Official Pats/Texans post-game thread

[Joker]

Completely agree with this. I am glad we made the playoffs and won the AFC East again. I am hoping for a road win and then, who knows what will happen. The Colts suck in the Divisional round and we almost beat them once.

Getting to the playoffs in a rebuilding year is not a bad thing.

well...if we make it to the next round against the Colts, we'll get killed...because they(Colts) have no momentum...uh...er....and...we won't run the ball like we did against the Jags when we HAD TO WIN to make the playoffs, we'll pass the ball like we did today when we DIDN'T HAVE TO WIN...this is for certain.

I'll be back later after I brush up on my "DEPRESSED PRETZEL LOGIC" class.

 

[20HindSight20]

Aaahh, the beauty of 20-20 hindsight. You get to second guess another decision maker and offer that as 'proof' that you know it all, and he is so dumb.

I prefer handsome or studly but thanks all the same.

 

[vyrago]

Welker had at least 3 drops in the Buffalo game. Does that count?

And, didn't Brady miss him or he didn't catch the pass just before the infamous 4th and 2?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The homers here completely ignore context even while complaining that others aren't paying attention to everything going on. It was a "meaningless" game, yet the players who've been injured and taking beatings all season belonged in there and it's not right to criticize their playing.

The homers completely miss the obvious logic failure there.

There are no meaningless games except in preseason, and even then you learn something. Brady was going to be starting next week with Welker his #1 target. You wanted him to start with a sub in that position even though that could have gotten him out of synch if not injured because despite the similarity in effort, that player isn't Wes Welker. Maybe an OL gets injured attempting to hold a block a couple of seconds longer so Brady can get a ball to Edleman. Or Brady gets sacked because no one is getting open absent Welker. Maybe a TE gets hurt blocking on a route Edleman doesn't execute properly. Maybe starters get hurt because they're blocking for Hoyer to hit Stanbeck...

Parcells was Bill's mentor and he convinced him a long time ago, after losing a game that cost him a playoff berth because he was resting a crucial player, that football players play football.

 

[Deus Irae]

it wasn't a "meaningless" game. after a season that can politely be described as "inconsistent," it was a chance to put together at least another two quarters of solid play on both sides of the ball after the Jags game and the second half against the bills. it was also a chance to go up against a decent team with a winning record and show that we could win said kind of game on the road, which we hadn't done yet this season and which we will now presumably have to figure out how to do during the playoffs.

i have no problem with the decision to play Brady, Welker et al. Welker got hurt towards the beginning of the game on a non-contact play that could have occurred in practice without pads; and, even if he'd been clocked to Saturn at the end of the first half, it still wouldn't be any different, as I see it.

The Patriots took an identifiable and, IMO, reasonable risk and it didn't work out. They were playing, at least at the beginning, to win the game. Stuff happens.

You don't understand. We've been assured by upstater1 that it was a meaningless game.

That's part of the reason this is all so laughable. Part of the problem is that the homers (I'm not referring to you) can't even keep their defenses consistent. If the game's meaningful, Faulk, Maroney, Wilfork, Bodden and Warren need to be playing if it's at all possible, and taking all the snaps possible. If the game's not meaningful, Welker needs to be sitting with Bodden, and Brady needs to be sat down after a series or two.

 

[TriplecHamp]

The question now is whether it will be a wildcard loss and out?

The Ravens and Jets may have a little momentum.

There goes that word again

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Welker and Brady haven't had any consistency issues of late, so that pretty much destroys your argument.

They haven't missed a game together of late, either, but you think they should have and Brady to Edleman wouldn't have potentially effected that timing on essentially a read and react timing base offense...

 

[upstater1]

Of course, my viewpoint is taking everything in and yours isn't, making the "wide enough" assertion laughable. I defended Brady's 3rd quarter return in the game thread and in the other threads. As for the "sharp" argument, that might have validity if only there were any signs that the Brady to Welker connection needed more reps to keep sharp.

Oh, sorry, I wasn't aware that Brady to Welker is the entire offense, and that AS A UNIT they don't need to stay sharp.

The rest of the stuff about viewpoints? Well, I see you skirted around that one without addressing the FACT that there is no contradiction. Your views are limited, onl seeing black and white.

Trust me, Bill belichick has a brain 10x the size of yours.

 

[Deus Irae]

There are no meaningless games except in preseason, and even then you learn something. Brady was going to be starting next week with Welker his #1 target. You wanted him to start with a sub in that position even though that could have gotten him out of synch if not injured because despite the similarity in effort, that player isn't Wes Welker. Maybe an OL gets injured attempting to hold a block a couple of seconds longer so Brady can get a ball to Edleman. Or Brady gets sacked because no one is getting open absent Welker. Maybe a TE gets hurt blocking on a route Edleman doesn't execute properly. Maybe starters get hurt because they're blocking for Hoyer to hit Stanbeck...

Parcells was Bill's mentor and he convinced him a long time ago, after losing a game that cost him a playoff berth because he was resting a crucial player, that football players play football.

If there are no meaningless games, you need to:

1.) Explain that to upstater1.

2.) Explain the absence of Faulk, Bodden, Wilfork, Warren and Maroney, and the decision to play musical chairs with the offensive line.

3.) Explain Cassel playing against Miami a few years back.

