Are the NE Patriots the new chokers of the NFL?
yoyodog
2007 Loss to the NY Giants in the SB
2008 Did not make the playoffs
2009 Loss to the Baltimore Ravens in the Wild Card - ONE-AND-DONE
2010 Loss the the NY Jets in the Divisional round - ONE-AND-DONE
I LOVE the fact that because of the bye the Pats got, the season amounts to
another ONE-AND-DONE playoff loss season... That would be only 2 playoff
game appearances since 2007 and both were ONE-AND-DONE losses!
That's got to sting! :-)
MZ
> Don't know if they're chokers, but it's been quite a while since they were worthy of all
> the hype they get.
I think they started out the season around 16th in everyone's power
rankings. Obviously, they outperformed expectations this year. I
wouldn't say they're a myth or that they're overhyped. They became
hyped by season's end because they had the best record in the league
and an MVP quarterback. This was not undue hype. It was earned. But
even Pats fans have been wary about the team for most of this season,
myself included. Too many holes.
The bigger question might be what it is about these teams that the
Patriots struggle with so much. The Ravens and Jets play very similar
football. And, although the Giants were quite a bit different in
terms of personnel and scheme, they shared the fact that they were a
pressure-based defense that disguised looks better than most teams.
The Pats have a lot of work to do this offseason but I think they have
a very good base to build off of. Youth, draft picks, and a franchise
QB who doesn't appear to be on the decline just yet. I wouldn't
exactly put them in the has-been category. Maybe the difference isn't
with the Pats as much as it is with the Jets. The Jets have emerged
as a top tier NFL team. You play them three times a year and it'll
take its toll and the losses will pile up.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
i think the pats are economical with players and rely on their
system. it has gotten them a lot of success, but they sort of closed
the door on very talented guys that can makes plays just based on
super star athletic attributes. that is what i think they are
missing. big time skill players. they cost lots, but you gotta have
a few other than your qb. They make things happen and bail you out in
big time games.
MuahMan
Harlan Lachman
<b91b2f94-0d4c-40fa...@o9g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
Mark, I have been thinking this is the year the Pats should package
their extra picks and move up and take their top QB. Since no one is
ready to play now (meaning teams are no so sure as they will be next
year with Luck that no one will trade regardless of the offer), and at
least one of these guys playing two or three years behind Brady will be
great, what do you think?
h
John Vamp
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 11:22:49 -0500, "yoyodog" <NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Don't know if they're chokers, but it's been quite a while since they were worthy of all
> the hype they get.
Why do they get all the "hype"? Because year in, year out, they're
among the elite teams in the league. They're damned good. They had
by far the best regular season of any team in football this year.
14-2, beating every significant team on their schedule. They had the
most impressive record against teams that went to the playoffs. The
last 8 games they were just demolishing people (including the Jets,
Steelers, Bears, three teams in the final 4). They were doing it at
home and on the road. How do you not hype that? They were hyping the
Jets all offseason and they hadn't really accomplished much of
anything.
As for the choker label, someone should check out the great 49er
dynasty. They won 5 super bowls in 14 seasons....an incredible
accomplishment. But, um, that means they did *not* win a title in *9*
of those 14 seasons. They had some brutal losses. 4 home playoff
losses in that stretch. 4 NFCCG losses. They had 2 *home* NFCCG
losses when they were the #1 seed in the conference. Montana had some
horrific playoff performances.
Bottom line, even the greatest dynasty the league has ever known (SB
era) had many more years where they didn't win it and suffered gut-
wrenching losses than years where they did win it all.
It's damned hard winning a Super Bowl. There's a reason why even the
most successful SB-winning franchise (Pittsburgh) "only" has six. In
44 years. That's 38 non-winning years. Winning it once is extremely
difficult. Everything has to go right. Winning it multiple times is
many orders of magnitude harder. It wouldn't shock me if the Pats
don't win another one in the BB/TB era (wouldn't shock me if they do
either). That's how hard it is.
Look at the 2001 and 2004 Steelers. #1 team in the AFC both years,
home field advantage. Both times playing the AFCCG at home against
New England. Both times walking away losers. You can have everything
set up nicely for you and if you don't play your best football, the
other team (who is also very good) will likely beat you.
