I Seriously Do Not Think Moss Will Be Back

[patsfan-1982]

i think today is the last day to tag player and im still hopeing moss will be back but if hes not brady will go back to haveing 20 to 25 TD pass and 3300 to 3500 yerds and if maroney dose not have 1600 plus yerd and the D dont play like they did 2 yers ago this team wont win more then 11 games and get kicked out of the frist round of the playoffs

 

[DaBruinz]

Throwing the ball three times is doing what you do best, and that increases your chances to win. See SB 36, you don't take a knee, you play to win. So they clearly could have gotten in huh? Hindsight is great isn't it. You score TD's, when you can. You think they can score whenever they like? They why didn't they on the last drive?

Throwing the ball 3 times is DESPERATION at that point in the game and it sure as hell doesn't increase your chances to win. Particularly when you give the ball back to a team that's been moving the ball fairly easily against your defense.

Playing to win without clock management is a sure fire way to guarantee you lose. As the Pats have shown in each of the last two years.

And, why do you insist on being so friggin ignorant and putting words into my mouth. I did NOT ONCE say they could score whenever they liked. But from 1st and goal on the 6, they damn well better be able to put the ball in.

You really need to work on the bigger picture of things. Your tactics are good, but your startegy sucks.

Let me put it to you this way, with the SB on the line and time under 3 or 4 minutes or whatever it was, I am not gonna run the risk of milking the clock cause I know I am gonna score, and then score as if it's gonna happen. You don't know if they are gonna score and neither do they. That's why they did what they do best and pass. It's really not that complicated.

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

It was 1st and goal from the 6 with 2:55 left to play in the game with the Pats trailing by 3. The Giants knew the Pats were going to put points on the board. Either a FG to tie or a TD to win. The Pats also knew they were going to put points on the board. GOOD Strategy and Tactics calls for sound clock management by forcing the Giants to use a time out or let play run off the clock to the 2 minute warning. If the Pats RUN the ball, they take a minimum of 10 - 15 seconds off the clock and force the Giants to do one of two things. Either use a time out or let the Pats run between 50 and 55 seconds off the clock and get down near or to the 2 minute warning. If the Giants use a Time Out, that is one less than they had and would have needed after they get the ball back. Then, the Pats win because the Giants don't have the ability to stop the clock enough times.

While the Pats are best at throwing the ball, not running the ball ONCE and ignoring clock management is what EVERYONE has knocked coaches like Tony Dungy and Herm Edwards about.

You can sit there and disagree all you want, but coaches ALWAYS preach clock management as being a key issue in winning or losing a game. And clock management is what the Patriots ignored last year against the Colts and this year against the Giants. And one could point to an arrogance of thinking that their passing game was their best asset and that they could use it to make up for any other deficiency.

OH, btw, had the Pats put their jumbo package in and run 2 plays up the gut, they probalby could have run wide and scored on the 3rd time. All the while taking up gobs of time and making it that much harder for the Giants to score.

 

[IcyPatriot]

I guess we will know by 4pm today, when one of the domino's fall..

But we never know by 4PM ... Belichick cheats with letting us know at 4PM ...

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

It was 1st and goal from the 6 with 2:55 left to play in the game with the Pats trailing by 3. The Giants knew the Pats were going to put points on the board. Either a FG to tie or a TD to win. The Pats also knew they were going to put points on the board. GOOD Strategy and Tactics calls for sound clock management by forcing the Giants to use a time out or let play run off the clock to the 2 minute warning. If the Pats RUN the ball, they take a minimum of 10 - 15 seconds off the clock and force the Giants to do one of two things. Either use a time out or let the Pats run between 50 and 55 seconds off the clock and get down near or to the 2 minute warning. If the Giants use a Time Out, that is one less than they had and would have needed after they get the ball back. Then, the Pats win because the Giants don't have the ability to stop the clock enough times.

Your argument is solid, as usual. However I think it was a 50-50 call. With 3 TO and the 2MW the Giants had plenty of clock stoppages and if we don't score a TD we can only tie which leaves the NYG with 2+ minutes to get into FG range.

It comes down to : increased chance of scoring a TD (by throwing) and giving the Giants plenty of time to score but needing a FG. Versus maybe only giving yourself one shot at a TD and if you don't make it then the Giants only need a FG to win and they have plenty of time for that.

I really think this is one of those cases where it's the right decision if it works. Now, if we could have run the clock way down and gone to O.T. I'd have liked our chances but that wasn't the case.

 

[IcyPatriot]

I think a good part of this thread should be what real benefit does a deep man give you? SS's and FS's have become so athletic that they have become seperate from the rest of the D. By that I mean a team can have 8 in the box with 2 CB and the FS playing deep. The 8 men in the box get the pressure and the 3 secondary players are strong and fast enough to negate the deep ball that has no time to be thrown.

So does a deep threat really stretch the field?
if you have a Welker or a great TE it does help. But today's DL's are like yesterdays LB's with their speed and the deep ball seems to be in jepordy.

Does it pay to have a 6-8 million dollar burner like Moss when another college kid can run just as fast as a rookie? Of course no way the rook catches the ball like Randy or gets open like Randy ... I am just having a hard time justifying the money if it doesn't really help get a ring.

We were never afraid of opponents best receivers in the playoffs ... we shut down Santana Moss, Marvin Harrison, Ward ... all of them and they shut down Randy ... seems like the money can be spent elsewhere. I Loved watching Randy play ... but I like the rings better.

 

[fgssand]

I think a good part of this thread should be what real benefit does a deep man give you? SS's and FS's have become so athletic that they have become separate from the rest of the D. By that I mean a team can have 8 in the box with 2 CB and the FS playing deep. The 8 men in the box get the pressure and the 3 secondary players are strong and fast enough to negate the deep ball that has no time to be thrown.

