The AFCCG Post Game Thread: at Denver

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,841
The whole "youngest team in the league" is great, but a HUGE part of that is cancelled out by Brady's age.
 
This is a huge offseason for them. Gronk aside, they need another big target, just not sure where they go find that.
 

DaughtersofDougMirabelli

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2006
3,016
DrewDawg said:
The whole "youngest team in the league" is great, but a HUGE part of that is cancelled out by Brady's age.
 
This is a huge offseason for them. Gronk aside, they need another big target, just not sure where they go find that.
 
Why? This team still wants to compete even in a Post-Brady world. I don't think that world is next year or the year after so having young guys coming into their own is a positive any way you look at it. 
 
It was a hell of a year. I'm pretty proud of this team for fighting through adversity and being in every game. Even this one, they were beat all over the field and were a 2PT conversion away from making this a one score game. They didn't make enough plays early in the game, especially on 3rd downs to put any pressure on Denver.
 
I think they should have gone spread early until it stopped working. They would show flashes of it, have success, and go right back to their Strong 12 formations and they'd have a drive stopping play. 
 
This team should be better next year with a healthy Mayo, Vollmer, Dobson, KT, Wilfork, Amendola, Gronk and I hope they look into bringing Edelman and Talib back on reasonable money. 
 

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Moderator
SoSH Member
Mar 19, 2004
15,180
Missoula, MT
Reggie's Racquet said:
I remember Bill mentioning injuries a few weeks ago in conjunction with new practice rules and off season conditioning. Perhaps a good topic to explore though I have a hard time thinking either Talib's or Gronk's injury would have played out any differently.
 
What?  They are injury prone and made of glass.  The hits themselves have nothing to do with anything.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,841
DaughtersofDougMirabelli said:
 
Why? This team still wants to compete even in a Post-Brady world. I don't think that world is next year or the year after so having young guys coming into their own is a positive any way you look at it. 
 
It is positive. I said that. But having the youngest team in the league and having a 27 year old top 10 QB seems a bit better position than having the youngest team and a 37 year old QB (that is NOT a value judgment on Brady at all, just an acknowledgment of his age). When he's done, unless someone steps right in, your young team that's entering it's prime will have to do so with a new player at the most important position. When these 17 rookies are 3 and 4 year vets, is it conceivable that a 40 year old QB will be able take them where we want to go?
 
That said, I'm positive Kraft/BB/Brady have plans in place and Brady has talked with them about his timeline. I am 100% content with Brady leading this team next year, but he will be 37 years old when we kick off next season. That needs to be part of the discussion.
 
And that's a challenge--we need weapons for Brady (and it's valid to think we have them, they were just hurt), because with those weapons, he's still a top 5 guy. But he's only got a few more years at that level at the most.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
The whole "youngest team in the league" is great, but a HUGE part of that is cancelled out by Brady's age.

This is a huge offseason for them. Gronk aside, they need another big target, just not sure where they go find that.


John Elway won Super Bowls at age 37 and 38.

I think Brady's got a couple more years left with the window open.
 

DaughtersofDougMirabelli

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2006
3,016
DrewDawg said:
 
And that's a challenge--we need weapons for Brady (and it's valid to think we have them, they were just hurt), because with those weapons, he's still a top 5 guy. But he's only got a few more years at that level at the most.
 
I'd say we're on the same page then, I agree with most of what you said. 
 
Though I do believe 4 of Brady's top 5 weapons were either out of that game or well below 100% (Hernandez, Gronk, Dobson, Amendola). You can only add so many weapons in the offseason, who would have guessed most couldn't be counted on in your most important game of the year. 
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,841
8slim said:
John Elway won Super Bowls at age 37 and 38.

I think Brady's got a couple more years left with the window open.
 
Yes. That wasn't my point however.
 
I'm wondering more along the lines of when Brady is 40 and this young team is entering it's prime. I have no problems the next few seasons. I'm just wondering if they're going to go get their version of "Aaron Rodgers" sooner or later.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
8slim said:
John Elway won Super Bowls at age 37 and 38.

I think Brady's got a couple more years left with the window open.
 
They also cheated by circumventing the salary cap.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,591
NY
Apologies if this was posted somewhere else, but what do people think of this:
 
"The way that play turned out, I went back and watched it, which I didn't have a chance to [Sunday]," Belichick said Monday morning, via ESPN Boston. "It was a deliberate play by the receiver to take out Aqib. No attempt to get open. I'll let the league handle the discipline on that play, whatever they decide. It's one of the worst plays I've seen."
 