Doesn't mean you're a choker. Every good franchise has many more
setbacks than successes. It's the nature of the beast when you crown
only one champion. It would mean that the greatest dynasty in the SB
era was more of a choker than a champion.
I know you guys want to dog the Pats, and it's your business to do so,
so feel free. But it's very, very off the mark in almost every
conceivable way.
John Vamp
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 14:47:38 -0800 (PST), MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Is Ryan the next Norv Turner? We'll find out on Sunday.
>
> First talk about your beloved coach, in his first two seasons as HC, in Cleveland.
Excellent point. I don't think any reasonable person could conclude
that Rex Ryan has done anything but a fantastic job for the Jets. Ask
any Jets fan in the summer of 2009 if they'd sign up for:
- two consecutive playoff appearances
- a 21-11 regular season mark over that stretch
- two trips to the AFCCG
- beating the Pats in the playoffs
- a never-ending stream of entertainment from this team
Every single Jets fan would have signed up for that in a nanosecond.
That said, I still think that you need to win the SB title for it to
ultimately be fulfilling (as a fan). The Red Sox got oh so close many
times, and fans may have thought, ok, not the "SOS" (same old Sox),
only to have another heartbreaking loss, leading to:
"aaaaagggghhhhh....the curse lives!"
If the Jets get outcoached and outplayed by the Steelers, will Jet
fans be okay with that, especially given the fact that they recently
beat the Steelers in Pittsburgh and seem to have all the momentum in
the world with them right now? If Schotty devises a humdrum game
plan, if Sanchez throws 2 awful picks, if the Steelers rip through the
Jets proud defense, if Ryan looks befuddled on the sideline....if that
happens, will Jet fans be bitching and moaning this time next week, or
will they shrug and just say, hey, it was a great year?
I suspect it won't be the latter. But I could be wrong. Hopefully
for Jet fans, that will remain a thought experiment and the Jets will
win their next two games.
John Vamp
> And to me, part of their success, has to do with that coverage.
> If I could see the Pats were vulnerable to certain things, the Media could too.
> But, ya never heard about it.
> It's just the way I see it, obviously, you have a different perspective.
I don't disagree that a lot gets said about the Pats. The reason for
that is because year-in and year-out they're at or near the top of the
league. If they sucked, nobody would say much about them. The
Yankees get tons of hype too. Why? Because they're always really,
really good.
> >As for the choker label, someone should check out the great 49er
> >dynasty. They won 5 super bowls in 14 seasons....an incredible
> >accomplishment. But, um, that means they did *not* win a title in *9*
> >of those 14 seasons. They had some brutal losses. 4 home playoff
> >losses in that stretch. 4 NFCCG losses. They had 2 *home* NFCCG
> >losses when they were the #1 seed in the conference. Montana had some
> >horrific playoff performances.
>
> I don't think they're chokers. But as I've mentioned, I think they're arrogant, which
> leaves them open to what the Jets did Sunday.
I don't see how they're any more arrogant than the Jets or any other
good team. They are really good, and they know they're really good,
but they work their asses off to be the best they can be. I don't
think they ever (maybe they do, but it's rare) take opponents lightly.
> When they were challenged, it didn't
> compute, and they responded in very un-Pats-like ways.
I don't understand what you're talking about, buRf, I really don't.
The Pats haven't won a playoff game since the AFCCG in 2007. They've
lost 3 in a row. They've lost a bunch of regular season games since
2007. They've had people "challenge" them a lot, including this
year. Most of the time they withstand the challenge and win.
Sometimes they don't and they lose. Sunday was one of the latter
times. The Jets played better but it isn't like they unlocked some
secret that they were the first ones to figure out. It's no secret to
beating the Pats: if you get good pressure on Brady, force some
mistakes, and play mistake-free football yourself, you've got a very
good shot to win. That's exactly what the Jets did. Most teams try
that but aren't successful. The Jets were.
Give them credit for what they did, but don't give them credit for
being "tougher" or some other nonsense. They executed better and made
fewer mistakes.
