| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
24isthelaw
Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 7438
Location: Where the Patriots are
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| mcmurtry86 wrote: |
He's not wrong. |
Now if only we could find another one of them.
_________________
Adopt-a-Patriot: Marcus Forston - Practice squad (0 tackles, 0 sacks) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
24isthelaw
Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 7438
Location: Where the Patriots are
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| mcmurtry86 wrote: | | 24isthelaw wrote: | | Tzimisce wrote: | Spikes didn't exactly endear himself.
And aside from a PD and a FF, he had a miserable game, just like all the Pats' LBs. |
So now that its over... who actually "showed up" today? The defense as a unit was terrible. Brady was bad. Welker dropped two balls. Ridley? |
Brady wasn't bad. Woodhead and Ridley were fine.
The entire defense was awful with only Wilfork, Cunningham and Arrington being acceptable. |
Looked skittish in the pocket, overthrew Gronk in the 4th quarter, and short-armed Woodhead at the goal line. By his standards I'd call that a bad game.
_________________
Adopt-a-Patriot: Marcus Forston - Practice squad (0 tackles, 0 sacks) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sciz
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 15531
Location: Iowa
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 24isthelaw wrote: | | So now that its over... who actually "showed up" today? The defense as a unit was terrible. Brady was bad. Welker dropped two balls. Ridley? |
Woodhead, whichever tackle was on Mario Williams (he switched sides a lot), McCourty. That's probably about it as far as "good" games. Arrington, Branch, Gronkowski, and Brady probably go in the "not bad" category.
Oh yeah, forgot Cunningham.
Last edited by Sciz on Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tzimisce
Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 45066
Location: driving around, listening to raps and shooting all the jobs
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Brady's game would've looked much better if Branch and Welker had been able to hold onto the ball.
_________________
| BlaqOptic wrote: | | I dont care that that little girl was adorable... I'll punch her in the face! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcmurtry86
Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 21777
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 24isthelaw wrote: |
Looked skittish in the pocket, overthrew Gronk in the 4th quarter, and short-armed Woodhead at the goal line. By his standards I'd call that a bad game. |
That's a pretty normal game. The Woodhead play, he was scrambling to get away from the defender and Woodhead would have been flagged for illegal touching anyway.
He only had one or two really bad throws except on plays where he was just heaving the ball down the field. It wasn't an especially great game, but wasn't bad by any stretch of the imagination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tzimisce
Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 45066
Location: driving around, listening to raps and shooting all the jobs
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Do we have to worry about the LB corps now, or was this game an aberration? Because I really don't want to think there are major deficiencies in the front-7 now, on top of the mess in the secondary. 
_________________
| BlaqOptic wrote: | | I dont care that that little girl was adorable... I'll punch her in the face! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcmurtry86
Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 21777
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Tzimisce wrote: | | Do we have to worry about the LB corps now, or was this game an aberration? Because I really don't want to think there are major deficiencies in the front-7 now, on top of the mess in the secondary. |
They suck in coverage, that's nothing new. Most teams are so busy working the terrible DB's that the LB's struggles in coverage don't get exploited too badly.
The team badly needs a coverage nickel LB.
In run support, it was mostly Hightower struggling but the DL wasn't doing the LB's any favors. The DE's were taking themselves out of the play with regularity and the non-Wilfork DT's (including Cunningham) were just awful in the run game.
Everyone was bad. Hightower's youth and inexperience was exposed and the "bad" Ninkovich and Love showed up. When those 2 guys have off-days (or big parts of the game), the D simply can't function. Today was a great example as to why Ninkovich and Love need to be replaced as starters - or at least 1 of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tzimisce
Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 45066
Location: driving around, listening to raps and shooting all the jobs
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| mcmurtry86 wrote: | | Tzimisce wrote: | | Do we have to worry about the LB corps now, or was this game an aberration? Because I really don't want to think there are major deficiencies in the front-7 now, on top of the mess in the secondary. |
They suck in coverage, that's nothing new. Most teams are so busy working the terrible DB's that the LB's struggles in coverage don't get exploited too badly. |
It's usually Spikes who gets abused in coverage, but Mayo didn't look like himself today, either.
Tackling was pitiful all around.
_________________
| BlaqOptic wrote: | | I dont care that that little girl was adorable... I'll punch her in the face! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcmurtry86
Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 21777
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Tzimisce wrote: | | mcmurtry86 wrote: | | Tzimisce wrote: | | Do we have to worry about the LB corps now, or was this game an aberration? Because I really don't want to think there are major deficiencies in the front-7 now, on top of the mess in the secondary. |
They suck in coverage, that's nothing new. Most teams are so busy working the terrible DB's that the LB's struggles in coverage don't get exploited too badly. |
It's usually Spikes who gets abused in coverage, but Mayo didn't look like himself today, either.
Tackling was pitiful all around. |
Mayo isn't bad in coverage, but good TE's have often given him problems |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wolverine_Joe
Joined: 23 Oct 2007
Posts: 2985
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 24isthelaw wrote: | | mcmurtry86 wrote: | | 24isthelaw wrote: | | Tzimisce wrote: | Spikes didn't exactly endear himself.
And aside from a PD and a FF, he had a miserable game, just like all the Pats' LBs. |
So now that its over... who actually "showed up" today? The defense as a unit was terrible. Brady was bad. Welker dropped two balls. Ridley? |
Brady wasn't bad. Woodhead and Ridley were fine.
The entire defense was awful with only Wilfork, Cunningham and Arrington being acceptable. |
Looked skittish in the pocket, overthrew Gronk in the 4th quarter, and short-armed Woodhead at the goal line. By his standards I'd call that a bad game. |
certainly wasn't perfect, but brady wasn't bad. without the idiotic drops it would've been a typical 300 3td day for brady. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
patsfan06
Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 2622
Location: Chestnut Hill
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Anyone who was watching on TV know how many times we blitzed today? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcmurtry86
Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 21777
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| patsfan06 wrote: | | Anyone who was watching on TV know how many times we blitzed today? |
Too many. They seemed to get burned badly on most of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
patsfan06
Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 2622
Location: Chestnut Hill
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| mcmurtry86 wrote: | | patsfan06 wrote: | | Anyone who was watching on TV know how many times we blitzed today? |
Too many. They seemed to get burned badly on most of them. |
We seemed to get burned badly on 75% of the defensive plays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcmurtry86
Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 21777
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| patsfan06 wrote: | | mcmurtry86 wrote: | | patsfan06 wrote: | | Anyone who was watching on TV know how many times we blitzed today? |
Too many. They seemed to get burned badly on most of them. |
We seemed to get burned badly on 75% of the defensive plays. |
Yes, and the blitzes were especially unproductive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goldfishwars
Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Posts: 7810
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| mcmurtry86 wrote: | | Tzimisce wrote: | | Do we have to worry about the LB corps now, or was this game an aberration? Because I really don't want to think there are major deficiencies in the front-7 now, on top of the mess in the secondary. |
They suck in coverage, that's nothing new. Most teams are so busy working the terrible DB's that the LB's struggles in coverage don't get exploited too badly.
The team badly needs a coverage nickel LB.
|
I wonder if they'll look at Khaseem Greene from Rutgers in the draft. BB loves his Rutgers guys and Greene is a Wesley Woodyard nickel line backer clone - I like him a lot.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
