New England Patriots thread (MOD WARNING - #4503)

Son Of A Vidic

SixtyTwo wrote: »

Well not really. How many times in the past have we needed to get in field goal range but were 50+ yards out and punted or gone for it because Gost hasn't got the leg for it.

I'm not seeing this he hasn't got the leg for it business tbh. His early season blip was with two or three relativity short range kicks. Like his last second miss against the Cardinals for example. Yet in the same game he powered a 54 yarder over with ease.

I'm not remembering any games where we needed to get into field goal range to win and didn't kick because of Gostkowski. Unless you have a pretty poor offense with limited scoring opportunities. Any sensible coach isn't going to take the risk of surrendering a huge chunk of territory in the event of a missed kick. Seconds left on the clock and kicking to win are obviously a different matter.

Gostkowski is the most reliable kicker in the leg, his stats are second to none. We all got our knickers in a twist with a couple of early season misses. But if anything, it just demonstrated how reliable he has been down through the years for us. A kicker is the least of my worries right now, I'm more interested in drafting a long term replacement for him and that can wait until next season imo.

SixtyTwo

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I'm not seeing this he hasn't got the leg for it business tbh. His early season blip was with two or three relativity short range kicks. Like his last second miss against the Cardinals for example. Yet in the same game he powered a 54 yarder over with ease.

Ask yourself why he has only kicked 10 50+ kicks in his career and don't feed me with the BS that the Pats have never been in the situation where we punted or gone for it when we could have kicked. The Pats coaching staff either don't trust Gost chances from 50+ or its selective kicking.

I'm not remembering any games where we needed to get into field goal range to win and didn't kick because of Gostkowski. Unless you have a pretty poor offense with limited scoring opportunities. Any sensible coach isn't going to take the risk of surrendering a huge chunk of territory in the event of a missed kick. Seconds left on the clock and kicking to win are obviously a different matter.

Plenty of close games we could have gone for 50-55 yard kicks but punted or gone for it instead. Every kick is a 50/50 shot even if the kicker is good at it. If Gost is so comfortable with 50+ kicks as you say why not take a shot on someone who has a 70% chance of making it or 86% chance of making any kick.

To add as someone who coaches in a game I understand the risks of giving up field position over taking the safer route of punting in the chance a kick is not made. But if I had Gostowski on my bench who you say is second to none and the most reliable kicker in the league. I sure as hell would give him a shot with 50+ kicks. You either trust your "Top" kicker or you don't.

Gostkowski is the most reliable kicker in the leg, his stats are second to none. We all got our knickers in a twist with a couple of early season misses. But if anything, it just demonstrated how reliable he has been down through the years for us. A kicker is the least of my worries right now, I'm more interested in drafting a long term replacement for him and that can wait until next season imo.

I didn't say he wasn't reliable nor did I say we should get rid of him but there is truth to the rumours when you take a look at the stats and the kicks. For fook sake it annoys me to see Pats fans not actually take a constructive look at our own team and pretend everything is rosey. Just like the Rams game at the weekend apparently we are now Bowl contenders after beating an awful Rams.

Son Of A Vidic

SixtyTwo wrote: »

Ask yourself why he has only kicked 10 50+ kicks in his career

Because of Tom Brady, the offense and the 'Down getting' machine that the Pats are known for.

SixtyTwo wrote: »

and don't feed me with the BS that the Pats have never been in the situation where we punted or gone for it when we could have kicked.

Jesus Christ calm down and please leave your use of 'BS' out of what should be a civil and mature exchange of views here. You raised the long range kicking issue, I honestly replied that I haven't ever noticed the issue before. If you can't accept that then I'm wasting my time.

SixtyTwo wrote: »

The Pats coaching staff either don't trust Gost chances from 50+ or its selective kicking.

Again I just haven't ever seen it myself. That's another honest reply btw and I'm not giving you 'BS' or 'feeding' you anything there by stating that.

SixtyTwo wrote: »

Plenty of close games we could have gone for 50-55 yard kicks but punted or gone for it instead.