> And seriously, as a Jets fan I watched Woodhead when he was here... always liked the kid.
> He was very humble. He's changed since joining the Pats, and has taken on that arrogance,
> or whatever you want to call that Pats mindset.
It's funny that your team has produced the most trash talk in recent
memory, while the Pats virtually *never* engage in that kind of stuff,
and yet you call the Patriots arrogant and, with the Woodhead
reference, imply that the Jets are the humble ones.
Bizarro-world for sure.
> >I know you guys want to dog the Pats, and it's your business to do so,
> >so feel free. But it's very, very off the mark in almost every
> >conceivable way.
>
> I don't think anyone is dogging the Pats. We all just come from a very different
> perspective, than yours.
Obviously. We agree on many things probably, but I cannot even fathom
some of the things you're talking about.
Michael
The Yankees are a highly paid exhibition. Pro baseball is not a
sport. It is an exhibition masquerading as sport. The Yankee's spend
more on their traveling circus act then the others can do.
> some of the things you're talking about.- Hide quoted text -
MZ
> In article
> <b91b2f94-0d4c-40fa-9813-62b3094fc...@o9g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
I don't think you give up that much, and pay that much money, for a
backup player. I'm also not sure what they have in Hoyer yet. They
seem to like him a lot, and I'll be honest, I thought he's looked
great in the limited snaps I've seen him in. Who knows?
I think they should package their Oakland pick and a couple of their
second rounders & third rounders to move into the top 5 to draft
whoever the next Richard Seymour is. Easily their biggest weakness
this year. They need a Suh-like playmaker alongside Wilfork and Ty
Warren. Preferably one that can be physical enough to push back these
330lb OTs in the running game, and penetrate the pocket on third
downs.
Then use their remaining early picks (their own + Carolina's #33) on a
stud OLB/pass rusher & maybe a running back or C/G (if Mankins
walks). Maybe even another 3-4 DE after their first pick just because
it's so great a need and they can't afford to miss.
Belichick screwed the pooch trading Seymour. Starting Gerard Warren
at RE and an undrafted rookie at NT/LE, and moving Wilfork to DE to
compensate, really left this front 7 in shambles. Jets fans should
actually be a little concerned that they weren't more effective
against this rag-tag group -- Pittsburgh is much more stout against
the run and dynamic on third downs. See Tut's post about how awful
the Patriots are.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
i saw pittsburg's best vs the jets best a few weeks ago. the steelers
defensive front seven did not man handle the jets offensive line.
what was worrysome was the way the patch work steeler offensive line
was able to work against the jets front seven. after the NE game, it
looks like Pace and Ellis are cranking it up a bit now. Perhaps they
will continue the trend Sunday. I hope.
Grinch
The AFC East was by far the toughest division in the league this year
and its teams played by far the toughest schedule, when computing SOS
by who they played and everyone's margin of victory. Second was the
AFC North -- and the East and North played each other. All their
teams were better than their w-l record looked -- Pitt, Balt, Jets,
Mia was winning-team strength versus an average schedule, and
Cleveland was a lot better than their poor w-l looked, so them beating
NE should maybe be a surprise but not *such* a shock. These teams as
a group and GB in the NFC really dominated the whole league this
year.
(Atlanta won a ton of close games this year, but close games are luck
-- winning close games in the regular season predicts *losing* in the
playoffs. Losing close games in the season *strongly* predicts
winning in the playoffs. GB had no luck in close games this season.
When they met last week the result was exactly what history
predicted.)
Now, two obvious facts that for some reason pro football fans are much
more reluctant than fans of other sports to accept -- are often openly
hostile to, even -- are that (1) there is an awful lot of random
chance in determining game outcomes, and (2) in championship
tournaments where the contestants are more closely grouped together
than in the regular season, the underdog less-good contestants win
even more often than other times. Of course they do.
That's why the MLB and NBA and hockey playoffs are seven games, And
why in other sports few people confuse "the champion" with "the
best". If in tennis or golf the 12-seed wins Wimbledon or the US Open
nobody thinks he's suddenly "the best" but everybody salutes him as
champion -- and nobody damns the top 11 seeds as "chokers". In MLB
in 2003-2005 the Cardinals won 105 games and lost the WS, 100 games
and lost in the playoffs, and then all of 83 games and *won* the World
Series. The world of baseball was not put on its head --there was no
shock or stunned silence -- "the best team" and "the champion" and two
different things. Baseball fans know that. What was the problem?
