Would they hire Weis now if it was an emergency?

[Pujo]

I am at a loss as to why some members on this board refuse to admit the endless predictability of this offense
Week after week we as fans can look at the down and distance, view our offensive set, and know exactly where the ball is going

Please Santa
All I want is Charley Weis for Christmas

Eh? The Colts have basically 20 plays that they run on offense, but good luck stopping them. Nobody cares how predictable an offense is as long as they exectute. I'll take execution over fake punts.

 

[dhamz]

It's too late now IMO. But I do hope they pursue him for next season, he was a great OC for us and despite the talent you never saw these many 3 and outs ... hard to see us having these struggles with him.

Say what? The Pats won a ton of games during the Weis years exactly the way they won today. In 2003 for example, they won games scoring 17 (twice), 19, 9, and 12 (twice).

Somehow Charlie's career is only remembered as the 2004 season.

 

[RayClay]

'04 was the only year that Weis was here that they averaged more points/game (0.5 more) than they are this year.

Brady missed all of last year, Brady is battling various injuries including a RIB injury, the o-line has been hurt and struggling mightily at times, we are extremely thin at receiving threats after Moss/Welker.

When do they give out the average points award? Before or after the super Bowl? Maybe during the all important Pro Bowl.

Do we get an extra win for pouring it on against total stiffs like Tampa and Tennessee?

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Actually, go back and look at the 2003 season, the Pats had tons of 3 and outs. In fact, converting 3rd downs was a huge problem that year. That is why the Pats won a lot of games that year 9-3 or 12-0. If the Pats did not have the best defense in Patriots' history that year, they wouldn't have gone 14-2 and won the Super Bowl.

That offense had some less than stellar efforts, but I don't remember them looking as dismal as this year's offense has in the 2nd half of losses, and that's with much less talent. When we struggled, it always seemed Charlie would dial up some screens/quick throws that at least got us a few first downs. We struggled yes but eventually that offense could come through with SOMETHING... this one can't get it going in crunchtime period.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Say what? The Pats won a ton of games during the Weis years exactly the way they won today. In 2003 for example, they won games scoring 17 (twice), 19, 9, and 12 (twice).

Somehow Charlie's career is only remembered as the 2004 season.

A few of those games were dealing with significant weather elements too let's not ignore that. Weather has not been a factor this year except MAYBE 2nd half of Carolina, but that's not one that was a struggle.

 

[emoney_33]

2001 we won a Super Bowl, 2007 we didn't.

Sure we had more talent in 2007, we have more now.

Would i rather have less talent utilized to the max, than more talent poorly used?

Well, I'd rather win than lose. How is this offense in the second half? Against good teams?

How often are receivers wide open, or even open at all?

Yeah, I'm nuts.

None of this makes any sense to me. You think the 01 offense would be winning a superbowl this year? I mean I guess the offense was responsible for the special teams play against the Steelers and the defense against the Rams...

 

[Deus Irae]

No. Not only that, but hell no.

 

[emoney_33]

When do they give out the average points award? Before or after the super Bowl? Maybe during the all important Pro Bowl.

Do we get an extra win for pouring it on against total stiffs like Tampa and Tennessee?

You live in a fantasy world of revisionist history. The 01 team had many things go their way, but they were not the most talented or best team that year. The offense was not the unit responsible for winning the superbowl in 2001.

The fact of the matter is this offense is better than the 2001 offense, by a lot. Every year is different and every game is it's own entity. You have some fantasy idea about what goes into a superbowl season.

 

[RayClay]

Do you remember the 2001 season. It was an offense that basically was only responsible for not making mistakes and letting the defense win games. That offense was the 19th ranked offense (sixth in points scored).

It was a very efficient offense with very little above average talent that moved the chains, didn't make mistakes and won games in the clutch.

If Weis was here now, we wouldn't have to reacquire Fred Coleman, Weis would get to work with Moss, Welker, Faulk (a much better Faulk now) and some young receivers as good or better than the bench then.

The point is that team maximized it's potential.

Are we getting the best out of our offense? Are our receivers wide open? Is our play selection confusing defenses and setting them up for a wide open play when we need it?

Let's get real here.

 

[Deus Irae]

It was a very efficient offense with very little above average talent that moved the chains, didn't make mistakes and won games in the clutch.

