PatsFans.com - Mobile
PatsFans.com
Search

Content Post Idle thoughts - Preseason- defense/ST's edition

2021 Patriots Season:
Upcoming Opponent:
Next Up: at Chargers
Pick Results: NE: 0% at LAC: 0%

Sun
Oct 31st

Current Patriots Twitter Feed:
This has an opening post with good commentary and information, which we definitely recommend reading.

One-If-By-Sea

2nd Team Getting Their First Start
your point?

Does the CBA forbid teams from restricting the unvaccinated?

Does the CBA require such rules be approved by the union?

I would point out that 28 teams have over 89% vaccinated, with one team at 100%. The NFL has said that it will very strict this year with regard to consequences for those COVID infections of anyone not vaccinated. I suspect that if there had been full FDA approval before the NFL set the 2021 rules, vaccinations would have been required.
==============
I would point out that the risk to the team is great. If Cam tests positive, the whole QB room will be excluded for a time from practices and games.
At the very least, Cam shouldn't be attending QB and team offense meetings in person.

You said the team should have a rule related to vaccines. I think the league has to establish a rule, not the individual teams.
 

Hyped

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
While there remain a couple teams designed to need an "old fashioned" full of beef run stopping (and I use that word specifically) defense; the numbers overall don't support aligning the majority of your defensive cap space to that end. Instead teams have to be able to get 4, 5, and even 6 viable DBs on the field at once to slow the skill position players in the passing offenses that dominate the league's best teams.

So teams have to try and get DTs/DEs adept enough at both run and pass defense instead of true pure specialists (which due to the explosion of TEs that can do both increases the exposure of said specialists to exploitation in the part of the game they're weaker in). They want run slowing defenses - the Bucs had the best YPC defense last year at 3.6 - over half a yard more YPC average than the best team in 2001 (San Diego).


So that's the measuring stick for the Pats this year - have they gotten "better enough" where they're able to slow the run versus the good teams instead of being gashed by EVERY team's running game like last year?

Yeah, I agree. We don't need to shut down the running games...just slow them down and get the offense in more 3rd and 5+ downs.

But that usually starts with a good stop on first down to force the offense to consider passing on 2nd down. Last year, we had too many 5+ yard rushes on first down which led to 3rd and shorts that were easily converted....
 

Hyped

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Why the FUKC should I wear a fukcing mask if I've already been fukcing vaccinated?

OK I've said my piece too... See how that works?

At the risk of derailing this thread, wearing a mask might prevent the spread of COVID by maybe 10-15%+ on your end if you are asymptomatic. And in turn if everyone did so....the spread would be reduced by maybe 40-45%+, IMO.

It does not protect you 100%...or even 20-25%, IMO....but it might save a life or two. Just today I read about a cancer patient needing emergency surgery being turned away from a hospital overrun with unvaccinated COVID patients taking up all beds (the patient found another hospital though). The Delta variant = 1 person infecting 6 people......and it is why we have the HIGHEST numbers since January, 2021.....and the numbers are still going up.

I just want to be done with this pandemic as soon as possible. I want to go to sporting events mask less....I want to hit the bar and high five everybody....I want to fly someplace where there are white sands, blue waters, and coconut drinks with umbrellas in them.

And here in San Diego, they just again advised us all to wear masks indoors. I don't wear a mask when I walk my dog outside though....but have not shed my mask indoors for almost 2 years now. Every time I go to the hospital or any medical facility, they ALL ARE WEARING masks...ditto for employees of restaurants and etc.... so...as long as they all are wearing masks so will I....

For me, it boils down to being concerned about other people and doing your part.

OK, I will STFU now for real....
 

woolster22

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
Lol…you have no idea what you’re talking about. None. Neither of your links relate to how the virus attacks the body. One link notes that blood clotting appears to be more prevalent in cases where long-term Covid develops. And yes, nothing burgers…neither study offers anything other than extremely early stage hypothesis.

Did you actually think Covid does not attack the respiratory system because blood clotting was observed in long Covid?

mRNA is not experimental…the specific Covid strain was merely adapted to a technology that existed for years.

You’re so confused…mixing up the two studies. The long Covid blood clotting has nothing to do with fenofibrate. The if here is remarkable…neither of your solutions has even been given a clinical trial yet, and the vaccine was released six months ago. Lol…a conspiracy theory because the medical community opted for an existing vaccine rather than something that would be discovered in the future?

Hmmmm…vaccines aren’t cheap (free) or proven safe (negligible death rates or side effects.). Got it.