But in football the fans are very different. It's all about "imposing
your will" on the other team, that means "character", that means a
team is composed of heros who rise to the occasion or don't -- and are
*personalized* for it as "clutch" or "chokers".
During the regular season, "on any given Sunday any team can win" the
fans know -- but for some reason during the playoffs, when the teams
are grouped much more closely together by quality, only "the best" are
supposed to be winners.
It's all heros-and-chokers *bullshit*. The best team has to be number
1 or they *choked*, and if the 6th seed wins it really shows they
*are* the best because their "clutch play" proves it.
Everything is *hugely* over-personalized.
Right now on NFL.com there's expert analysis titled "The "Belichick-
Brady Combo Isn't Superhuman After All" ... WTF bullshit is this?
Did anyone ever call the Joe Torre-Derek Jeter combo "Superhuman"?
But the story goes on to warn us, we *should have known* Belichick
isn't superhuman: "Who could forget Belichick's horrendous decision
to go for it on fourth-and-1 at Indianapolis in 2009?" When it was
4th and 2 and exactly the *right* call.
This "Superhuman" stupidity is be being pushed right on the NFL's own
web site -- because football fans for some reason lap it up, it makes
the NFL and its allies tons of money.
Here's my take on Belichick and Brady going from the "Superhuman
Combo" to "Dummy and Choker", and all the Pats "recent losing". FWIW:
BB is a great coach. He built the Pats into a top team quickly. In
the process of doing so they were also *lucky* in that they won more
playoff games than anyone would expect by how good they were. Very
good and lucky too *is* the unbeatable combo. They overachieved.
Suddenly they were Superhuman! Who could stay with them?? Nobody!
Then things happened the other way. They got unlucky in that they
lost some games in the playoffs when they were the better team. It
happens. (Ask the Cards of 2003-4 -- or 2005! Or countless other
teams in all sports.) In a single elimination tournament, not best of
7, that means you are out right there. So 18-0 .. out. Against Balt
last year, out. After 14-2 this year ... out.
When a very, very good team plays a very good team in one single game,
the very good team has a quite good chance of winning -- as fans of
all other sports know. In reality, that's all that's happening here.
Period.
But football fans can't take that -- the Superhuman Combo, having been
built up to that previously, now must become become rotten playcaller
and choker. It's all incredibly stupid bullshit -- but it really
hypes the game and makes the NFL and media advertisers money,
NFL football is an entertainment industry, exactly like Hollywood.
And the league and TV networks and all the expert media pundits are
every bit as concernced about the truth of all the stories they spin
as Hollywood is.
> The bigger question might be what it is about these teams that the
> Patriots struggle with so much...
The Pats O eviscerated teams this year with a short passing game.
Brady mostly threw short, even more than prior years. The Pats D for
the most part was lesser quality and played "bend but don't break".
When the Jets heavy blitzed the Pats in the prior game, as is Rex's
normal want, *boom*, we saw the mismatches and one-on-ones that
resulted for Brady to exploit to go ahead from the first drive. And
let's just say that Sanchez is not a come-from-behind kind of QB, the
more he tries that the more picks he throws. Result 45-3.
The formula for countering a team with the Pats character is not
rocket science to figure out: Get a controlled, low-mistake O going
to make the Pats D bend-but-don't-break D bend *a lot*, consuming
time, reducing possessions, so you don't get in a shoot-out with
Brady, then put out a contain D that takes away the wideouts' big
plays, make the Pats O run short passes to consume time too...
Then hope for the best. The hard part of the game plan isn't the
conception, the challenge is getting the execution to make it work,
and the *luck* to be in a position to make it work. Because it doesn't
work if you are behind, only if you are close or ahead. If you are
behind then you are running the clock out on yourself and the Pats
have all the options. If you have bad luck and for some reason start
out behind early, you are screwed. There's not really a credible plan
B.