So does a deep threat really stretch the field?
if you have a Welker or a great TE it does help. But today's DL's are like yesterdays LB's with their speed and the deep ball seems to be in jepordy.

Does it pay to have a 6-8 million dollar burner like Moss when another college kid can run just as fast as a rookie? Of course no way the rook catches the ball like Randy or gets open like Randy ... I am just having a hard time justifying the money if it doesn't really help get a ring.

We were never afraid of opponents best receivers in the playoffs ... we shut down Santana Moss, Marvin Harrison, Ward ... all of them and they shut down Randy ... seems like the money can be spent elsewhere. I Loved watching Randy play ... but I like the rings better.

There is no doubt it's all about the ring. My take is having a healthy Randy Moss helps greatly in getting one.

They lost that game not because Randy Moss was covered, but because Brady was a shell of what he was during the season (ankle and Sports hernia rendered him useless in the face of what the Giants were bringing). Better coaching on both sides of the ball along with one play on "D" would have brought that ring home.

Looking forward - I like our chances much more with RM than without.

 

[Xzibit23]

I think a good part of this thread should be what real benefit does a deep man give you? SS's and FS's have become so athletic that they have become seperate from the rest of the D. By that I mean a team can have 8 in the box with 2 CB and the FS playing deep. The 8 men in the box get the pressure and the 3 secondary players are strong and fast enough to negate the deep ball that has no time to be thrown.

So does a deep threat really stretch the field?
if you have a Welker or a great TE it does help. But today's DL's are like yesterdays LB's with their speed and the deep ball seems to be in jepordy.

Does it pay to have a 6-8 million dollar burner like Moss when another college kid can run just as fast as a rookie? Of course no way the rook catches the ball like Randy or gets open like Randy ... I am just having a hard time justifying the money if it doesn't really help get a ring.

We were never afraid of opponents best receivers in the playoffs ... we shut down Santana Moss, Marvin Harrison, Ward ... all of them and they shut down Randy ... seems like the money can be spent elsewhere. I Loved watching Randy play ... but I like the rings better.

You're being infected with Scott Brosius disease...which is basically when Yankee fans think Brosius would be a better 3B for them team than Arod because they won with Brosius at 3B before. Nevermind that Arod is Brosius X 1000...Brosius was on championship teams so he was part of the formula. It doesnt matter that they now lose because of their pitching and not Arod..the responsibility will always fall on the big name guy you have now that you didnt have then. Its the same thing with the Pats..their Oline and their defense, in the 4th quarter, are what failed them..not Moss. Football is the ultimate team sport..you cant use not winning the SB as an indictment on Moss regardless of his individual play.

 

[Satchboogie3]

I think a good part of this thread should be what real benefit does a deep man give you? SS's and FS's have become so athletic that they have become seperate from the rest of the D. By that I mean a team can have 8 in the box with 2 CB and the FS playing deep. The 8 men in the box get the pressure and the 3 secondary players are strong and fast enough to negate the deep ball that has no time to be thrown.

So does a deep threat really stretch the field?
if you have a Welker or a great TE it does help. But today's DL's are like yesterdays LB's with their speed and the deep ball seems to be in jepordy.

Does it pay to have a 6-8 million dollar burner like Moss when another college kid can run just as fast as a rookie? Of course no way the rook catches the ball like Randy or gets open like Randy ... I am just having a hard time justifying the money if it doesn't really help get a ring.

We were never afraid of opponents best receivers in the playoffs ... we shut down Santana Moss, Marvin Harrison, Ward ... all of them and they shut down Randy ... seems like the money can be spent elsewhere. I Loved watching Randy play ... but I like the rings better.

You just don't get it. No other receiver faces as much double, triple, and quadruple coverage as Moss. If we just got a fast rookie WR, the defense WOULDN'T pay that much attention to him. Being fast alone doesn't get you open, you have to have great moves and skills. Moss is a freak, he is the fastest WR to ever play the game.

Defenses have to pick how they will lose, either they let Moss beat them, or they refuse to let him beat them. Either way, Moss has a HUGE impact on the game. Just some fast random WR won't have that effect. You have to realize what it takes to be an effective WR.
You have to know all the plays and make sure you don't screw up a route, or you probably looking at a INT.
You have to have great leaping ability (if we're comparing to Moss) so you can go up and get the ball.
You have to be tall, otherwise tall CB can dominate you.
You have to have great hands and be able to take the ball away from the DB (Moss routinely takes INT away and turns them into amazing receptions). You have to be able to read the defense and make the necessary adjustments to either A. get open or B. get someone else open by drawing coverage. There aren't a lot of smart WR who do that well.
You have to have great moves to fake the DB and make him byte on a fake route so you can get open.
You have to have great recognition of the defense so you understand the best way to manipulate the defense and get open.
And lastly, you have to have great awareness and always know where the ball is.

THAT is what makes Moss so deadly. He possess all of those skills.

So lets recap. If teams DON'T focus coverage on Moss, he beats them for a huge game. If they DO focus coverage on Moss, it will OPEN up the field and let other guys get single or sometimes no coverage. And sometimes Moss will STILL have a big game, even when they focus on him.

You are never going to be able to replace that. I just can't believe people want to significantly downgrade our offense for NO REASON.

Just remember this, had our O-line held up in the Superbowl, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead we would be talking about the greatest team ever and that Moss was GOAT. A WR can't do a thing without the QB throwing the ball accurately to them, or without an O-line giving the QB time to get the ball to him.