 
Link
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I wish BB had kept his mouth shut unless Talib was super upset about the hit and this was said with an eye towards reupping him.  I dont think anything positive can come of the comments and I think its extremely, extremely unlikely that Welker was trying to take out Talib as opposed to trying to pick/block him.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,191
I agree he'd be better off keeping his mouth shut.
 
I do think it's pretty hard to watch the play and not conclude it was a) a penalty (either a personal foul or OPI, depending on one's view of timing and severity) b) with intent.   Whether that intent was 'hit really hard and outside of the rules' or 'injure' is impossible to tell via video, but I don't think BB is nuts to suggest it is the latter.  Welker had no intent on getting to the ball, and changed path to hit Talib, so arguing it's clean is just not supportable (Pereira's argument on the timing of the hit seems questionable at best to me, and it's a highly questionable block even under Pereira's theory because of how Welker drops his head and shoulder and targets).   In terms of intent, keep in mind, Edelman had blown up DRC on the prior series which, for me, is part of understanding the Welker hit.  Does that mean 'intent to injure'...not necessarily in my mind; may well just have been 'respond physically' and it ended more violently than the Edelman/DRC play.
 
That said, I think BB is going to get killed in the media and by talking heads for 'sour grapes' and while I think in this particular case he has a point, it's just not going to play well.
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,676
Stitch01 said:
I wish BB had kept his mouth shut unless Talib was super upset about the hit and this was said with an eye towards reupping him.  I dont think anything positive can come of the comments and I think its extremely, extremely unlikely that Welker was trying to take out Talib as opposed to trying to pick/block him.
 
Who cares what BB said. He has the right to say what he feels. I thought it was pretty fucking cheap play that has no business being in the game. He went low and was not even going out to catch a pass.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Stitch01 said:
I wish BB had kept his mouth shut unless Talib was super upset about the hit and this was said with an eye towards reupping him.  I dont think anything positive can come of the comments and I think its extremely, extremely unlikely that Welker was trying to take out Talib as opposed to trying to pick/block him.
 
I don't share your attitude.
 
Anyone that was a fan of either of these two teams knew going into yesterday's game that the key to the Patriots pass defense was Talib, and that Talib is "injury prone."   Welker didn't merely "block" Talib (i.e., getting in his way, or using his body to guide him away from the play), he crouched and hit Talib in mid-section of his body, which is where Talib has had most of his injury issues.
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,694
Personally I'm glad he called out Welker. Welker has always been a putz, and given that the announcers said virtually nothing about what was, at a minimum, an illegal play, it's nice to have that out there as part of the public record.
 
I have to love people getting upset about Richard Sherman -- "I've never seen anything worse" -- when you have illegal hits causing injury (New Orleans vs Harvin, this one vs Talib) which are bad sportsmanship that have a huge impact on taking skill players out. Somehow that's okay but a guy making a choke sign is the end of the universe?
 
edit: just going thru the Seahawks thread and saw this posted by Gdiguy, which more wittily summarizes my thoughts:
 
Pablo Torres who writes for ESPN the Magazine and contributes to NPR and what not has the best take:

Richard Sherman needs to understand that I signed up to watch a bunch of people get brutally injured, not yell at each other.
 


 
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Stitch01 said:
I wish BB had kept his mouth shut unless Talib was super upset about the hit and this was said with an eye towards reupping him.  I dont think anything positive can come of the comments and I think its extremely, extremely unlikely that Welker was trying to take out Talib as opposed to trying to pick/block him.
 
Agreed.  It's going to come off as sour grapes after a game in which they were outplayed across the board.  And it's going to come off as vindictive and likely re-ignite the whole Welker/Amendola shitshow.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,652
where I was last at
I thought it unusual that the play got so little attention or discussion by Nantz/Simms  nor did they really ever re-visit it as a turning point in the game.
 
Second, I don't recall BB being this direct about a call/play before. 
 
Third, my bias aside, it looks like a designed play to take-out Talib out of the play. I don't know if it was designed to take Talib out of the game..
 

Section30

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2010
1,260
Portland OR
It's not sour grapes if you can point out to the media that an illegal play led to the injury of a player, and ask them,"Are you really defending deliberate blindside hits?"
 