If Weis was here now, we wouldn't have to reacquire Fred Coleman, Weis would get to work with Moss, Welker, Faulk (a much better Faulk now) and some young receivers as good or better than the bench then.

The point is that team maximized it's potential.

Are we getting the best out of our offense? Are our receivers wide open? Is our play selection confusing defenses and setting them up for a wide open play when we need it?

Let's get real here.

Living in the past again, I see.

 

[RayClay]

You live in a fantasy world of revisionist history. The 01 team had many things go their way, but they were not the most talented or best team that year. The offense was not the unit responsible for winning the superbowl in 2001.

The fact of the matter is this offense is better than the 2001 offense, by a lot. Every year is different and every game is it's own entity. You have some fantasy idea about what goes into a superbowl season.

Read. Read what I am saying.

Of course this offense is tons more talented.

Read what I an saying.

The coaching is wasting this talent, while our offensive game plans used to maximize our talent, which was very marginal.

Damn, it's not fantasy, it's real football.

 

[emoney_33]

Read. Read what I am saying.

Of course this offense is tons more talented.

Read what I an saying.

The coaching is wasting this talent, while our offensive game plans used to maximize our talent, which was very marginal.

Damn, it's not fantasy, it's real football.

The point I am trying to make is that the END result for the offensive production is better. I agree the playcalling has been iffy at times this year, and we can do some things better with adjustments etc...

However, even if we believe the 2001 team was very well coached offensively, the 2009 offense produces BETTER than them by a large margin. The 2009 offense gives a team a better chance to win the superbowl than the 2001 offense.

Many things can be better, but then there are also a lot of non-coaching things that need fixing. For example the inconsistent OL play, injuries to Brady, lack of a 2nd WIDE receiver, etc... I'm not saying the playcalling and coaching is great this year. But I'd rather the total package 2009 offense than the total package 2001 offense. I don't think Weis would change much at all. I think McDaniels would have us producing a lot more, but not Weis.

 

[RayClay]

Living in the past again, I see.

Some teams have never won a super Bowl. We've won three. If we forget what got us there, looks like all the talent in the world won't matter.

The guy in my sig is still saying all the right things...

 

[Deus Irae]

Some teams have never won a super Bowl. We've won three. If we forget what got us there, looks like all the talent in the world won't matter.

The guy in my sig is still saying all the right things...

Funny.... wasn't there a defensive end who helped get them there, that you gave me that "past" speech about?

Saying ≠ doing

 

[RayClay]

The point I am trying to make is that the END result for the offensive production is better. I agree the playcalling has been iffy at times this year, and we can do some things better with adjustments etc...

However, even if we believe the 2001 team was very well coached offensively, the 2009 offense produces BETTER than them by a large margin. The 2009 offense gives a team a better chance to win the superbowl than the 2001 offense.

Many things can be better, but then there are also a lot of non-coaching things that need fixing. For example the inconsistent OL play, injuries to Brady, lack of a 2nd WIDE receiver, etc... I'm not saying the playcalling and coaching is great this year. But I'd rather the total package 2009 offense than the total package 2001 offense. I don't think Weis would change much at all. I think McDaniels would have us producing a lot more, but not Weis.

The 2001 team was a bunch of scrubs, including a second year QB who leaped from 4th to second string then starter.

What could we learn from such a team?

That excellent coaching, creativity, efficiency, hard work, team play, sublimating egos for a common cause caused the most improbable playoff and super bowl run against some great teams in Rams and Pitt.

Now we get players like Thomas who make Humble Pie tee shirts, we say it's team first and we have no stars, we say have patience on offense.

talk talk talk...

Look at the final drive in the rams Super Bowl. Patience, control, brilliant march down the field under pressure. Short passes, guys coming wide open at exactly the right time.

Then run a tape of our current offense...

 

[RayClay]

Funny.... wasn't there a defensive end who helped get them there, that you gave me that "past" speech about?

Saying ≠ doing

If you want to become just another broken record here, be my guest.

 

[emoney_33]

The 2001 team was a bunch of scrubs, including a second year QB who leaped from 4th to second string then starter.

What could we learn from such a team?

That excellent coaching, creativity, efficiency, hard work, team play, sublimating egos for a common cause caused the most improbable playoff and super bowl run against some great teams in Rams and Pitt.

