad plays behind him.

If you want to ruin a promising quarterback, give him an inept offensive co-ordinator and an inadequate O-line. That's what Maye had last year. Fortunately, this year he has a great offensive co-ordinator. If anyone can bring him on, McDaniels can.

 

[p8ryts]

When you go to a game you get caught up in the emotion. I mean, that's the point, isn't it? I won't deny that I came away very disappointed and it took me a few days to be prepared to re-watch a game I knew the Pats were going to lose -- and make crass mistakes time and again. But I've done that and digested what I could, and I'm still disappointed. There were good things as well as bad ones, but enough of the latter to have me very concerned.

I also won't deny that four of the players I'm most troubled by are ones I had the most hopes for.

1. Stevenson. Goes without saying. I've always said that those who think that others are just as good with the ball in their hands don't know what they are talking about. He wasn't responsible for the terrible running in the first half of the Raiders game. That was the O-line. And McDaniels was smart not to try to run the ball up the middle in the second half. But more than one fumble in a single game ... What can I say?

2. Maye. I so want Maye to be the franchise quarterback, and I think he has all of the basic qualities. But this game was not good. It wasn't the interception in the end zone, so much -- I've watched it on All-22 several times and I just can't tell what would have happened if it hadn't been tipped -- or even the stupid strip sack, but the two interceptions that should have been but weren't. They were just terrible decisions.

I worry that Maye is one of those players who, when things go wrong, goes to pieces. That's what happened after the interception in Week 1. There were some positives, though. I thought that this game showed the best balance yet between running as a weapon and not being reckless. And he has a real connection with Hunter Henry. If only he was as much in sync with his other pass-catchers.

3. Douglas. I love Pop. He was a warrior last year with very little support. And I can't tell where he is supposed to be. But everything I could see this week showed that not only were he and Maye not in rhythm, but that that was for a good reason: the depth of Douglas's routes and when he turned to make himself available didn't look to be where he needed to be when he needed to be there.

4. Marcus Jones. Another player I love, but he doesn't look to be an outside corner. I don't complain about Davis getting beaten by Metcalf, but Jones wasn't even close on Austin's touchdown.

But, yes, there were good things too.

In general, I thought that last season, the terrible co-ordinators apart, the greatest weaknesses were the offensive line (thanks, Eliot!) and the defensive front seven. The offensive line is still not good, as we saw, but it isn't in a state of total collapse, and the defensive line is now genuinely good. Milton Williams has made a huge difference and Landry and Chaisson were impressive too. What a difference from the game in New York last season when they let Rodgers carve them up.

Should Stevenson and Douglas be benched? Only if there are better alternatives. It's not about "sending a message" or "holding people accountable". That's just 98.5-speak for "Do something, I don't care what!" Of course, the players have the message. Not being accountable would mean that the players aren't working to correct their mistakes. If that's the case (or they just can't) then bench them by all means. Otherwise, they are important parts of the team, and I trust Vrabel to manage them in the best way possible.

I feel your pain. My trip home from the stadium after the game was an hour and a half. After a very disappointing game, by the time I got home, I rationalized all the mistakes and remained hopeful for the next game. I still feel I am the king of rationalization after those years.

 

[DoubleDeluxe]

I feel your pain. My trip home from the stadium after the game was an hour and a half. After a very disappointing game, by the time I got home, I rationalized all the mistakes and remained hopeful for the next game. I still feel I am the king of rationalization after those years.

The mistakes prevented a win, but there's so much to be encouraged by.
Just think how painful, not even bad, but painful our offense was to watch the last 3 years or so. Run, run, pass short...punt!!
This year the offense is at least watchable, and I would say exciting at times. Maye is progressing and the Oline is infinitely better.

 

[Ring 6]

Last week wasn't good evidence for that.

As someone (I think, Lazar) pointed out, Maye is inconsistent. His best plays are terrific, but he doesn't yet put bad plays behind him.