I think we all know that BB can be hard man to fathom sometimes. He usually go for a punt or go all or nothing on 4th down. Him trusting Gostkowski has never crossed my mind. On Sunday - 4th and whatever in the redzone, most teams would have gone for the field goal. The Pats went for it and got the TD.

SixtyTwo wrote: »

To add as someone who coaches in a game I understand the risks of giving up field position over taking the safer route of punting in the chance a kick is not made. But if I had Gostowski on my bench who you say is second to none and the most reliable kicker in the league. I sure as hell would give him a shot with 50+ kicks. You either trust your "Top" kicker or you don't.

As I said his stats speak for themselves. The only time long range kicking is an issue for me, is when we have seconds left and the only option is a field goal. Incidentally only 6 kickers have kicked further than Gostkowski this season.

SixtyTwo wrote: »

I didn't say he wasn't reliable nor did I say we should get rid of him but there is truth to the rumours when you take a look at the stats and the kicks.

What rumours?

SixtyTwo wrote: »

For fook sake it annoys me to see Pats fans not actually take a constructive look at our own team and pretend everything is rosey. Just like the Rams game at the weekend apparently we are now Bowl contenders after beating an awful Rams.

Whose pretending? Because it's not the Patriots fault that they will always be listed as SB contenders. We lost three games while playing relatively shyte, yet we only lost by a combined 4 points and could have easily have won each of them.

Suddenly the Rams are a shyte team because we hammered them. Yet this is the same Rams that beat the Cardinals and the Seahawks this season. Two of the teams who beat us in case you forgot.

Sunday was the first game this season that all facets of our game, Offense, Defense and ST played well consistently throughout the 4 quarters. I have already posted my views on the game so I won't repeat myself again.

SixtyTwo

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Whose pretending? Because it's not the Patriots fault that they will always be listed as SB contenders. We lost three games while playing relatively shyte, yet we only lost by a combined 4 points and could have easily have won each of them.

Suddenly the Rams are a shyte team because we hammered them. Yet this is the same Rams that beat the Cardinals and the Seahawks this season. Two of the teams who beat us in case you forgot.

Sunday was the first game this season that all facets of our game, Offense, Defense and ST played well consistently throughout the 4 quarters. I have already posted my views on the game so I won't repeat myself again.

The Rams are a poor football team and they were awful on Sunday. Sure we looked good in certain areas but it would be foolish to believe that we have fixed all areas or look better than we have by basing using our performance on Sunday as a gauge.

As for the Cardinals. They started well but have imploded and we should have put them to bed but they exploited our weaknesses. Also they are on a 4 game losing streak which was started by the Rams. Having said that the Rams/Cards game was an awful display of football and showed how good both teams are.

Seahawks are hot and cold and their defense is doing its best to keep them in the game but again a team we should have put away but again a team that exploited our weaknesses. A game where we made Russell Wilson look better than an average rookie. His best performance of the season was against us. But the Seahawks played games were 2 of their opponents have winning records and 1 in the Cards .500 and the rest all losing records.

Ravens although 5-2 have scraped wins against struggling teams. They lost to the 3-4 Iggles then beat other struggling teams 3-4 Bengals, 2-6 Browns, 1-6 Chiefs and 3-4 Cowgirls. The only teams they played with winning records were us at 5-3 and Texans at 6-1 who they got their asses by.

As you can see by all 3 they played similar standard all the way through and saying the Rams are good for beating any of them is something to go by is silly because they like the Pats all started poorly. We struggled and lost to all 3 of those teams and right now a win against the Rams is not a great achievement as they are awful also. Week 14 and Week 15 will be our biggest test and will truly tell us how good this New England teams is with back to back games with the Texans and 49ers.

Son Of A Vidic

SixtyTwo wrote: »

The Rams are a poor football team and they were awful on Sunday. Sure we looked good in certain areas but it would be foolish to believe that we have fixed all areas or look better than we have by basing using our performance on Sunday as a gauge.

The way the Pats have played this season, there was no certainty about Sunday's result. A lot of Rams fans that I spoke to before the game were cautiously optimistic. They were hoping the Patriots didn't bring their A game and for the first time this season they did. That was the most pleasing thing about it.