That offense was forced to be extremely conservative and play to not lose. They helped to not lose games, but didn't do a lot towards winning the games. The only thing we can learn is that if all things go right, you can win the superbowl with a mediocre offense that doesn't make many mistakes. Of course, a good offense gives you a better chance to win the superbowl. Unless you are arguing it would better to build a bad offense that doesn't make mistakes than a good offense, I still don't get the point. The 2002 team didn't even make the playoffs, in case you forgot.

Now we get players like Thomas who make Humble Pie tee shirts, we say it's team first and we have no stars, we say have patience on offense.

talk talk talk...

Look at the final drive in the rams Super Bowl. Patience, control, brilliant march down the field under pressure. Short passes, guys coming wide open at exactly the right time.

Then run a tape of our current offense...

Look at what SHOULD have been the last drive in the 07 superbowl, a TD to Moss. But the defense couldn't come up with a big play. The defense and special teams came up with big plays and turnovers. In 07 the defense didn't give Tom Brady the ball to end the game. There is not some philosophical difference that makes the 2001 offense more likely to win than the current offense. It is your revisionist history that makes it seem like the 01 offense had some fairy tale winning trait. Yet that same offense in 02 couldn't make the playoffs.

The offense had it's struggles in the 2007 playoffs, but the 2001 offense scores about 0-3 points against the 07 Giants in the superbowl.

 

[mr3putt]

That offense was forced to be extremely conservative and play to not lose. They helped to not lose games, but didn't do a lot towards winning the games. The only thing we can learn is that if all things go right, you can win the superbowl with a mediocre offense that doesn't make many mistakes. Of course, a good offense gives you a better chance to win the superbowl. Unless you are arguing it would better to build a bad offense that doesn't make mistakes than a good offense, I still don't get the point. The 2002 team didn't even make the playoffs, in case you forgot.



Look at what SHOULD have been the last drive in the 07 superbowl, a TD to Moss. But the defense couldn't come up with a big play. The defense and special teams came up with big plays and turnovers. In 07 the defense didn't give Tom Brady the ball to end the game. There is not some philosophical difference that makes the 2001 offense more likely to win than the current offense. It is your revisionist history that makes it seem like the 01 offense had some fairy tale winning trait. Yet that same offense in 02 couldn't make the playoffs.

The offense had it's struggles in the 2007 playoffs, but the 2001 offense scores about 0-3 points against the 07 Giants in the superbowl.

Attempt to support the 2009 offense with stats all you want
The fact is....
This dog don't hunt when it counts
Period

 

[RayClay]

That offense was forced to be extremely conservative and play to not lose. They helped to not lose games, but didn't do a lot towards winning the games. The only thing we can learn is that if all things go right, you can win the superbowl with a mediocre offense that doesn't make many mistakes. Of course, a good offense gives you a better chance to win the superbowl. Unless you are arguing it would better to build a bad offense that doesn't make mistakes than a good offense, I still don't get the point. The 2002 team didn't even make the playoffs, in case you forgot.



Look at what SHOULD have been the last drive in the 07 superbowl, a TD to Moss. But the defense couldn't come up with a big play. The defense and special teams came up with big plays and turnovers. In 07 the defense didn't give Tom Brady the ball to end the game. There is not some philosophical difference that makes the 2001 offense more likely to win than the current offense. It is your revisionist history that makes it seem like the 01 offense had some fairy tale winning trait. Yet that same offense in 02 couldn't make the playoffs.

The offense had it's struggles in the 2007 playoffs, but the 2001 offense scores about 0-3 points against the 07 Giants in the superbowl.

You'll never understand what I'm saying.

There's no shoulda coulda. The Patriots did win three times and they did lose in 2007.

Accept that as fact and try to analyze why.

You want the facts to change so the talented team always wins. Sometimes it's the best coached team. Offensive coordinators are highly prized for a reason.

BB has decided to use interns instead.

Again, facts and results don't change. Learn from the unexpected wins or losses, or don't.

 

[emoney_33]

Attempt to support the 2009 offense with stats all you want
The fact is....
This dog don't hunt when it counts
Period

So points only count in the 4th quarter? Even in a win, where the team had the lead at every point except the first quarter.