That first pick the Jets grabbed was *huge* -- even after the FG
missed -- because it set the Pats way back and kept the game situation
in a position where that game plan could work. It kept the Jets O in
a position where they could choose to do the things Sanchez is good at
rather than be foreced to have him do things he's bad at, as in the
last game.
Of course the pick was good defense but it was also *luck* too -- how
many picks does Brady throw, and how many get run back all that way? .
And *all* picks are in very large part luck. There is no defensive
play call: "OK, we get the pick on this play".
Rex put in the right D game plan to contain the Pats O -- 180 degrees
different from the last one -- it was executed with excellence all
the way through, they used the right O game plan, the combination of
*great* D and early luck kept the O in a position where it could
continue with the game plan ... so it was a competitive game ....
then the Pats made some mistakes as mortal humans do -- the bungled
fake punt giving the Jets another 7 was also *huge*, it kept the Jets
O able to stick safely with the low-risk game plan until time ran
out ... and the Jets won.
It was a game. Rex used the right plan to keep things close, then
things worked out. Personally I think the Pats probably are the
better team, by maybe 6-4 in a 10 game set -- but the NFL doesn't play
10-game sets, and when good teams are this closely matched in a single
game either one can win.
And that's the way it is from here until the Lombardi Trophy is
awarded. There are four very closely matched and comparable teams
left, any one of them can win, really it's from a 20% to 30% chance
for each.
The winner will have well earned the trophy and be a true "champion"
-- but as to all the unavoidable accompanying stories about how it
will have "imposed its will" and "risen to the occassion" and "proved
itself *the best*" and in retrospect "no other result was possible"
while the opposing QBs "failed, choked, under the pressure" .... go
stuff all that bullshit claptrap.
> The Pats have a lot of work to do this offseason but I think they have
> a very good base to build off of. Youth, draft picks, and a franchise
> QB who doesn't appear to be on the decline just yet. I wouldn't
> exactly put them in the has-been category.
I see no reason at all to believe the Pats won't be as good in the
next few years as in the last few.
I can't believe they will be as lucky again as in Belichick and
Brady's first few, so they may never wear their SuperMan capes again
at NFL.com, and may suffer in comparison to their early selves in the
public's eye -- but on the merits I see no reason to believe they
won't do just fine.
> Maybe the difference isn't
> with the Pats as much as it is with the Jets. The Jets have emerged
> as a top tier NFL team. You play them three times a year and it'll
> take its toll and the losses will pile up.- Hide quoted text -
John Vamp
> >I don't understand what you're talking about, buRf, I really don't.
> >The Pats haven't won a playoff game since the AFCCG in 2007. They've
> >lost 3 in a row. They've lost a bunch of regular season games since
> >2007. They've had people "challenge" them a lot, including this
> >year. Most of the time they withstand the challenge and win.
> >Sometimes they don't and they lose. Sunday was one of the latter
> >times. The Jets played better but it isn't like they unlocked some
> >secret that they were the first ones to figure out. It's no secret to
> >beating the Pats: if you get good pressure on Brady, force some
> >mistakes, and play mistake-free football yourself, you've got a very
> >good shot to win. That's exactly what the Jets did. Most teams try
> >that but aren't successful. The Jets were.
>
> Simply... they made a lot of mistakes, they haven't been making.
> And I'm not talking about the younguns... the Vets.
> Why, in the biggest game of the season?
> After rolling through 8 (?) dominating performances.
> I've watched most of their games this season... only a couple of teams put up any
> challenge.
The Jets beat them once. The Browns killed them. The Steelers, after
falling behind big early, came roaring back but didn't have enough in
the end. The Ravens only lost by 3 in OT, and you *know* they don't
back down from anybody. The Colts nearly pulled off a great comeback
- they didn't back down from the Pats at all. The Packers, with a
backup QB, came into Foxboro and led almost the whole game; the Pats
were saved by a weird kickoff return by a lineman and by Flynn finally
remembering that he's a backup QB in the waning seconds. They put up
a hell of a fight. Heck, the freaking *Lions* punched the Pats in the
mouth early in that game and looked like they were going to run away
with that one. The Pats finally took the lead in the 4th quarter
(then pulled away).