I don't think anyone has suggested that everything is/was fixed? The opening TD on the Rams first drive made that clear. But it was the response of the defense that impressed after that. I said Sundays performance was our first complete team performance of the season and hopefully the consistency can be maintained now. Because lack of consistency has been out main failing so far this season.

SixtyTwo wrote: »

Week 14 and Week 15 will be our biggest test and will truly tell us how good this New England teams is with back to back
games with the Texans and 49ers.

Along with the Ravens game, these were always my big three games to watch once the schedule came out, regardless of how well we are or aren't playing.

eagle eye

I don't think the Rams are near as bad as they looked Sunday and I don't think we are as good as we looked. It think its just that the Patriots happen to match up really well against them.

Son Of A Vidic

The Pats have only one practice this week and Hernandez was not present again. Pisses me off to think that he exacerbated the original injury. We could have easily done without him playing in those two games that he played. He would have been due back around week 8-9 after he originally got hurt. Let's hope he's not going to miss many more games.

SixtyTwo

Interesting move

Paully D wrote: »

Patriots acquire Talib from the Buccs:

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/8580848/aqib-talib-traded-new-england-patriots-tampa-bay-buccaneers

The New England Patriots moved to bolster their porous secondary, acquiring cornerback Aqib Talib, who has one game remaining on a four-game suspension for violating the league's policy on performance-enhancing substances.

The Buccaneers announced the trade, completed before Thursday's 4 p.m. deadline but didn't say what they are receiving in return.

The fifth-year pro said in a statement released by the Buccaneers earlier this month that he took an Adderall pill without a prescription "around the beginning of training camp."

Talib was the 20th overall pick in the 2008 draft and was one of Tampa Bay's top defenders with 18 career interceptions.

Talib's current suspension is his second of his NFL career.

The 26-year-old was suspended without pay for the 2010 regular-season opener and also fined one additional game check for violating the NFL's personal-conduct policy. That discipline stemmed from an altercation with a St. Petersburg cab driver during training camp in August 2009.

eagle eye

We get Aqib Talib and a 2013 7th-round pick for a 2013 4th-round pick. Cheap as chips really. Bill will spin that 7th rounder into a 4th rounder by 2015.:D

Masked Man

I'm starting to wonder if something is wrong with BB. Trading up in the draft and a deadline day trade, something is not right.

Be interesting to see what we do in the off season with Talib. Could be giving up a 4th rounder to get him for half a season.

Son Of A Vidic

Masked Man wrote: »

Trading up in the draft and a deadline day trade, something is not right.

That something is our secondary and the move illustrates BB's growing frustration with the secondary this season. Having Aqib Talib at CB will allow McCourty to stay at safety for now, where he has looked much better playing. Talib's talent is not in doubt, I just hope he can keep his off field issues at bay.

counterlock

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

That something is our secondary and the move illustrates BB's growing frustration with the secondary this season. Having Aqib Talib at CB will allow McCourty to stay at safety for now, where he has looked much better playing. Talib's talent is not in doubt, I just hope he can keep his off field issues at bay.

I'm ecstatic at this move. Got to meet Talib albeit briefly in London a few years back, he is a good character (he asked how we thought he compared to EH3!) and a hell of a player. I've no doubt that the off field issues wont come into it and he'll be a massive improvement.

Son Of A Vidic

counterlock wrote: »

I've no doubt that the off field issues wont come into it and he'll be a massive improvement.

The Patriots structure and Patriot way philosophy often gives players like him the framework and guidance they need. If he brings the talent and accepts the gospel according to Bill, then everyone will be happy.

Son Of A Vidic

Some good news, Alfonzo Dennard's trial has been put back until February 2013. Should allow him to keep up his very good progress so far and more importantly, get the Super Bowl victory celebrations outta the way.

http://www.klkntv.com/story/19983688/nebraska-trial-delayed-for-patriots-db-dennard

Gweedling

The way they're playing at the moment I'm not sure the playoffs will be successful, even if we get that far. Our last game looked easy but that's because the Rams were terrible. Overall we haven't been that impressive. With some tough games coming up then even tougher games at the playoffs, I'm not that optimistic. I don't know much about the new CB but hopefully he can revitalise the secondary.

eagle eye

Gweedling wrote: »

The way they're playing at the moment I'm not sure the playoffs will be successful, even if we get that far. Our last game looked easy but that's because the Rams were terrible. Overall we haven't been that impressive. With some tough games coming up then even tougher games at the playoffs, I'm not that optimistic. I don't know much about the new CB but hopefully he can revitalise the secondary.