 

[upstater1]

You don't understand. We've been assured by upstater1 that it was a meaningless game.

That's part of the reason this is all so laughable. Part of the problem is that the homers (I'm not referring to you) can't even keep their defenses consistent. If the game's meaningful, Faulk, Maroney, Wilfork, Bodden and Warren need to be playing if it's at all possible, and taking all the snaps possible. If the game's not meaningful, Welker needs to be sitting with Bodden, and Brady needs to be sat down after a series or two.

And yet again you ignore the responses that blow your argument completely out of the water.

This isn your MO: ignore what people write and repeat your idicotic arguments.

We're all onto your total inability to Ever admit you're wrong.

 

[Deus Irae]

Oh, sorry, I wasn't aware that Brady to Welker is the entire offense, and that AS A UNIT they don't need to stay sharp.

The rest of the stuff about viewpoints? Well, I see you skirted around that one without addressing the FACT that there is no contradiction. Your views are limited, onl seeing black and white.

Trust me, Bill belichick has a brain 10x the size of yours.

And now you can't grasp the meaning of the word "fact.".

 

[Satchboogie3]

We all had low hopes for this team to begin with. They exceeded my expectations by making the playoffs. After that Saints game, I doubted that they would even make it that far. Guys our team is what it is. They are INCONSISTENT. On the surface, this team does not look like a Championship caliber team. But anything can happen in the playoffs. I lowered my expectations after the Saints game. I will enjoy the playoff game next week and hope that our winning streak at home stands. If that happens, then I'll hope for the best going forward. Our Pats are not a good road team.
Can they win a playoff game on the road? Good question. All we can do is hope.

Making the playoffs with a Brady/BB team is exceeding your expectations? The fact of the matter is that a Bradyless team won MORE games last season than this team did with Brady. THIS team blew 4 more 2nd half leads than a Bradyless team did last season.

The '08 Pats WITHOUT Brady only blew 1 2nd half lead the entire season, and it was a close game at INDY. They didn't blow any big leads that entire season. The overtime Loss to the Jets they kept coming back and just came up short. Their only bad 2nd half of the entire season was against PITT. They outscored opponents 92-84 at home and 111-71 on the road in the 2nd half. They had more poise than this '09 team.

This team has ZERO poise.

 

[upstater1]

If there are no meaningless games, you need to:

1.) Explain that to upstater1.

2.) Explain the absence of Faulk, Bodden, Wilfork, Warren and Maroney, and the decision to play musical chairs with the offensive line.

3.) Explain Cassel playing against Miami a few years back.

Sigh. meaningless in terms of the win/loss thing.

I didn't see the game as being without value, since clearly I think they needed to play and stay sharp.

There goes your total inability to think beyond step 1 again.

The won/loss thing? Meaningless.

Using the game to prepare? That has value.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

And yet again you ignore the responses that blow your argument completely out of the water.

This isn your MO: ignore what people write and repeat your idicotic arguments.

We're all onto your total inability to Ever admit you're wrong.

You clearly aren't getting it.

 

[Deus Irae]

And yet again you ignore the responses that blow your argument completely out of the water.

This isn your MO: ignore what people write and repeat your idicotic arguments.

We're all onto your total inability to Ever admit you're wrong.

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. I'm just not wrong on this.

However, I'm not ignoring what's being written at all. In fact, I'm pointing out the inconsistencies of it. There's great humor in it. You and Mo are both ballwashing Belichick at a furious pace, yet he's saying there are no meaningless games and you're insisting this game was meaningless.

It's that sort of thing you choose to ignore.

 

[upstater1]

And now you can't grasp the meaning of the word "fact.".

It is a FACT that there is no contradiction.

It's been explained.

You can play your guys to stay sharp, and then pull them.

This means that you played your guys in a meaningless game because you didn't care about winning or losing, but you saw the value there.

There is no contradiction. That's a fact.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sigh. meaningless in terms of the win/loss thing.

I didn't see the game as being without value, since clearly I think they needed to play and stay sharp.

There goes your total inability to think beyond step 1 again.

The won/loss thing? Meaningless.

Using the game to prepare? That has value.

Again, if the game has value, it's not meaningless, and Bodden and company need to be playing.

Notice who's missing that "beyond step 1"? It's you, yet again.

 

[ATippett56]

Behind the Welker injury we forget this defense sucked all season. Today was just another example.

The pass defense has sucked all season against quality quarterbacks on the road. Oh yeah, Philip Rivers and Peyton Manning await the New England Patriots defense in the 2009 AFC Playoffs.

 

[Patspsycho]

You clearly aren't getting it.

YOU are the one not getting it, since you have never owed up to being wrong. Not once.

 

[upstater1]

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. I'm just not wrong on this.

However, I'm not ignoring what's being written at all. In fact, I'm pointing out the inconsistencies of it. There's great humor in it. You and Mo are both ballwashing Belichick at a furious pace, yet he's saying there are no meaningless games and you're insisting this game was meaningless.

It's that sort of thing you choose to ignore.

You ignored the idea that Brady was out there to call plays to Edelman.

You ignored the idea that you can disregard the importance of winning and losing, and still see value in playing your starters for a quarter.

You ignored these two things.

Because you can't admit you're wrong.