In other words, you're way, way off the mark. Lots of teams stood up
to the Pats and gave them a real challenge. You're just wrong about
this...it's not a matter of "different perspective"...you're flat-out
wrong.
> After beating the Jets 45-3, they believed they were that much better.
> They seemed bemused with the Jets antics, that they, of course, were above.
Ok. Surely you know how the players feel and what they believe.
Right. The team has a policy of not talking smack (which is why
Welker got benched). They're not "above" it per se....it's just not
how they conduct themselves.
> But my point about the challenge... they seemed confused, and in-shock.
> I didn't see them rise up, like I expected them to. They seemed beaten, pretty early in
> the game.
Good lord, did you even *watch* the game? They stuffed the Jets on
their opening drive then marched right down the field, 8 plays, 56
yards, effortlessly. Simms was saying that the Jets looked confused.
Then Brady makes a monumental error and the Jets get the ball at the
Pats' 12. What happens? The Pats' D promptly buries the Jets again
and Folk misses the chippie. The Pats then march right down the field
*again*, 11 plays, 63 yards. When they got to the Jets' 7, were you
thinking at that point, "Wow, the Jets look sharp, really handing it
to the Pats...the Pats look like a beaten team!"???? I'm sure you
were thinking, "The Jets look like crap...can't stop the Pats, can't
move the football, can't even kick a simple field goal."
The Jets get tons of credit for withstanding the early barrage, and
when, after all that, they were down just 3-0, they gained confidence
and the tide began to turn a few possessions later.
So again, you're just plain wrong. It was the *Pats* that came out
swinging and the *Jets* that looked flat. It wasn't until the 2nd
quarter that the Jets' offense did anything useful (the big 37 yard
pass to Edwards on 3rd and 6 to set up their first TD).
> The only time I felt a bit nervous, after the Jets went up 7-3, was with the
> onsides kicks. The ball bounces in weird ways, and anything can happen.
> But I never felt the Jets were challenged, once they settled the game down, & hit back.
You weren't nervous at all once the Pats ripped up the Jets' D for the
TD that cut the score to 14-11, with a quarter left to go and momentum
on the Pats' side? At that point the Jets' offense in the 2nd half
had two straight possessions of very little production (two punts).
You could feel things changing. And then, bang!, the pass to Cotchery
and the incredible catch by Holmes and they righted the ship. But it
was very touch-and-go there after the Pats cut the lead to 3 in the
third quarter.
> >Give them credit for what they did, but don't give them credit for
> >being "tougher" or some other nonsense. They executed better and made
> >fewer mistakes.
>
> >> And seriously, as a Jets fan I watched Woodhead when he was here... always liked the kid.
> >> He was very humble. He's changed since joining the Pats, and has taken on that arrogance,
> >> or whatever you want to call that Pats mindset.
>
> >It's funny that your team has produced the most trash talk in recent
> >memory, while the Pats virtually *never* engage in that kind of stuff,
> >and yet you call the Patriots arrogant and, with the Woodhead
> >reference, imply that the Jets are the humble ones.
>
> >Bizarro-world for sure.
>
> It's not bizarre.
> You keep saying the Jets talk trash... they don't.
!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!? The commissioner had to issue a
statement about all the trash-talking crap. Never has that been done
before. And *why* did he do it? Do I even have to answer that
question? Good grief. I never said every single Jets player talks
trash...but if you deny that the trash talk that emanates from the
Jets' organization (a few players and their coach) isn't real,
blustery, and voluminous, you might as well deny that the earth goes
round the sun. Good grief, buRf!!
> Their coach talks a lot... 99.9% of it is just what he believes. He says what he thinks.
> Other coaches just say it to their teams.
> A couple of players talk trash, not the team. Most of the players are quiet.
> The Pats give off a *we're above* the fray attitude, reflecting BBs thing.
> That to me, is the arrogance I speak of.
So it's better to talk trash and have the commish have to crack down
on things than to just keep it quiet and professional? You think it's
better, if you're playing basketball, to talk trash to your opponent
or to let your play do the talking? I guess you think it's more
honorable and "humble" to talk smack rather than just play.