I also, in the dark recesses of my soul, hope they run the play in the Superbowl and Welker breaks Sherman's ribs.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
First, it's not "sour grapes."  Sour grapes is falsely disclaiming your desire for something after you no longer are able to get it.  Belichick did not say "Well, I wouldn't want to get to the Superbowl if it means you have to hurt guys on the other team, anyway."
 
Second, he's not saying that the game was decided by the hit.  He's not disclaiming the superiority of Denver, or that the Patriots got screwed.  He's saying that he feels bad for Talib because he was the victim of a dirty hit. 
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,841
So, what is it?
 
BB never gives any real opinions and everything is bland or he should be quiet?
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Mostly doesnt matter, but going to be irritating listening all the stupid this comment is going to bring out. 
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,841
Stitch01 said:
Mostly doesnt matter, but going to be irritating listening all the stupid this comment is going to bring out. 
 
I don't know--most of the national media will be concentrating on the matchup. The Pats lost, you'd think the media would move for the next few weeks.
 

twibnotes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,232
I don't know--most of the national media will be concentrating on the matchup. The Pats lost, you'd think the media would move for the next few weeks.


Plus, one of the reasons the media hates BB is that he never says anything interesting. Some in the media may look favorably on BB speaking his mind (and giving them something to write about for a change)
 

seantoo

toots his own horn award winner
Jul 16, 2005
1,308
Southern NH, from Watertown, MA
DannyHeep said:
 
Pats won't open as favorites. Jesus.
I don't know each contenders free agent status but after Denver we have to be at the top of the list in the AFC. We're the youngest team in the league and the biggest improvement often comes during the second year in the league. If Wilfork/Mayo/Kelly is healthy, a big if for Wilfork, then our defense with maybe another defensive back will be among the best in the NFL. When they were healthy the won several games for us at the seasons start and Bill B. team defense usually improves as the season goes along
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,652
where I was last at
What's the source for the Pats being the youngest team in the league?  I saw an article that their average age before the start of the season, was 25+ years and were 10th youngest or something like that.  Is the youngest tag reflective of the loss of Wilfork, Kelley, Mayo and younger replacement players?
 

ShaneTrot

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2002
6,401
Overland Park, KS
bankshot1 said:
What's the source for the Pats being the youngest team in the league?  I saw an article that their average age before the start of the season, was 25+ years and were 10th youngest or something like that.  Is the youngest tag reflective of the loss of Wilfork, Kelley, Mayo and younger replacement players?
I think you are right. The average age of the team has gone down in the last 10 games or so. 15 rookies on the active roster, Develin is considered a 1 year vet because of practice squad time, 8 second year players. and 8 third year players. This team is young all over the place.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
Two things. On the Edelman play it was 5 steps after a catch. He's a blocker DRC is a tackler. Not even in the same ballpark as Welker/Talib. Not a good comp at all.

On the Welker hit, the eyes tell the story. Welker was looking for Talib. Talib was looking at the QB and ball.
 

Granite Sox

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
5,055
The Granite State
I agree with the sentiment that the Pats overachieved, given the radical changes to offensive personnel and relative youth/inexperience on the squad.  I loved their perseverance and the ability of Brady to bring them back from the jaws of defeat a number of times.
 
However... after some tossing and turning... can I throw a "thumbs down" to Matt Patricia?
 
I know McDaniels catches a lot of crap, but I'm really underwhelmed by the overall job that has been done with the defense since he's been the titular DC.  Patricia has decent talent to work with (relative to a lot of other teams), but doesn't seem to get a lot out of it.  Over the past few seasons, the Pats have been relatively opportunistic when it comes to TOs, but other than the Colts game this characteristic has seemed to dry up as well.
 
Belichick likes his coordinators to operate under his thumb, and I think McDaniels has demonstrated that he can morph and change to suit the personnel, but Patricia has shown no such ability, in my opinion. 
 
How does he get such a pass?
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,676
Patricia and the whole defense is so stale. They need to get an aggressive d coordinator that can motivate players. This is what happens when the team cheaps out and doesn't get good assistant coaches.
 

BucketOBalls

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2009
5,643
Steak of Turmoil
jsinger121 said:
Patricia and the whole defense is so stale. They need to get an aggressive d coordinator that can motivate players. This is what happens when the team cheaps out and doesn't get good assistant coaches.
 
