Is it the coaching or the talent?

[crypto]

If you think that we'd win all four of those games, plus one of the Miami games with an undrafted rookie free agent at quarterback, I admire your spirit.

Hoyer looked better to me this preseason than Cassel did. Cassel did just fine in NE's system. In terms of raw ability—not talent, exactly, but ability—the defense this year is top ten quality. Moss and Welker are among the best in the league. Edelman is a very good rookie (and a seventh rounder, by the way, 232nd pick). Stop acting like Brady is so important to this team that without him they would lose to any two of the Jaguars, Texans, Bills, and Panthers. At this point I'd take Hoyer over Delhomme, that's for damn sure.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I Against Buffalo, NY, and Denver, NE looked like they got outcoached. The coaching record to date: 1-3-1.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or a smart ***** but I'd really like to know specifics about how Belichick or the coordinators were out-coached.

To me that means outright wrong calls - which is something we as spectators are very rarely in a position to know about.

Far too many people take the view that any play call properly executed (i.e. one that works) is evidence of "good coaching" and any play call that falls short (i.e. one that doesn't work) is evidence of poor coaching, or being out-coached.

Now if Belichick called for a punt on 1st down, I'd probably call that poor coaching - but even then I'd probably wonder if he's crazy like a fox in doing so.

Short of that I'm wondering what specifics you can point to that are clear evidence of poor coaching or being out-coached.

 

[SoonerPatriot]

What would the record be without Brady? This year, as the OP said, probably not too good with Hoyer as the primary backup. Love the kid, but if he has to take a meaningful snap this year's we're ****ed.

But what did last year without Brady look like? Despite the doomsday mentality in the wake of his injury (justified at the time in many ways) the team went on to win 10 more games and remain in the playoff hunt until the final day of the season.

Two years. Two different scenarios/results.

The 1-3-1 "outcoached" theory is also off-base. The fact of the matter is, despite the loss to the Jets this team played at least a little better on both sides of the ball than it had the week before. There was an even more appreciable jump in week 3 against Atlanta and again further improvement in week 4 against Baltimore.

What would the record look like if Atlanta, Baltimore or NY was the first game on the schedule? Answer: We would have been 0-1, no doubt about it.

People act like this team's two losses have been blowout affairs when the fact is, against Denver in particular, on the road in an extremely hostile environment against a team that oh by the way is pretty good, they controlled the game for the better part of three quarters before losing control in the fourth and ultimately, the game....in overtime.

Anyone who thinks this team hasn't improved since the near week 1 debacle is out of their mind. The one thing that hasn't been on as fast a curve is Brady. That's no small thing, obviously, but I'll sleep well tonight betting he'll come around too.

 

[wilfork is beastin']

there's no way hoyer would have made a difference. maybe against the broncos but he probably would have been sacked 10 times by the jets and do you really want to try a rookie QB against suggs reed and ray ray?

 

[mgteich]

We keep on having excuses for the offense scoring ZERO points in the second half in each of our two losses.

You all can choose to believe that the defensive coaches of these two teams did NOT outcoach our offensive coaches at halftime and in the second halves. I choose to believe that better coaching on our side might have helped. Obviously, better execution on our side would have helped also, but even with our talent and execution at current levels, it seems that coaches might have been able have the guys score once in those two halves.

And no, we can't be sure which plays were poorly coached or perhaps even which drives. But that has never mattered before. We can't judge running backs or wide receivers either. Just because the result on a play looks aweful doesn't mean it was the fault of the player we think is the culprit.

What would the record be without Brady? This year, as the OP said, probably not too good with Hoyer as the primary backup. Love the kid, but if he has to take a meaningful snap this year's we're ****ed.

But what did last year without Brady look like? Despite the doomsday mentality in the wake of his injury (justified at the time in many ways) the team went on to win 10 more games and remain in the playoff hunt until the final day of the season.

Two years. Two different scenarios/results.

The 1-3-1 "outcoached" theory is also off-base. The fact of the matter is, despite the loss to the Jets this team played at least a little better on both sides of the ball than it had the week before. There was an even more appreciable jump in week 3 against Atlanta and again further improvement in week 4 against Baltimore.

What would the record look like if Atlanta, Baltimore or NY was the first game on the schedule? Answer: We would have been 0-1, no doubt about it.

People act like this team's two losses have been blowout affairs when the fact is, against Denver in particular, on the road in an extremely hostile environment against a team that oh by the way is pretty good, they controlled the game for the better part of three quarters before losing control in the fourth and ultimately, the game....in overtime.

Anyone who thinks this team hasn't improved since the near week 1 debacle is out of their mind. The one thing that hasn't been on as fast a curve is Brady. That's no small thing, obviously, but I'll sleep well tonight betting he'll come around too.