First time. Why not? Because there isn’t a typically a pandemic that makes the necessary long-term trials impossible to clear within a sensible timeframe. This is why many times in history, vaccines have needed to be rolled out quicker. It’s a pragmatic considerstion that you take on small risk when the alternative is a greater risk.

You should probably stop pretending to be a philosopher/doctor at this point. Your jig is up…you truly are dangerously misinformed.
I didn't say lungs early on, the medicinal community was warning against it. Young daughter with lung issues the winters prior is why I vividly remember. But keep ranting like I was proclamating a vector, rather than pointing out the medical community, despite its volumes of knowledge, doesn't really know either.

If you don't see the clear sign pointing towards the group of meds the fatty acid falls under, from the long covid case, I can't help you. Go read some more.

mRNA is absolutely experimental. Name and source for any mRNA treatment approved by the FDA prior to covid. This is an inconvenient truth.

Why is it mRNA was selected for emergency auth? Why was it pushed on our officials? If you really think pharmaceutical companies give a damn about anything but the bottom line, you're a fool. Epi-pens? Opiates? Christ. ROI, just like any business. They had an opportunity and have killed any competitor treatment in the exact safety trials skipped - despite the above linked alternative already being ruled safe in a different treatment.

It isn't a conspiracy, it's business and unquestioned authority. Money is a motive for the pharmaceutical industry, to forget their motives are never pure is foolhardy.

What's the alternative greater risk to anyone who isn't a Boomer (and therefor sitting on an estimated 70T wealth?), and relatively healthy? The lethality rates are known to be damn low without co-morbidities. IE, thin out the herd. It's not like 'the sugars,' heart disease and father time weren't going to get the vast majority of those lost to covid sooner rather than later.

Mask mandates I'm cool with. The point ypu missed re delta: delta was id'd long before vaccination efforts had really ramped up. The idea the unvaccinated caused the virus that already had mutated and id'd as potentially resistant because of some change with the spike protein to spread, while ignoring the fact that even if vaccinated, you can still host/spread, is intellectually repugnant.

Far from misinformed. You obviously get your information from the 'idiot-box,' probably a lost cause. Go buy a sixer and grab a big mac, the idiot box would never feed you filth
 

woolster22

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
My refusal to refer to the covid vaccine as a vaccine bites me in the ass. mRNA vaccine. The health orgs literally had to amend the definition of vaccine to include mrna therapies, as they clearly didn't meet the basics of prevention or prior methodology and definitions. But keep gas lighting like I'm the crazy one.

CRISPR: CRISPR Clinical Trials: A 2019 Update - SynBioBeta
Trials, plenty. Based from the family you displayed, sure. But the mrna tech in 98 is a far cry from where things are at now.
 

SlowGettingUp

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job
I will restrain myself from posting more about Covid on this thread even though this is an area I am very familiar with, having actually worked on a potential therapy. All I will say is much misinformation can be found in say Woolster22's posts.

So back to the defense, and specifically the pass rush. People often talk about running back by committee, but they rarely talk about pass rush by committee. But that's what we have here. Many players that can consistently win one-on-one - folks like Judon, Uche, Hightower, KVN, Barmore, Winovich and maybe Perkins. But it's way harder for the O-line to block when they have no clue where the rush is coming from, and when it's not just one-on-one but varied stunts.

With most teams it is easy to list the couple of players that will have the most pressures. But with the Pats who knows? So here's my prediction challenge: Which three Patriots will have the most QB pressures this season? I'll go with Judon, Uche and Barmore, but I'd be interested in hearing other predictions.
 

masterbouncer

Third String But Playing on Special Teams
NFL Picks Grand Champ!
I will restrain myself from posting more about Covid on this thread even though this is an area I am very familiar with, having actually worked on a potential therapy. All I will say is much misinformation can be found in say Woolster22's posts.
yep, who would have guessed

woolster22 when posting his nonsense about mRNA:
Burnie Burns Conspiracy GIF by Rooster Teeth
 
Last edited:

PP2

Pro Bowl Player
At the risk of derailing this thread, wearing a mask might prevent the spread of COVID by maybe 10-15%+ on your end if you are asymptomatic. And in turn if everyone did so....the spread would be reduced by maybe 40-45%+, IMO.

It does not protect you 100%...or even 20-25%, IMO....but it might save a life or two. Just today I read about a cancer patient needing emergency surgery being turned away from a hospital overrun with unvaccinated COVID patients taking up all beds (the patient found another hospital though). The Delta variant = 1 person infecting 6 people......and it is why we have the HIGHEST numbers since January, 2021.....and the numbers are still going up.