If you want to ruin a promising quarterback, give him an inept offensive co-ordinator and an inadequate O-line. That's what Maye had last year. Fortunately, this year he has a great offensive co-ordinator. If anyone can bring him on, McDaniels can.

Imperfect and inconsistent are not the same thing.
Maye was excellent. We pointed once. He is completing 73% of his passes and the nfl record is 74.4. Out of 27% that aren’t complete you can find some errors, but you can find a lot more in the typical Qb with 35% or so not complete. 2 ints in 106 passes is a low number.
I have no clue what you mean by “he doesn’t put bad plays behind him”. Where are examples of a bad play being followed up with another bad play due to distraction or lack of focus?

 

[Mike the Brit]

Imperfect and inconsistent are not the same thing.
Maye was excellent. We pointed once. He is completing 73% of his passes and the nfl record is 74.4. Out of 27% that aren’t complete you can find some errors, but you can find a lot more in the typical Qb with 35% or so not complete. 2 ints in 106 passes is a low number.
I have no clue what you mean by “he doesn’t put bad plays behind him”. Where are examples of a bad play being followed up with another bad play due to distraction or lack of focus?

Of course you know what I mean. It means that there is a bad play by Maye that is followed by further bad plays.

You want an example? Look again at his third-quarter interception in Week 1 and see how shaky he was on the next series.

 

[Ring 6]

Of course you know what I mean. It means that there is a bad play by Maye that is followed by further bad plays.

You want an example? Look again at his third-quarter interception in Week 1 and see how shaky he was on the next series.

That’s what you’ve got? One example?
Ok. Can you show me a qb who hasn’t followed up a bad play with a 3 and out?
You are being way too picky.
If he “wasn’t able to move past a bad play” it would follow almost every bad play that’s simply not the case.

 

[PatsFan2]

Imperfect and inconsistent are not the same thing.
Maye was excellent. We pointed once. He is completing 73% of his passes and the nfl record is 74.4. Out of 27% that aren’t complete you can find some errors, but you can find a lot more in the typical Qb with 35% or so not complete. 2 ints in 106 passes is a low number.
I have no clue what you mean by “he doesn’t put bad plays behind him”. Where are examples of a bad play being followed up with another bad play due to distraction or lack of focus?

Then Rham was flawless??

 

[Ring 6]

Then Rham was flawless??

Maye threw the ball 37 times and completed 28. The offense punted 1 time.
The offense had 26 first downs. Maye led the team in rushing. They were 10/18 on 3rd or 4th down.

The Int was the right throw but it was tipped by a DL.

 

[Mike the Brit]

That’s what you’ve got? One example?
Ok. Can you show me a qb who hasn’t followed up a bad play with a 3 and out?
You are being way too picky.
If he “wasn’t able to move past a bad play” it would follow almost every bad play that’s simply not the case.

Don't waste my time, Andy.

("I don't know what you mean" -- "Here's what I mean".

"Give me an example" -- "Here's an example". "

That's only one example" -- "Oh, sweet lord above, here we go down the rabbit-hole ...")

You watch the games and you know a lot about football, but this isn't the way to go, believe me.

 

[DoubleDeluxe]

Don't waste my time, Andy.

("I don't know what you mean" -- "Here's what I mean".

"Give me an example" -- "Here's an example". "

That's only one example" -- "Oh, sweet lord above, here we go down the rabbit-hole ...")

You watch the games and you know a lot about football, but this isn't the way to go, believe me.

There's zero point Mike.
Ring still insisting the int was the right throw, despite an immense amount of evidence it wasn't, including Maye/Vrabs/Chris Simms and Ty Law all saying it was the wrong throw.
I agree with Ring that Maye is playing at very high level, but that doesn't absolve him of making a bad decision, which the int throw was.

 

[Ring 6]

Don't waste my time, Andy.

("I don't know what you mean" -- "Here's what I mean".

"Give me an example" -- "Here's an example". "

That's only one example" -- "Oh, sweet lord above, here we go down the rabbit-hole ...")

You watch the games and you know a lot about football, but this isn't the way to go, believe me.