To bad Rex Ryan didn't get fired.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I dont think its a matter of money and I doubt Patricia is doing anything radically different with the defense than what BB wants.  BB seems to be very actively coaching the defense during the game.  
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,271
twibnotes said:
Plus, one of the reasons the media hates BB is that he never says anything interesting. Some in the media may look favorably on BB speaking his mind (and giving them something to write about for a change)
 
It's amazing watching BB on Patriots All Access vs the press conferences. He says more interesting stuff in one 4 minute segment on All Access than the 18 post game conferences this season.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,191
Dick Pole Upside said:
I agree with the sentiment that the Pats overachieved, given the radical changes to offensive personnel and relative youth/inexperience on the squad.  I loved their perseverance and the ability of Brady to bring them back from the jaws of defeat a number of times.
 
However... after some tossing and turning... can I throw a "thumbs down" to Matt Patricia?
 
I know McDaniels catches a lot of crap, but I'm really underwhelmed by the overall job that has been done with the defense since he's been the titular DC.  Patricia has decent talent to work with (relative to a lot of other teams), but doesn't seem to get a lot out of it.  Over the past few seasons, the Pats have been relatively opportunistic when it comes to TOs, but other than the Colts game this characteristic has seemed to dry up as well.
 
Belichick likes his coordinators to operate under his thumb, and I think McDaniels has demonstrated that he can morph and change to suit the personnel, but Patricia has shown no such ability, in my opinion. 
 
How does he get such a pass?
 
For me there's just a big sense Belichick is driving the defense.  Some of that is observing what goes on in-game on the sidelines and what I read, and some is just guesswork.  That could be wrong, I realize, but it's hard for me to really get to Patricia making most of the decisions, and thus I don't hold him nearly as accountable as I otherwise would.
 
I do not think the talent level is quite as impressive as you suggest; to me, it's a very pedestrian set of players overall.  This year obviously it was less than that post-injury, but for me the first few games this year was the first time in several years that they had plus personnel, and in those few games they had the results to match.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,937
Berkeley, CA
Agree with all the posters on upgrading the lines.  We simply need better DL and OL-men.  I'd be very happy if we spent at least the first three picks this draft on some combination of DL and OL.  The lack of push on either ball was very telling.  Watch what the Broncos and Niners and Seahawks were able to accomplish and it all stemmed from the lines.  
 
Unfortunately, it's tough to come up with Ty Warren and Richard Seymour in the back of each round, but they've got to find a way.   Without upgrades on both sides of the ball, we can draft TE, WR, and CB until the cows come home and we won't be bringing back another Lombardi.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
When assessing the defense you should really think about how many of yesterday's starters would be starters on the Seahawks or 49'ers.  
 
It's probably Talib, maybe Chandler Jones.  Ninkovich and Dennard and McCourty would make decent rotation players on those squads.  Collins is an up-and-comer and will hopefully be there next season.  Not sure about the rest of the D, and the front 7 in particular.  Hightower may be nothing more than a JAG; the rest of the guys are essentially JAG's right now.  
 
Mayo and Wilfork were pretty big losses, given the lack of high quality players in the other positions.  Spikes and Kelly less so, but still a blow to their depth.  
 
It's not the coaching or the schema; it's the players, as hard as it may be to accept that fact sometimes. 
 

SWHB

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
178
BucketOBalls said:
 
I think to go all the way they just need better line play. Pretty much every season ending loss has been marked by them losing badly in the trenches. I'm not sure they can retool them fast enough however.  The early teams were pretty much competative against anyone, no matter how good they were.  Unfortunatly, I think they need to get back to that level, but I'm not sure it's possible in a reasonable amount of time.
 
Does anyone have any thoughts on why both lines looked so bad?  I mean, I get that a talent infusion would help, but the O-line in particular had appeared to be gelling as the season progressed, and I didn't expect Denver's D to present such a formidable challenge.
 

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,302
Providence, RI
lexrageorge said:
When assessing the defense you should really think about how many of yesterday's starters would be starters on the Seahawks or 49'ers.  
 
It's probably Talib, maybe Chandler Jones.  Ninkovich and Dennard and McCourty would make decent rotation players on those squads.  Collins is an up-and-comer and will hopefully be there next season.  Not sure about the rest of the D, and the front 7 in particular.  Hightower may be nothing more than a JAG; the rest of the guys are essentially JAG's right now.  
 
Mayo and Wilfork were pretty big losses, given the lack of high quality players in the other positions.  Spikes and Kelly less so, but still a blow to their depth.  
 