I just want to be done with this pandemic as soon as possible. I want to go to sporting events mask less....I want to hit the bar and high five everybody....I want to fly someplace where there are white sands, blue waters, and coconut drinks with umbrellas in them.

And here in San Diego, they just again advised us all to wear masks indoors. I don't wear a mask when I walk my dog outside though....but have not shed my mask indoors for almost 2 years now. Every time I go to the hospital or any medical facility, they ALL ARE WEARING masks...ditto for employees of restaurants and etc.... so...as long as they all are wearing masks so will I....

For me, it boils down to being concerned about other people and doing your part.

OK, I will STFU now for real....

Where do you get those numbers? Did you just make them up?

From the EPA website, if you are wearing a medical mask, properly applied, with no corner gaps, the effectiveness is 60.3%

If you are wearing a N95 mask, the effectiveness is 98.4%

If you are wearing medical mask, maintain social distance, and do not stand in one place too long, then the effectiveness of avoiding being infected goes way up.

It's just too bad these simple, common sense, guidelines couldn't be followed. This i s going to last longer than the 1918 epidemic because people didn't politicize masks in 1918.

iu.jpeg
 

PScottman

In the Starting Line-Up
This i s going to last longer than the 1918 epidemic because people didn't politicize masks in 1918.

"San Francisco’s first masking order began in October and ended in November after the World War I armistice. In January, when flu cases began to surge again in San Francisco, the city implemented a second mask order. This time, the resistance was much more intense. A group of dissenters that included a few physicians and one member of the Board of Supervisors formed the “Anti-Mask League,” which held a public meeting with over 2,000 attendees."

and


"Organized resistance to mask wearing was not common, Dr. Markel said, but it was present. “There were flare-ups, there were scuffles and there were occasional groups, like the Anti-Mask League,” he said, “but that is the exception rather than the rule.”"

The parallels are actually more similar in that the original mask mandates both then and now, were followed pretty closely. It was only during a second wave where the resistance against masks more fully metastasized.

Also the Information Age has facilitated a greater voice and reach of sub-groups (the 1918 "Anti-Mask League" had no such global reach) presenting at least an appearance that the resistance may be more so (percentage of population wise) now than then. I tend to doubt had the "Anti-Mask League" had access to such reach and messaging via tools like social media that their aims and goals would not have been "politicized" more broadly. An unheard message cannot gather followers.
 

PP2

Pro Bowl Player

"San Francisco’s first masking order began in October and ended in November after the World War I armistice. In January, when flu cases began to surge again in San Francisco, the city implemented a second mask order. This time, the resistance was much more intense. A group of dissenters that included a few physicians and one member of the Board of Supervisors formed the “Anti-Mask League,” which held a public meeting with over 2,000 attendees."

and


"Organized resistance to mask wearing was not common, Dr. Markel said, but it was present. “There were flare-ups, there were scuffles and there were occasional groups, like the Anti-Mask League,” he said, “but that is the exception rather than the rule.”"

The parallels are actually more similar in that the original mask mandates both then and now, were followed pretty closely. It was only during a second wave where the resistance against masks more fully metastasized.

Also the Information Age has facilitated a greater voice and reach of sub-groups (the 1918 "Anti-Mask League" had no such global reach) presenting at least an appearance that the resistance may be more so (percentage of population wise) now than then. I tend to doubt had the "Anti-Mask League" had access to such reach and messaging via tools like social media that their aims and goals would not have been "politicized" more broadly. An unheard message cannot gather followers.

Your point is?
 

Hyped

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Where do you get those numbers? Did you just make them up?

From the EPA website, if you are wearing a medical mask, properly applied, with no corner gaps, the effectiveness is 60.3%

If you are wearing a N95 mask, the effectiveness is 98.4%

If you are wearing medical mask, maintain social distance, and do not stand in one place too long, then the effectiveness of avoiding being infected goes way up.

It's just too bad these simple, common sense, guidelines couldn't be followed. This i s going to last longer than the 1918 epidemic because people didn't politicize masks in 1918.

View attachment 35090
Yeah, made up the numbers based on the quality of masks I have been using or seeing. Not everyone has a n95 mask.

Your numbers drive the point home!
 

woolster22

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
This is going to last forever because the vaccinated have convinced themselves (despite overwhelming proof to the contrary) that they are protected.

We (medical community) knew these (not) vaccines would likely have issues with delta given a spike mutation id'd early. They don't prevent infection, which is why labeling them a vaccine is beyond criminal. Connotations are important, look at how easily convinced Ice-Ice is in his own rush to inject something he equates to mRNA tech from 98, despite mocking the suggestion as conspiracy. You idiots can't keep the chirade up through a handful of internet posts, oops.

