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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 alongDannyHeep said:
Pats won't open as favorites. Jesus.
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.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?
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.
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)
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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
No shit. Let's stop pretending reaching the AFCCG is some sort of failure. My god.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.