It's not the coaching or the schema; it's the players, as hard as it may be to accept that fact sometimes.
Yes people have this weird defense mechanism to immediately blame coaches, especially coordinators, before the players. For example after the big 3rd down sack int he 4th quarter the guy next to me started screaming about the play call and mcdaniels. But on the replay multiple receivers were open but Mankins got spun like a turnstile and Brady instantly had a guy in his face. Pretty hard to blame the play call when the play is immediately blown up. The plays have to execute. Now there will always be a handful of questionable calls per game but I believe thst when things go badly more often then not its a fail to execute or the opposing team that makes a better play.

I think you can easily apply this to the defense. Chris jones, bellano, Siliga (spelling?) were thrust into roles thst they are not designed for. To their credits they seem to work hard and put in the effort. While they did many good things, they are who they are. The pats could not get pass pressure with four guys all year long. It killed them in the Denver game. I don't think that's from poor coaching or poor scheme but from depth players thrust into starting roles.
 

JMDurron

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,127
I feel like we're mixing post-season and post-game analysis where, which is obviously understandable.  If I'm talking about the entire season, it's obviously stupid to ding Brady at all for his season-long performance, due to the various WR and OL issues he faced all season.  If I'm talking about the game in isolation, I think it's very fair to point out that Brady's lousy first half, complete with multiple deep ball opportunities (gimmie TD to Edelman, tough 2-minute drill opportunity with Collie), was absolutely a key to why the game was lost.  If Brady hits that pass to Edelman, it's 7-3 Patriots and I suspect the entire complexion of the game would have changed.  
 
Brady, the OL, and the DL would be my goats.  If the gameplan is for Brady to be able to pick apart a weak secondary, despite the mediocre weapons at his disposal, then that opening performance against that secondary can't really be excused.  The OL hadn't even really started getting killed yet until later in the game, if memory serves, since they were presumably on guard against the run to start the game.  I can't hold the DBs responsible for not holding up for Peyton Manning throwing to those weapons with literally no pass rush to deal with beyond one play where his arm got hit.  It's amazing that the Patriots only lost by 10 with that performance in the trenches.  
 
I'm impressed with the overall body of work that this roster put together this season, but I'm still bitter about two things.  Fuck the memo about being positive about everything, I'm bitter that what would have been the #1 seed in the AFC being devastated by key injuries yet again.  I'm also bitter about the Miami game.  Cincy and Carolina were good teams who won at home, and it's not exactly a given to me that the Patriots win either of those games even without the weather/horrible call to end those games.  The Jets under Rex usually seem to play the Patriots tough, and a crap technicality call doesn't mean the Patriots would have won in OT, either.  Miami, though.  That game sticks in my fucking craw.  A mediocre team, with an injured secondary, just somehow pulls it out late when Brady's weapons come up short by half an inch or so.  That game was the difference between fucking Hawaiian weather in Denver and wind and rain in New England.  The overall body of work was absolutely miraculous, I don't dispute that, but within that body of work, what the Miami game meant just pisses me off.   
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
jsinger121 said:
Patricia and the whole defense is so stale. They need to get an aggressive d coordinator that can motivate players. This is what happens when the team cheaps out and doesn't get good assistant coaches.
 
If you have a problem with the defensive system then it's Belichick and not Patricia that has to go: everybody agrees that BB is in charge of the defensive system, runs the defensive meetings, meets with defensive players during the game, etc.  Patricia may do some of the play calling but it's a BB show.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Another thing about our QB.
 
He along with BB can miracle our asses to a 12 - 4 season with a team that would otherwise be 2 or 3 games worse.  But this notion that he can, or should be expected to, "put them on his shoulders" when you are this deep into the playoffs is unrealistic.
 
He's not that good now, if he ever was, and yesterday was another indication of it.  If he makes a few plays, he makes the game closer at least, but he didn't.  It was THE prototypical game to say, *the whole team let him down but he brought them to victory, or close*.  Did not happen.
 
And it did not happen in 2006 either, though that game was much closer.  Nor did it happen last year.
 
There is no shame in this.  The only QB I can think of who accomplished it more than once was Elway the Younger, and he got destroyed in those early SBs.
 
This whole, *we got BB and TB, so we have a chance* needs to be retired.  Unless the *chance* is understood as ending short of a SB. 
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Nah, statement is fine. They were the weaker team yesterday, but win that game some percentage of the time and Brady/BB played a big part in getting to the championship game. Lots of variance in individual football games, top coach and top fivish QB gives you a chance
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
dcmissle said:
 
 
This whole, *we got BB and TB, so we have a chance* needs to be retired.  Unless the *chance* is understood as ending short of a SB. 
 
