Stop being a bunch of [expletive]

[neuronet]

I wasn't taking a side, I just laughed out loud at the thread title.

Having said that, I'd much rather have to hear from the brightsiders than the constant pearl-clutches.

I prefer the realists.

 

[Dingleberry]

I prefer ****y

 

[mosey threetupu]

I prefer the realists.

What did the op say that wasn't real?

 

[NewFeep]

our chances are as good as anyone else's.......

 

[Nikolai]

I prefer the realists.

A realist would say that Gronk's injury is a negative, as are Brady and Bennett's injuries, but once the latter two return to health there isn't a reason the offense can't put up 27-31 points a game. Without Gronk and a hobbled Bennett, the offense managed to hang 24 points on the vaunted Seattle defense, and were an excellent Chancellor play from making it 30 (+1?) points.

Is it perfect? No. But the Pats are still in a good place.

We're still Super Bowl contenders. But a #1 seed and a super offense never guaranteed a Super Bowl victory (see 2010). Gotta play the games.

 

[aluminum seats]

I wasn't taking a side, I just laughed out loud at the thread title.

Having said that, I'd much rather have to hear from the brightsiders than the constant pearl-clutches.

And pretty obviously taking a side. Nothing wrong with that, but don't be in denial about it.

 

[Fixit]

And pretty obviously taking a side. Nothing wrong with that, but don't be in denial about it.

No, I said I didn't take a side, which I didn't. I just thought the title was funny. Then your response prompted me to take one. Your fault!

 

[jeffro]

This might be my favorite thread title of all-time.

I don't know... maybe if the correct terminology were used: "clowder of ****ies"

 

[brdmaverick]

Even if we end up winning the Super Bowl losing the best non QB offensive player in the game makes the path harder.

I'm not sure why it is so frowned upon for passionate fans on a team messageboard to vent to each other over this unfortunate news.

As I noted in another thread, our past success has definitely made the news far more tolerable and easier to accept, but it doesn't mean that we can't express any level of disappointment though.

 

[fnordcircle]

Stop being a bunch of pencils?

 

[supafly]

Without Gronk and a hobbled Bennett, the offense managed to hang 24 points on the vaunted Seattle defense, and were an excellent Chancellor play from making it 30 (+1?) points.

Who do you think Chancellor made the game saving play on?

For the game, Gronk saw 6 targets, and caught 3 balls for 56 yards.

 

[rookBoston]

Not to be incendiary, but I kinda think the liberation of Alan Branch is a bigger deal for our Championship hopes than losing Gronk to IR.

On O we have depth and backfill, with Bennett plus the deepest WR and RB unts that the team has had for many years. We can recover from losing Gronk. Plus the OL has regained its Championship form, which makes everything possible on that side of the ball.

At DT, there's Brown and Valentine (rookie) and then the depth chart falls off a cliff. Branch is an anchor for us against the run, and the blocked FG against the Jets just underlines the significance of his contributions.

If we win the SB this year it's because guys like Sheard, Flowers, McClellen, Van Noy and Rowe kick it into gear. For that to happen it will be up to Branch and Long and McCourty and Hightower and Chung to set the tone, create the framework for the rest of unit. Still a work in progress.

If the Pats manage to win it all, the story of this season will be about the emergence of their D. And getting Branch back makes that a lot more achievable,m than if he were out for four games just when the team needed his veteran leadership the most.

 

[Nikolai]

Who do you think Chancellor made the game saving play on?

Heh, well, that was Earl Thomas who made the hit, but I'm talking about the Blount TD attempt.

For the game, Gronk saw 6 targets, and caught 3 balls for 56 yards.

When he got hit, the Pats were down 12-7. I'd say the Pats managed ok without him. Sure, they could have used him down the stretch, but it wasn't "game over".

EDIT - I forgot he came back that game and had that big play to take them to the goal line.

 

[supafly]

Heh, well, that was Earl Thomas who made the hit, but I'm talking about the Blount TD attempt.



When he got hit, the Pats were down 12-7. I'd say the Pats managed ok without him. Sure, they could have used him down the stretch, but it wasn't "game over".

It was Gronk who was targeted on the 4th down and goal attempt at the end of the game as they were trying to tie it, and yes--I'm pretty sure it was Kam Chancellor who defended the fade pattern.

You seem to be suggesting that Gronk could not play after the Earl Thomas hit, but that was not the case.

 

[Nikolai]

It was Gronk who was targeted on the 4th down and goal attempt at the end of the game as they were trying to tie it, and yes--I'm pretty sure it was Kam Chancellor who defended the fade pattern.

You seem to be suggesting that Gronk could not play after the Earl Thomas hit, but that was not the case.

Yep, I edited my comment, but you're right. I forgot he came back. I was confusing that with the Jest game.

 

[Huckleberry1]

I prefer the realists.

Great. You prefer those who realize they are watching the greatest run of success in NFL history, as well as understanding the privilege of watching the GOAT QB and coach. Given that you certainly understand why people get really tired of the endless b.tching, crying, whining, and moaning by the spoiled ingrate crybabies among us.

That's the reality.

 

[brdmaverick]

Great. You prefer those who realize they are watching the greatest run of success in NFL history, as well as understanding the privilege of watching the GOAT QB and coach. Given that you certainly understand why people get really tired of the endless b.tching, crying, whining, and moaning by the spoiled ingrate crybabies among us.

That's the reality.

Why can't it be both?

It's very possible that people already realize they are watching the greatest run in history but still be disappointed that our chances this year were diminished.

Many here point Gronk's injury as the reason we lost in 2011 and 2012. I think people are disappointed that they could be saying that about 2016 instead of purchasing three games to glory V. Should we appreciate our past success? Sure, that doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't express some level of disappointment about losing one of our two best players. THat would happen regardless of what team it is.

 

[TennisBallHead]

It is amazing how frightened fans already are of a regular season matchup against a mediocre opponent.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Why can't it be both?

It's very possible that people already realize they are watching the greatest run in history but still be disappointed that our chances this year were diminished.

Many here point Gronk's injury as the reason we lost in 2011 and 2012. I think people are disappointed that they could be saying that about 2016 instead of purchasing three games to glory V. Should we appreciate our past success? Sure, that doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't express some level of disappointment about losing one of our two best players. THat would happen regardless of what team it is.

I don't have a problem with disappointment, I have a problem with "we're doomed" and the idiots who think they know more about team building than Belichick. They are 10-2 and the same crowd has been crying and b.tching all year, and it's the same crap every year. They suck, period.

 

[deroc5050]

We just lost that explosive playmaker with Gronk. Its hard to grade the offense today because the Rams defense is pretty good but I am worried we will be settling for a lot more FG's instead of TD's.