Official Post Game Thread - Pats beat the Bengals

Deus Irae · Dec 16, 2019

primetime said:
Josh Gordon has 7 catches with the Seahawks.

If people have complaints about Josh Gordon, the appropriate complaint is that the Patriots chose to keep him for too long and ditched Thomas instead.

Nah. The appropriate complaint is that, if they were going to cut him, they should have waited until Harry was ready to at least match him. He hasn't been that. This week may be, and hopefully was, where that point was reached.

Danger Zone · Dec 16, 2019

borg said:
The butthurtness of the home teamers is on full display with all the dislikes about my “Brady padding stats in 2007” truth.
Take the blinders off every once and awhile

Let’s review
Pats won 10 games by 20+ points in 2007 including 46, 45, 31 point wins

Cassel threw 7 passes all season

Pats had 3 times as many passing TDs as rushing 50 vs 17)

16-0
#1 seed with weeks to spare
And Brady is chasing records that are meaningless to the team’s ultimate goal.

This is the purest definition of stat padding you will ever encounter

Selective obliviousness is no way to go through life

When Manning or Brees rifle TDs into endzones while up by 30+ this board becomes triggered to no end. I’ve read such posts by the Brady defenders who delegitimize any great QB play at every opportunity.
When the sacred cow fires a late TD while up 35, crickets.
Fan boy consistency on full display

Manning and Brees have passed for essentially one more TD per season than sacred cow Brady resulting in the preposterous claim, “these QB’s are serial stat padders”
Imagine if they averaged two more.
You might come out of momma’s basement and riot.

Now back to your chores......clean up that Brady FatHead over your bunk bed. Are those smudges or what?

I'm sorry who's triggered again?

Deus Irae · Dec 16, 2019

Dorsett and Meyers combined for 16 snaps in this game. Anyone still want to blame Brady for the issues that were happening with that trio?

I loved the Dorsett trade, and it paid nice dividends. But he seems to have fallen out of favor because of bad reads, and he's going to need to find some way to get back in, or he's going to be looking for another team to pick him up after the season. I hope he can find a way to do it, but it's getting late early this season.

Deus Irae · Dec 16, 2019

luuked said:
Thats a myth. Dorsett didnt hesitate before the ball left Bradys hand. If Brady doesn't overshoot him Dorsett is in the right place for the TD.

There are multiple clips and stills that show that.

Not a myth

Deus Irae · Dec 16, 2019

luuked said:
Interesting observation by Dunn about Brady and his issues. He is anything but a hot take artist and for anyone not knowing him a hardcore x/0 person:

I can see where an elbow injury would affect just that.

Zolak was talking about Brady's pregame throws and saying that Brady was making faces after every throw (and indicated that he took that to mean the elbow was bothering Brady).

cmasspatsfan · Dec 16, 2019

Deus Irae said:
Zolak was talking about Brady's pregame throws and saying that Brady was making faces after every throw (and indicated that he took that to mean the elbow was bothering Brady).

Its obvious the elbows a problem, hopefully getting a bye helps that out

SVN · Dec 16, 2019

Curran: Interpret that win however you want

DaBruinz · Dec 16, 2019

luuked said:
I don't think they have the trust to run no huddle with so many unknowns. Not much worse than going 3 & out with not even giving the defense 2-3 minutes to rest.

Agree with some of your other points.

I have a hard time buying that they don't have the trust to go no huddle. That's what they did when it was down to Meyers and Oszlewski that one game. That's what they did against the Ravens.

With the Pats No-Huddle, they limit the route options and it made it easier for Brady to hit the open man vs. changing who the priority was on a given pass play.

DaBruinz · Dec 16, 2019

aluminum seats said:
On another note, saw that Collins doesn’t even have a quarterback hit since the Browns game. What’s up with that?