There is no hubris more blind than that of science: We’re told to ‘follow the science’ — yet some of it is just plain wrong

It's not like the scientific community has historically shown issue with dismissing provably true claims before, Earth is the center of the universe, isn't it? Opiates aren't addictive with a dr's script either
 

SlowGettingUp

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job
They don't prevent infection, which is why labeling them a vaccine is beyond criminal.
In the first six months they provide highly significant protection against infection, and even after that they more than halve your chance of infection. But more importantly than that, they provide around 5x or better protection against serious illness or death. So they most certainly are vaccines.

When analyzing effectiveness you have to do a comparison for each age group separately or things get hopelessly confounded. The reason for that is mortality with Covid goes up exponentially with age - a factor of 3 for each decade. So you run into a weird statistical artifact called SImpson's Paradox.

Explanation here, based on Israeli data:


And from Wisconsin - this comparison is way understated because more older people are vaccinated:

1630336033921.png
 
Last edited:

PowerRunRevival

On the Game Day Roster
I will restrain myself from posting more about Covid on this thread even though this is an area I am very familiar with, having actually worked on a potential therapy. All I will say is much misinformation can be found in say Woolster22's posts.

So back to the defense, and specifically the pass rush. People often talk about running back by committee, but they rarely talk about pass rush by committee. But that's what we have here. Many players that can consistently win one-on-one - folks like Judon, Uche, Hightower, KVN, Barmore, Winovich and maybe Perkins. But it's way harder for the O-line to block when they have no clue where the rush is coming from, and when it's not just one-on-one but varied stunts.

With most teams it is easy to list the couple of players that will have the most pressures. But with the Pats who knows? So here's my prediction challenge: Which three Patriots will have the most QB pressures this season? I'll go with Judon, Uche and Barmore, but I'd be interested in hearing other predictions.

I appreciate this post. I don't come on here for the COVID discussion, let's talk some football!

An an RBBC usually it's usually a couple players filling out one HB position's snaps. With this defense, I think we will see some "Nascar" packages and amoeba defenses where all the pass rushers are on the field at one time.

With Gilmore still not healthy it seems like the pass rush will need to carry the defense to start the season. I think Godchaux and Hightower should cover the deficit in the run game the Pats had last year. With Gilmore back to 100% the defense should be top five in the league imo.
 

SlowGettingUp

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job
With this defense, I think we will see some "Nascar" packages and amoeba defenses where all the pass rushers are on the field at one time.

Barmore might be key here. Big and strong enough to hold up against the run, but capable of interior pressure. But the vulnerability of a Nascar package is a handoff to a RB and wham-block type running plays, and maybe Barmore isn't yet experienced enough to deal with that well.
 

patchick

Moderatrix
Staff member
PatsFans.com Supporter

Well of course some science is wrong. If it weren't, every scientist in the world would be out of a job! Our knowledge is incomplete, the world (especially the virus part of the world) keeps changing, and scientific advice keeps evolving. Some of yesterday's scientific advice looks bad today, and some of today's will look bad tomorrow.

So listening to scientists would be a bad idea...IF the alternative were listening to 100% pure wisdom. But no such luck. The actual alternative is relying on guesswork, hunches and conspiracy theories, and in that context choosing science is a no-brainer.

Let's say there were a plan for winning the lottery that only worked 25% of the time. Would you say "That's a bad plan, it fails three-quarters of the time, so I'm sticking with picking random numbers"?
 
Last edited:

Ice_Ice_Brady

Disputed Winner - Week 2 Predict the Score Contest
PatsFans.com Supporter
In the first six months they provide highly significant protection against infection, and even after that they more than halve your chance of infection. But more importantly than that, they provide around 5x or better protection against serious illness or death. So they most certainly are vaccines.

When analyzing effectiveness you have to do a comparison for each age group separately or things get hopelessly confounded. The reason for that is mortality with Covid goes up exponentially with age - a factor of 3 for each decade. So you run into a weird statistical artifact called SImpson's Paradox.

Explanation here, based on Israeli data:


And from Wisconsin - this comparison is way understated because more older people are vaccinated:

View attachment 35120

Thanks so much for posting this. I had just responded yesterday to someone who was citing this study and explaining how pre-reviewed, non-controlled, retrospective observational studies are virtually always incomplete, ripe for propaganda. You’ve already nailed why this is bunk…age groups are not represented equally, which demonstrably skews the results.
 

Top