Coaching vs Talent

[Brady2Moss]

No the argument was that our offense gets manhandled by good defenses.
This has turned into we scored 35 vs the 49ers but they really manhandled us because they would have if Smith wasn't hurt, and those points don't count because you think the 49ers forgot how to play defense, but would have manhandled us if they wanted to.

As far as getting someone behind Gronk, I don't know how you expect to have 3 starting caliber TEs with the 3rd being better than the 2 border line starter caliber guys we had here.
What starting caliber TE is going to come here to be #3 so he can be Gronk insurance?

You just want to make his post appear stupid he clearly meant getting an outside receiver to alleviate the loss, not getting Vernon Davis to back up Gronk

 

[Ring 6]

Lol you have 4 different people telling you your wrong and because I do not want to go through a bunch of games to find some names and numbers for you you're right? Are you sure you and Deus Irae aren't the same person you sure post in the same snobish manner.

If you think this team is physical enough in the playoffs that's your opinion, it'll keep you happy till next January when they get knocked out by the same gameplan.

You are trying to establish that a big hitter makes a huge difference. You are wrong. The reason you are wrong is that the biggest hitters deliever less than one of those hits a game. It does not have players running around in fear of it.
I don't really care who disagrees with me when the argument is a bad one.

Being 'physical' has nothing to do with why they lost this game. If it makes you feel better to think they are ****ies and scared of the Ravens, go with that, but it just isn't true.

 

[Ring 6]

You just want to make his post appear stupid he clearly meant getting an outside receiver to alleviate the loss, not getting Vernon Davis to back up Gronk

He said back up TE.

 

[jnug]

And Gronk will always be vulnerable to injury cause he is a big physical tight end playing off the shoulder pad of a tackle. That is the fly in the ointment of having a TE as your only legit deep threat.

I used to laugh when people would look at Gronk's play his first year and comment about what a monster he was "what a beast" as if the rigors of NFL play would not eventually grind him down just like it does to all of them. Pats must have a way to maintain this offense when Gronk is out and so far, against the better teams in the NFL, they just don't have it. You can go 10-6 in the NFL with what they have and you can get into the post season with what they have. But having a guy that lines up next to your tackle as your only deep threat and expecting him to be there in January and fully capable of going deep and getting up there to pull down the football is probably something close to wishful thinking.

I don't think anybody would argue that they need to find another Gronk and sit him on the bench...good luck with that one. They need another deep threat and one that is not a tight end.

 

[Brady2Moss]

He said back up TE.

He said someone not back up TE,

but anyway what do you think the reason they lost the game was. Physicality wasn't all of it, but it played a role our receivers are ****ies when they get hit excluding Gronk.

 

[DocHoliday]

No the argument was that our offense gets manhandled by good defenses.
This has turned into we scored 35 vs the 49ers but they really manhandled us because they would have if Smith wasn't hurt, and those points don't count because you think the 49ers forgot how to play defense, but would have manhandled us if they wanted to.

As far as getting someone behind Gronk, I don't know how you expect to have 3 starting caliber TEs with the 3rd being better than the 2 border line starter caliber guys we had here.
What starting caliber TE is going to come here to be #3 so he can be Gronk insurance?

1.) they manhandled us, they suffered an injury, allowing us to get into the game, then resumed manhandling our now tired LT/RT with backup DTs at DE.

2.) you are replying against many different people, so address them separately. My thought is that this D gets manhandled when Gronk is out, which has been the case this year, last year, and in 2010 when Gronk was a rookie.

3.) see next post, but no TE will replace Gronk, easier to spruce up 3 WR with physical deep threat.