They've not been blitzing Collins as much. And the few times he's gotten into the backfield, he's whiffed on his tackle. Did it twice today with Mixon..

luuked · Dec 16, 2019

DaBruinz said:
That's what they did when it was down to Meyers and Oszlewski that one game. That's what they did against the Ravens

They really only went no huddle against the Ravens and there it was famously the same personnel (11 with Edelman, Dorsett, Sanu) on offense for the entire game with Sanu being the only player with a limited tree (which were mostly quick inside routes).

They tried against the Eagles and had to stop it the moment Dorsett was out with a concussion /and Sanu ineffective due to the lower foot injury suffered in that game.

Now Edelman is hurt and Sanu just slowly getting healthy from the high ankle sprain and they are experimenting with Harry's YAC ability over Meyers or Dorsett.

To me the issue is that if you have several players on the field that can only run a limited number of routes the matchup advantage you gain from the opponents not being able to substitute really disappear quickly.

But that is just interpretation of things.

Ring 6 · Dec 16, 2019

luuked said:
He didn't before the ball was in the air which means it didn't affect the throw. Stop arguing against something where there is actual video evidence.

What are you talking about? If he stopped after the ball was in the air then that is exactly what made the throw look off target. The qb can’t adjust for the wr stopping after he has thrown the ball.
the video evidence shows that YOU are wrong and your own words support it.

luuked · Dec 16, 2019

Ring 6 said:
What are you talking about? If he stopped after the ball was in the air then that is exactly what made the throw look off target. The qb can’t adjust for the wr stopping after he has thrown the ball.
the video evidence shows that YOU are wrong and your own words support it.

Jesus, seriously you have zero clue what you are talking about. Go check the tape.

The ball got away from Brady because he was not set after he took a step up in the pocket due to imagined pressure from behind.

If it would have been any lower Dorsett would have caught it. He was right next to the ball as it flew over him.

He also didnt stop, he slowed down for a beat. Which he shouldn't have done but it didnt affect the play as the ball was out before that already.

Ring 6 · Dec 16, 2019

luuked said:
Jesus, seriously you have zero clue what you are talking about. Go check the tape.

The ball got away from Brady because he was not set after he took a step up in the pocket due to imagined pressure from behind.

If it would have been any lower Dorsett would have caught it. He was right next to the ball as it flew over him.

He also didnt stop, he slowed down for a beat. Which he shouldn't have done but it didnt affect the play as the ball was out before that already.

Come on. You are wrong on this one. You admit he stopped when the ball was in the air. Brady threw it to where he was supposed to be. AFTER Brady put it in the right spot dorsett stopped so he couldn’t get to the right spot. It’s pretty simple but your agenda has you blinded.

luuked · Dec 16, 2019

Ring 6 said:
Come on. You are wrong on this one. You admit he stopped when the ball was in the air. Brady threw it to where he was supposed to be. AFTER Brady put it in the right spot dorsett stopped so he couldn’t get to the right spot. It’s pretty simple but your agenda has you blinded.

Look I will not argue with you because you clearly have not even put in 1% of the effort into this as I did.

I broke it down multiple times in the rewatch thread that week and then had another post with stills in the post game thread that showed how Brady's throw was off no matter what Dorsett would have done. And Dorsett was close enough to the ball to make a play if he had actually put it into a catchable place.

If you can't bother to check out the scene yourself, stop it a couple times and see for yourself then it is a pointless discussion. Either have a good faith discussion but then you can't be too lazy to do the work or stick with your opinion but stop spewing it as some kind of fact.

shmessy · Dec 16, 2019

Tb12goesinya said:
Let me break this down..

If Buffalo lost tonight they would have been 9-5. Pats 11-3. Buffalo 1 division loss. Pats 0 division losses.

If Buffalo won out under that scenario they would be 11-5 with 1 division loss.

If Pats lost out they would be 11-5 IDENTICAL RECORD as Buffalo. Split head to head. BUT 2 division losses.

So Buffalo would have been divison champs with identical record.

That is moot because Buffalo won, but there you have it.

Wrong. Why do you write that a SECOND time without simply checking?

Common opponent is the tiebreaker before division record.

