Christ... this post. This is like watching a car wreck in slow motion.
NE has the most athletic LBs in the history of the NFL.
ATL's RBs were the worst duo in the history of the league.
I rest my case. I'm glad to have finally helped you come to the realization that:
1. Football, and the majority of sports, are about match-ups.
2. The Atlanta RB's were not a good match-up for the majority of LB corps in the league, New England's being one of them.
That makes this "point"...
Since you started begging and crying like a ***** about digging up your posts post-AFCCG, here is the first one in your series of over exaggerations, all from the same thread:
We are On To Atlanta....
In this one, you state that you have no clue how the Pats would deal with the Falcons offense (of course you don't, since your dumbass rarely ever has a clue about anything other than what your favorite flavor of ice cream is.) You make it seem as though any approach NE goes with will lead to complete disaster, because the Falcons offense is just such a bad matchup for the NE defense. (NE goes on to hold that offense to only 21 points and 1-8 on 3rd down, including many clutch stops in the 2nd half.)
We are On To Atlanta....
To someone attempting to clam you down, telling you that Bill will have two weeks to gameplan and prepare, you replied that it doesn't matter how long he has. This genius literally said that it doesn't matter how long the greatest coach in the history of the game has to prepare, because the LBs will be a liability regardless, and that will lead to disaster. It's not as if we've ever seen Bill develop a gameplan to stifle high powered offenses before (as a DC and as a HC) or anything.
We are On To Atlanta....
You then go on to say it will be a long day for the defense, once again emphasizing how bad of a match up it is. Once again, just to reiterate, the defense was barely on the field, because they were incredibly efficient on 3rd down. So much for "a long day." The defense had their way with that offense, and the lack of athleticism at LB did not hinder their ability to shut them down when it mattered most. As anyone with a brain (this does not include you) could have predicted, Bill prepared the defense superbly in those 2 weeks.
Par for the course for you last season. From September all the way to February, nothing but **** posts (that all turned out to be wrong) from a sub-educated peasant.
...about as useless as your social life since you've now come to the realization that you agreed with me the entire time. The Patriots did, too. That's why they schemed the way they did starting early in the second quarter.
Back to Butler. Of course they played Cover 2 based on opponent. Against teams with legit WR threats, they were mostly in Cover 2 for the duration of those games. Go down the list of opponents. Even against Denver and their ****ty QB, that was primarily a Cover 2 game. Same with the Texans and their ****ty QB in the first meeting - very rarely were they in Cover 1 or Cover 3 that game. Perfect approach, as you've got an elite safety unit to cover up for the weaknesses of the CBs against elite WRs.
The point about the Texans isn't correct. Outside of Hopkins, they didn't really appear to be worried about Fuller or anyone else on that side of the ball (or Assweiler's ability to get it to them). Especially in the playoff game, the Patriots employed variations of a Cover-1 which frequently allowed the Patriots to rush Hightower and other LB's when the RB stayed home to pass protect. The results paid off big time. Another piece of evidence supporting that, if you know what you're looking at (and I suspect you don't) is that the SS played very close to the LOS in that game. Even a discriminate look at the snap totals shows Chung played 62 snaps (90%) in the game and he was usually matched up with whoever was coming out of the slot. So yeah, as usually, you're flinging crap to the wall to see what sticks. As is usually the case with your posts, nothing does.
The defense last season was elite - best in the league, actually - because they had many different pieces that fit the system and because they were coached by the best in the game. Hell, most of them were rejects from other teams or undrafted. There's no need to overrated a single player just because he was labelled CB1.
Yeah, I said several times that the defense was playing exceptionally well after the bye week. Now you're saying there's no need to overrate a single player because he was "labelled" a CB1. Previously, you backtracked and tried to make the point that he's only a CB2 now because Gilmore is here... and that was after originally attempting to make the point that you just made above. Another example in a host of them that you don't even know what you're arguing at this point. You're not very good at this whole football analysis thing. That's understandable since you clearly never played the sport competitively in your life given your clear confusion on it attempting to be masked in some kind of embarrassing internet bravado. You're also not very good at this "logic" thing either, which
is surprising because you champion yourself as "educated", when really nobody else does. Swing and miss again.
Butler has performed very well in his role, and will continue to do very well along side Gilmore, but you're an imbecile if you don't believe he would take an enormous step back and that he would be exposed in a different system, with a different coach, and without elite safeties back there.
Here's some good, old fashioned confusion about the position I'm arguing from. After you sober up from the Skol and Bud Ice induced hangover and crawl your way out of whatever toilet you live in, you might need to go back to your school of choice and formally press charges. Especially if you paid to go to a private school. This is a tour de force of reading comprehension failure topped with a brain dead, flailing attempt at trying to make a point. If you're confused (and you probably are since you come off as kind of dim), I never tried to make the point that Butler wouldn't take a step back under a lesser team or playing for a lesser coach. As an exercise, if you think I did, go back and quote where I made that point.
The anxiety and mental fragility you display in the gameday threads makes sense though.
"Your posts are usually a must skip for me". Lmaooooo. You can't even cover up your own B.S. anymore. You're not very good at this.
You put so much stock into what's supposed to be a form of entertainment.
More comedy gold from a guy that just wrote more words than the Communist Manifesto about me, and the subject in particular. You may want to try hopping on Tinder, Bumble, or Grinder. You get way too worked up about this.
So much so that as we all know by know, since you post about it literally every time the 2007 season is brought up, you cried like a ***** after SB42. Imagine crying like a ***** due the the result of a football game. Tell us more about that, fragile flower.
The rest of this post was an outright embarrassment. I have no clue how you weren't just sitting behind your computer or Metro PCS Android and shaking your head in disgust about this triggered, little temper tantrum that you just got masterfully baited into. But
this is absolutely cringe worthy. The event in question occurred 9 years ago and I know for a fact that I haven't told that story in at least 3 years now. That's legitimately the creepiest thing I've ever come across on the internet. Between this and the knowledge that you like watching grown, roided and oiled up men wrestle in tights, do I need to worry about you sending a PM wanting to get together "for a drink"? Jeeeeesus.
Anyway, I'm done with you now. This isn't even really a challenge anymore and I have better things to do than to waste my time writing a few hundred words responding to you. Keep being you, though. It's very entertaining as a virtual bystander to watch.
