Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Week 10 Other Games
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> New England Patriots
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Richter


Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Posts: 12054
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcmurtry86 wrote:
NextBigThing wrote:
The Falcons are the least dominant, worst 'best' team in a while. They've had several wins they had no business winning. No way they are ahead of SF.


The 49ers have 2 fewer wins (an extra loss and the tie) and have played only a slightly stronger schedule.

Losing the the Giants and Vikings and tying the Rams takes away any argument you can make for the 49ers being better than the Falcons. On paper, maybe. But in execution, it just hasn't been there this year.

To be fair, that tie came with Colin Kapernick, rather than Alex Smith (I can't believe I'm typing this sentence) at quarterback for most of the game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcmurtry86


Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 23574
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Richter wrote:

It makes perfect sense if you don't consider all units to be equally important. The Patriots' bad defense is less likely to hold them back given the teams they are most probable to face in the AFC playoffs


The Patriots D got torn up by the Seahawks, Jets and Bills. I don't at all buy the idea that the defense will not hold them back in the playoffs against teams like the Ravens, Steelers, Broncos or Texans.

This is a D that let Mark Sanchez complete 68% of his passes against them. I'm sorry but if you honestly think the Pats defense is going to be less of an issue against the top AFC teams than the Bears offense against the top NFC defenses, I don't know what to tell you. That's one of the most bizarre statements I've seen you make on this board.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcmurtry86


Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 23574
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Richter wrote:
mcmurtry86 wrote:
NextBigThing wrote:
The Falcons are the least dominant, worst 'best' team in a while. They've had several wins they had no business winning. No way they are ahead of SF.


The 49ers have 2 fewer wins (an extra loss and the tie) and have played only a slightly stronger schedule.

Losing the the Giants and Vikings and tying the Rams takes away any argument you can make for the 49ers being better than the Falcons. On paper, maybe. But in execution, it just hasn't been there this year.

To be fair, that tie came with Colin Kapernick, rather than Alex Smith (I can't believe I'm typing this sentence) at quarterback for most of the game.


Kaepernick was 11/17 and made a number of plays with his legs. He wasn't the reason they struggled in that game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richter


Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Posts: 12054
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcmurtry86 wrote:
Richter wrote:

It makes perfect sense if you don't consider all units to be equally important. The Patriots' bad defense is less likely to hold them back given the teams they are most probable to face in the AFC playoffs


The Patriots D got torn up by the Seahawks, Jets and Bills. I don't at all buy the idea that the defense will not hold them back in the playoffs against teams like the Ravens, Steelers, Broncos or Texans.

This is a D that let Mark Sanchez complete 68% of his passes against them. I'm sorry but if you honestly think the Pats defense is going to be less of an issue against the top AFC teams than the Bears offense against the top NFC defenses, I don't know what to tell you. That's one of the most bizarre statements I've seen you make on this board.

If the offense performs (and that's no given) the way it can in the playoffs, the defense is not as likely to be exploited to the same degree playing a Ravens or Steelers team, as the offense of the Bears is going up against the Giants or 49ers, in my estimation. I could be wrong about this, but I just find it more likely that the Bears get totally shut down in a playoff game on offense to the point that it costs them a win, than I do that the Patriots lose exclusively because they get shredded on defense. I honestly consider a Patriots' short-circuit on offense to be the more likely reason they get knocked out of contention, simply because it follows the pattern established in recent years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richter


Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Posts: 12054
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcmurtry86 wrote:
Richter wrote:
mcmurtry86 wrote:
NextBigThing wrote:
The Falcons are the least dominant, worst 'best' team in a while. They've had several wins they had no business winning. No way they are ahead of SF.


The 49ers have 2 fewer wins (an extra loss and the tie) and have played only a slightly stronger schedule.

Losing the the Giants and Vikings and tying the Rams takes away any argument you can make for the 49ers being better than the Falcons. On paper, maybe. But in execution, it just hasn't been there this year.