Posting this a second time after you were informed is just weird. You could have easily checked. But no, you were intent on just going ahead and spreading your misinformation a second time.

.

Ring 6 · Dec 16, 2019

luuked said:
Look I will not argue with you because you clearly have not even put in 1% of the effort into this as I did.

I broke it down multiple times in the rewatch thread that week and then had another post with stills in the post game thread that showed how Brady's throw was off no matter what Dorsett would have done. And Dorsett was close enough to the ball to make a play if he had actually put it into a catchable place.

If you can't bother to check out the scene yourself, stop it a couple times and see for yourself then it is a pointless discussion. Either have a good faith discussion but then you can't be too lazy to do the work or stick with your opinion but stop spewing it as some kind of fact.

You are the one spewing your opinion as fact.
The one fact that exists is dorsett didn’t finish his route.

Tb12goesinya · Dec 16, 2019

shmessy said:
Wrong. Why do you write that a SECOND time without simply checking?

Common opponent is the tiebreaker before division record.

Posting this a second time after you were informed is just weird. You could have easily checked. But no, you were intent on just going ahead and spreading your misinformation a second time.

.

I did check. Unless I'm reading an old rulebook online the tiebreakers for divison are:

1. Head to head
2. Division winning percentage
3. Common games win percentage
4. Conference win percentage
5. Strength of victory
6. Strength of schedule
7. Etc etc

Can you please explain to me what I am missing?

shmessy · Dec 16, 2019

Tb12goesinya said:
I did check. Unless I'm reading an old rulebook online the tiebreakers for divison are:

1. Head to head
2. Division winning percentage
3. Common games win percentage
4. Conference win percentage
5. Strength of victory
6. Strength of schedule
7. Etc etc

Can you please explain to me what I am missing?

Look, I'm trying to see your point, but I'm having trouble with it. The Bills most definitely CAN win the division, but only with a better won-loss record - - a tie and the Pats win on tiebreaker.

Sunday 7: Don’t read into Tom Brady stepping down from role of local Best Buddies co-chair

6. While next week against Buffalo is a huge game, it may not matter as much as some think when it comes to the AFC East title. If both teams win this week and then Buffalo were to win next week, the teams would be tied at 11-4. But, if the teams finish the year tied, the Patriots have the tiebreaker edge. To break a tiebreaker within a division, it starts with head-to-head (tie), then record within division (tie), and then common games. Buffalo has lost to the Eagles and Browns, which are both games the Patriots won, so they would get the tiebreaker. In order for Buffalo to win the division and the Patriots to become a No. 5 seed, New England would need to lose to Buffalo, and either Cincinnati or Miami.

102 Pat · Dec 16, 2019

The morning after a Patriots win is such a great feeling, brings an instant smile to my face...

Tb12goesinya · Dec 16, 2019

shmessy said:
Sunday 7: Don’t read into Tom Brady stepping down from role of local Best Buddies co-chair

6. While next week against Buffalo is a huge game, it may not matter as much as some think when it comes to the AFC East title. If both teams win this week and then Buffalo were to win next week, the teams would be tied at 11-4. But, if the teams finish the year tied, the Patriots have the tiebreaker edge. To break a tiebreaker within a division, it starts with head-to-head (tie), then record within division (tie), and then common games. Buffalo has lost to the Eagles and Browns, which are both games the Patriots won, so they would get the tiebreaker. In order for Buffalo to win the division and the Patriots to become a No. 5 seed, New England would need to lose to Buffalo, and either Cincinnati or Miami.

If Pats lost last 2 and Buffalo won last 2, wouldn't Pats have a worse division record?

So if buff lost last night that tiebreaker could have came into play.

Am I still missing something?

Official Post Game Thread - Pats beat the Bengals

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Pats, B's, Sox

Pats, B's, Sox

Hall of Fame Poster

PatsFans.com Supporter

Hall of Fame Poster

PatsFans.com Supporter

Hall of Fame Poster

Phoenix, AZ/Retired

PatsFans.com Supporter

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Phoenix, AZ/Retired

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Similar threads