I don’t know what you mean was to say I don’t know how you could say that because it’s wrong. I thought that was obvious.

Let’s recsp
You make a statement that isn’t backed up by facts regarding an inherent flaw
I say show me
You give one vague example of a 3 and out.
I say “that’s all you got”

You whine instead of explaining tv yourself.
That CERTAINLY isn’t the way to go. Believe me.

 

[Mike the Brit]

I don’t know what you mean was to say I don’t know how you could say that because it’s wrong. I thought that was obvious.

Let’s recsp
You make a statement that isn’t backed up by facts regarding an inherent flaw
I say show me
You give one vague example of a 3 and out.
I say “that’s all you got”

You whine instead of explaining tv yourself.
That CERTAINLY isn’t the way to go. Believe me.

Enough already. I'm done.

 

[Ring 6]

There's zero point Mike.
Ring still insisting the int was the right throw, despite an immense amount of evidence it wasn't, including Maye/Vrabs/Chris Simms and Ty Law all saying it was the wrong throw.
I agree with Ring that Maye is playing at very high level, but that doesn't absolve him of making a bad decision, which the int throw was.

You again?
So let’s recap.

We disagreed about a throw. (KCSEVEN agree with me btw)
You say I won’t admit I’m wrong when I simply state my analysis.
You demand that I must agree with you.

Then you state “you are done” then proceed to make the cowardly move of continuing to talk about my opinion without tagging me so I won’t see it.

Absolutely nothing had happened to change my mind. Hindsight is easy to use to say if the ball was going to be tipped he should have done something else. Has anyone said the play called for him to not throw to the open receiver in time and instead hesitate and throw it later?
Especially in that situation, a QBs job is to set and throw if the guy is open, which he was. There is no offensive system or coaching to say pass up the TD throw until you look to see if the DL hands are up. The result wasn’t good but maye executed it properly. Hindsight sating it was tipped so he should have changed the play and waited for the receiver to extend his route doesn’t change that.
I frankly don’t care what you opinion is, feel free to not be educated, but you have done nothing at all to change by analysis other than wish for a process in qbing that doesn’t exist.

 

[Ring 6]

Enough already. I'm done.

See this is how it goes.
Flipping unsupported remark that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny is challenged. You whine that I challenge it, I support my viewpoint, you give up.
Don’t make flippant unsupported remarks and you won’t have to run away from discussion.

 

[DoubleDeluxe]

You again?
So let’s recap.

We disagreed about a throw. (KCSEVEN agree with me btw)
You say I won’t admit I’m wrong when I simply state my analysis.
You demand that I must agree with you.

Then you state “you are done” then proceed to make the cowardly move of continuing to talk about my opinion without tagging me so I won’t see it.

Absolutely nothing had happened to change my mind. Hindsight is easy to use to say if the ball was going to be tipped he should have done something else. Has anyone said the play called for him to not throw to the open receiver in time and instead hesitate and throw it later?
Especially in that situation, a QBs job is to set and throw if the guy is open, which he was. There is no offensive system or coaching to say pass up the TD throw until you look to see if the DL hands are up. The result wasn’t good but maye executed it properly. Hindsight sating it was tipped so he should have changed the play and waited for the receiver to extend his route doesn’t change that.
I frankly don’t care what you opinion is, feel free to not be educated, but you have done nothing at all to change by analysis other than wish for a process in qbing that doesn’t exist.

Couple of things:
"make the cowardly move of continuing to talk about my opinion without tagging me"
I have never tagged anyone, don't even know how to, not cowardly at all, but attack the poster if you will.

"You demand that I must agree with you."
Please show where I demanded you agree with me.

"I simply state my analysis"
So your analysis is not only better than mine, but Chris Simms, Ty Law, Drake Maye and Mike Vrabel.

"but you have done nothing at all to change by analysis other than wish for a process in qbing that doesn’t exist."

I've provided more than enough evidence, paramount of which is open statements by people involved in the play, and guys that played the game. You ignore all that because you can't admit you're wrong, and insist "your analysis" is better than people involved in the play.