To be fair, that tie came with Colin Kapernick, rather than Alex Smith (I can't believe I'm typing this sentence) at quarterback for most of the game.


Kaepernick was 11/17 and made a number of plays with his legs. He wasn't the reason they struggled in that game.

The stats are deceiving, because his lack of ability to throw with consistent accuracy allowed the Rams to stack the box and attack on defense more often. Kapernick wasn't awful, but he was certainly a big factor in their struggles (along with their sudden inability to stop the run).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcmurtry86


Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 23574
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Richter wrote:
mcmurtry86 wrote:
Richter wrote:

It makes perfect sense if you don't consider all units to be equally important. The Patriots' bad defense is less likely to hold them back given the teams they are most probable to face in the AFC playoffs


The Patriots D got torn up by the Seahawks, Jets and Bills. I don't at all buy the idea that the defense will not hold them back in the playoffs against teams like the Ravens, Steelers, Broncos or Texans.

This is a D that let Mark Sanchez complete 68% of his passes against them. I'm sorry but if you honestly think the Pats defense is going to be less of an issue against the top AFC teams than the Bears offense against the top NFC defenses, I don't know what to tell you. That's one of the most bizarre statements I've seen you make on this board.

If the offense performs (and that's no given) the way it can in the playoffs, the defense is not as likely to be exploited to the same degree playing a Ravens or Steelers team, as the offense of the Bears is going up against the Giants or 49ers, in my estimation. I could be wrong about this, but I just find it more likely that the Bears get totally shut down in a playoff game on offense to the point that it costs them a win, than I do that the Patriots lose exclusively because they get shredded on defense. I honestly consider a Patriots' short-circuit on offense to be the more likely reason they get knocked out of contention, simply because it follows the pattern established in recent years.


The recent Pats loss to the Seahwaks is a great example as to why I think you're wrong. Hell, most of the games this year are good proof as to why your statement is a bit strange. The Pats offense, as good as it is, repeatedly "short circuits". In just about every game.

And you might be right about the Bears offense being shut down, but they do have the ability for their D and special teams to score points and to create short fields for the offense. There's a reason the Bears are 3rd in the NFL (coming into today) in points scored.

I don't think the Patriots D could stop anyone outside of forcing turnovers. I expect that against a good team, most likely on the road, the Pats offense will not be able to be perfect - which it will need to be to compensate for the abysmal D.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
24isthelaw


Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 7611
Location: Where the Patriots are
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LOL Kellen Davis

Gronk - Talent > Kellen Davis
_________________

Adopt-a-Patriot: Marcus Forston - Practice squad (0 tackles, 0 sacks)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Richter


Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Posts: 12054
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcmurtry86 wrote:
Richter wrote:
mcmurtry86 wrote:
Richter wrote:

It makes perfect sense if you don't consider all units to be equally important. The Patriots' bad defense is less likely to hold them back given the teams they are most probable to face in the AFC playoffs


The Patriots D got torn up by the Seahawks, Jets and Bills. I don't at all buy the idea that the defense will not hold them back in the playoffs against teams like the Ravens, Steelers, Broncos or Texans.

This is a D that let Mark Sanchez complete 68% of his passes against them. I'm sorry but if you honestly think the Pats defense is going to be less of an issue against the top AFC teams than the Bears offense against the top NFC defenses, I don't know what to tell you. That's one of the most bizarre statements I've seen you make on this board.

If the offense performs (and that's no given) the way it can in the playoffs, the defense is not as likely to be exploited to the same degree playing a Ravens or Steelers team, as the offense of the Bears is going up against the Giants or 49ers, in my estimation. I could be wrong about this, but I just find it more likely that the Bears get totally shut down in a playoff game on offense to the point that it costs them a win, than I do that the Patriots lose exclusively because they get shredded on defense. I honestly consider a Patriots' short-circuit on offense to be the more likely reason they get knocked out of contention, simply because it follows the pattern established in recent years.