> >> >I know you guys want to dog the Pats, and it's your business to do so,
> >> >so feel free. But it's very, very off the mark in almost every
> >> >conceivable way.
>
> >> I don't think anyone is dogging the Pats. We all just come from a very different
> >> perspective, than yours.
>
> >Obviously. We agree on many things probably, but I cannot even fathom
> >some of the things you're talking about.
>
> Why would you? You're coming from a totally different perspective.
> We're all, to a degree, blinded by our allegiances to our respective teams ;)
Obviously. I am trying to understand what you're saying, and
different perspectives is fine and understandable, but you're blinded
to actual *facts*. You think you know what the Patriots players
"believe" when you have no idea...you're just guessing. You think the
Jets came out and challenged the Pats right away and the Pats didn't
know how to respond, when in fact the Pats came out and thoroughly
outplayed the Jets in the first quarter...but the Jets limited the
damage, survived it, and turned the game around in the second quarter.
As Mr. Miyagi said to Kreese of Cobra Kai: "Sorry....facts mixed
up."
John Vamp
> >As Mr. Miyagi said to Kreese of Cobra Kai: "Sorry....facts mixed
> >up."
>
> Those are your facts, John... not mine ;)
Sorry buRf....facts are facts. We don't own a certain set of
them. ;-)
Michael
> I saw him respond to what a Jet player did (Pace), thus, it was a forced error, and Harris
> made a nice play. It wasn't in a vacuum, and it wasn't the Pats outplaying the Jets in
> the first quarter. The Jets O rarely does anything in the first quarter, so to me, the
> Jets O was just being the Jets O. If the All-Newgroup Team was out there on D, against
> the Jets in the first qtr, the O would've done the same thing. They haven't scored an O
> TD, in 13 (?) games. Getting shutout in the first quarter, is their norm.
> It's all perspective.
>
> One other thing, as far as Rex & trash talk... there's a method to it, it aint just hot
> air. Rex focused a lot of the attention on himself. Welker bit, & was reprimanded by BB.
> Not that much of a big deal, one series, but I'm sure it got Welker's attention, as well
> as the rest of the players. Thus, Rex got into Welker's head, and gave his team a small
> advantage.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Brady himself said in an interview that "Calvan Pace flashed in front
of me and I tried to loft it over him"
in short... a forced error...
MZ
> It IS perspective. I saw the game differently. You saw Brady's INT as his error.
> I saw him respond to what a Jet player did (Pace), thus, it was a forced error, and Harris
> the first quarter.
Burf, obviously the Jets blew up that play. But actually choosing to
throw that ball was dumb dumb dumb. You either take the sack there or
(more likely) throw it at someone's feet. It was the ugliest throw of
the game.
I get what you're saying though -- the Jets D just beat the Pats O.
It wasn't all on Brady and the line and the receivers, etc. The D
played lights out football and the Pats O couldn't overcome that.
But, along the same lines, I disagree with your take on the Jets O.
The Pats D showed up early. Bad situations eventually put them behind
and it snowballed. Despite the score, I felt they played admirably
overall -- at least for a defense that most folks knew had some
serious flaws. [A little surprised that tackling in the secondary was
one of their bigger issues though, and that the Jets OL couldn't
really capitalize on the Pats DL...pretty strange]
> One other thing, as far as Rex & trash talk... there's a method to it, it aint just hot
> air. Rex focused a lot of the attention on himself. Welker bit, & was reprimanded by BB.
> Not that much of a big deal, one series, but I'm sure it got Welker's attention, as well
> as the rest of the players. Thus, Rex got into Welker's head, and gave his team a small
> advantage.
I love Rex's trash talk. He knows exactly what he's doing and I think
he has fun with it. Bart Scott, however, is an asshole and should be
suspended for his comments. And Cromartie and Tomlinson, being cut
from the Chargers cloth, are whiney little babies. I have no problem
with the rest of the team and the confidence they exude. But those
three need a muzzle. This isn't exactly a new trait of theirs either.
John Vamp
I gave you all kinds of facts. Statistics, things that actually
happened in the game, etc. Things you can actually look up in a game
report.