If anything this season proves that the statement is true--the team is a couple of lucky bounces from a a superbowl appearance despite having very little else other than BB and TB. 
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,469
Somewhere
Unlike Seattle and San Francisco, the Patriots have to commit $16 million to their quarterback. That investment also requires subsequent offensive investments to maximize the return on your quarterback, including the money to Gronkowski and Hernandez. That means that the Patriots can't bring in all these great defensive linemen and rotate them like Seattle does, or the great defensive backs that San Francisco signed. Obviously the stengths of both defenses stem from the draft but the signings help a lot.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,727
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Shelterdog said:
 
If anything this season proves that the statement is true--the team is a couple of lucky bounces from a a superbowl appearance despite having very little else other than BB and TB. 
No shit. Let's stop pretending reaching the AFCCG is some sort of failure. My god.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,271
Devizier said:
Unlike Seattle and San Francisco, the Patriots have to commit $16 million to their quarterback. That investment also requires subsequent offensive investments to maximize the return on your quarterback, including the money to Gronkowski and Hernandez. That means that the Patriots can't bring in all these great defensive linemen and rotate them like Seattle does, or the great defensive backs that San Francisco signed. Obviously the stengths of both defenses stem from the draft but the signings help a lot.
 
Congrats, this is the first post I've seen that blames Tom Brady's contract for not surrounding the team with talent.
 

Jack Sox

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2005
3,375
Yeah that post made barely a lick of sense to me. This coach and QB does give you a chance to win a SB every year. Didn't they just fucking prove it by being a final 4 team in this league after losing arguably their 2nd-7th most valuable players on the roster? Unless the standard is to expect absolutely no drop off after your entire offensive personnel is overhauled, including losing 2 All-Pro weapons in the process.

You need talent to win in this league. The talent discrepency between New England's roster and all three remaining conference finalists was glaring yesterday. No coach and QB tandem is overcoming that, period. If you want to point to injuries or questionable roster construction moves, then be my guest (probably wouldn't agree much with you on the latter, but I digress).

That post is borderline anti-intellectual.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,469
Somewhere
It's more a response to others wondering why the Patriots can't generate a pass rush like Seattle or San Francisco - the two best defenses in the league by far - do, but you can interpret it however you like.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Jack Sox said:
Yeah that post made barely a lick of sense to me. This coach and QB does give you a chance to win a SB every year. Didn't they just fucking prove it by being a final 4 team in this league after losing arguable their 2-7th most valuable players on the roster? Unless the standard is to expect absolutely no drop off after your entire offensive personnel is overhauled, including losing 2 All-Pro weapons in the process.

You need talent to win in this league. The talent discrepency between New England's roster and all three remaining conference finalists was glaring yesterday. No coach and QB tandem is overcoming that, period. If you want to point to injuries or questionable roster construction moves, then be my guest (probably wouldn't agree much with you on the latter, but I digress).
That post is borderline anti-intellectual.
Last few posts are a little hard on dcmissle. He would agree with most of this post actually, and he definitely didn't call the season a failure.

Devizier is correct that having a good QB on a rookie deal is a huge advantage. SF talent will erode when they start paying Kaep 18 million a year
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
dcmissle said:
Another thing about our QB.
 
He along with BB can miracle our asses to a 12 - 4 season with a team that would otherwise be 2 or 3 games worse.  But this notion that he can, or should be expected to, "put them on his shoulders" when you are this deep into the playoffs is unrealistic.
 
He's not that good now, if he ever was, and yesterday was another indication of it.  If he makes a few plays, he makes the game closer at least, but he didn't.  It was THE prototypical game to say, *the whole team let him down but he brought them to victory, or close*.  Did not happen.
 
And it did not happen in 2006 either, though that game was much closer.  Nor did it happen last year.
 
There is no shame in this.  The only QB I can think of who accomplished it more than once was Elway the Younger, and he got destroyed in those early SBs.
 
This whole, *we got BB and TB, so we have a chance* needs to be retired.  Unless the *chance* is understood as ending short of a SB. 
If you had anything less than a Brady or Manning at QB with the roster the way it fell this year, do you really think they would have even won the AFC East?  Brady's prowess and Belichick's roster management were the reason they stayed afloat this year.