The recent Pats loss to the Seahwaks is a great example as to why I think you're wrong. Hell, most of the games this year are good proof as to why your statement is a bit strange. The Pats offense, as good as it is, repeatedly "short circuits". In just about every game.

And you might be right about the Bears offense being shut down, but they do have the ability for their D and special teams to score points and to create short fields for the offense. There's a reason the Bears are 3rd in the NFL (coming into today) in points scored.

I don't think the Patriots D could stop anyone outside of forcing turnovers. I expect that against a good team, most likely on the road, the Pats offense will not be able to be perfect - which it will need to be to compensate for the abysmal D.

That reason would be primarily the 8 non-offensive TDs they've scored, but you can't rely on that in the playoffs on a game to game basis. If you are stagnant on offense for two games, and the first one you win because you get two non-offensive TDs, you're still likely to lose that second one. I don't consider the burden on the Pats offense to be quite as high as you - they don't need to be perfect. And, there's at least a chance that Talib comes in and provides a considerable boost to the secondary that increases that margin of error. That's what I'm basing my opinion on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richter


Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Posts: 12054
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also, can the Pats PLEASE sign Henry Melton in the offseason?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
24isthelaw


Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 7611
Location: Where the Patriots are
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Richter wrote:
Also, can the Pats PLEASE sign Henry Melton in the offseason?


He's exactly the player we need. Not sure how much money he'd command though, and I'm not sure he fits the philosophy either.
_________________

Adopt-a-Patriot: Marcus Forston - Practice squad (0 tackles, 0 sacks)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Richter


Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Posts: 12054
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

24isthelaw wrote:
Richter wrote:
Also, can the Pats PLEASE sign Henry Melton in the offseason?


He's exactly the player we need. Not sure how much money he'd command though, and I'm not sure he fits the philosophy either.

If you can't find a way to work a player like Melton into the mix because of your philosophy, there's something wrong with the philosophy. Good coaching staffs find ways to use good players even if they don't come in a neat, easily defined package. Considering the state of the defense currently, a powerful, explosive 3-technique should be a no-brainer, no matter how much they want to two gap.

The money, on the other hand...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
24isthelaw


Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 7611
Location: Where the Patriots are
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Richter wrote:
24isthelaw wrote:
Richter wrote:
Also, can the Pats PLEASE sign Henry Melton in the offseason?


He's exactly the player we need. Not sure how much money he'd command though, and I'm not sure he fits the philosophy either.

If you can't find a way to work a player like Melton into the mix because of your philosophy, there's something wrong with the philosophy. Good coaching staffs find ways to use good players even if they don't come in a neat, easily defined package. Considering the state of the defense currently, a powerful, explosive 3-technique should be a no-brainer, no matter how much they want to two gap.

The money, on the other hand...


Two other guys in this game who are FA are Connor Barwin and Israel Idonije. The former would be like having a much better Rob Ninkovich. Not sure who I feel about the latter, but it does seem like a Pats-type move given he's a strong run defender and a vet.
_________________

Adopt-a-Patriot: Marcus Forston - Practice squad (0 tackles, 0 sacks)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Richter


Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Posts: 12054
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, if the Steelers can beat the Chiefs straight up tomorrow night, I'm going to cash my now seven way parlay. And I'm really, really on the fence about hoping for a Chiefs upset, because I don't want the Steelers to make the postseason.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tzimisce


Most Valuable Poster
Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 46524
Location: Tuntmore Tower
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I need about 29 combined fantasy points from Wallace, Redman and Heath Miller.
_________________

BlaqOptic wrote:
I dont care that that little girl was adorable... I'll punch her in the face!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
redsoxsrule1437


Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 13249
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Richter wrote:
Well, if the Steelers can beat the Chiefs straight up tomorrow night, I'm going to cash my now seven way parlay. And I'm really, really on the fence about hoping for a Chiefs upset, because I don't want the Steelers to make the postseason.


You gonna hedge it?

Hitting a seven way parlay is pretty damn impressive. What is yours going to pay?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> New England Patriots All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 8 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group