The thing is that we could just as easily be 8-0 right now as 5-3. We've lost those three games by a combined total of 4 points. Its not like we were badly beaten..

Here are the current stats for the O and D.

Offense:
Total Offense 1st
Passing 5th
Rushing 5th
Scoring 1st

Defense:
Total Defense 18th
Passing 28th
Rushing 8th
Scoring 12th

Now its clear that defense is the problem as per usual but there has been a huge improvement in containing the run. We have now brought in a player who hopefully improves our secondary.

When you look at the DL and front seven its clear that while we have some good stats like forced fumbles and stopping the run we are still struggling with the pass rush. I think its going to get better as the season goes on but we need to pressure the QB more than we have to this point.

Spikes has been fantastic this season, Cunningham has improved and Chandler Jones is a stud, Wilfork is as good as ever so you have to wonder what exactly is going on that we are not doing better at getting to the QB. I think being more aggressive up front might be whats needed. BB always has this bend don't break mentality and I think he just doesn't send everybody after the QB often enough.

mongoman

Gweedling wrote: »

The way they're playing at the moment I'm not sure the playoffs will be successful, even if we get that far.

Man some of you Pats fans are a joke, 5-3 and it's all doom and gloom. Yets score 4-5 more points and you could easily be 8-0, even when not at 100%.

Gweedling wrote: »

Our last game looked easy but that's because the Rams were terrible.

So you see no positive side? I was at the game, I'm a neutral, the Rams were totally outplayed. The very same Rams who beat the Seahawks and the Cardinals.

Gweedling wrote: »

With some tough games coming up then even tougher games at the playoffs, I'm not that optimistic.

Playoffs are tough every year, so why should this year be any different?

Gweedling wrote: »

I don't know much about the new CB but hopefully he can revitalise the secondary.

A very good move on yer part.

SixtyTwo

mongoman wrote: »

Man some of you Pats fans are a joke, 5-3 and it's all doom and gloom.

He has a right to his opinion. Calling him a joke is ridiculous at best. For a guy who is not a Pats fan you seem obsessed with the Pats thread.

Yets score 4-5 more points and you could easily be 8-0, even when not at 100%.

Could have should have didn't. Our offense was unable to carry the team in those losses and until the defense catches up the remaining scheulde has a potential few losses on it and 2 of those teams will most definitely be in the playoffs. Time will tell.

So you see no positive side? I was at the game, I'm a neutral, the Rams were totally outplayed. The very same Rams who beat the Seahawks and the Cardinals.

As I explained to Corveus the Rams schedule is full of teams that have losing records and are imploding left right and centre. The Seahwaks and Cardinals have awful schedules and have beaten awful teams bar the odd decent team who should have beaten them i.e the Pats.

Playoffs are tough every year, so why should this year be any different?

I got what he was getting at. Why nit pick. The fact of the matter is the Pats defense especially the secondary is a problem and until it tightens up and gets with the program there is a chance come playoffs time other teams around them will pick apart our weaknesses just like the Ravens, Cards and Seahawks did.

As for Talib hopefully he is the missing link in our secondary. As others have pointed out moving McCourty in as a Safety and hopefully adding a key player like Talib will take the pressure off our front 7 who are tremendous this year and most importantly our offense.

SixtyTwo

eagle eye wrote: »

Spikes has been fantastic this season, Cunningham has improved and Chandler Jones is a stud, Wilfork is as good as ever so you have to wonder what exactly is going on that we are not doing better at getting to the QB. I think being more aggressive up front might be whats needed. BB always has this bend don't break mentality and I think he just doesn't send everybody after the QB often enough.

Agreed. One of the commentators made that point about the Pats last Sunday also. He mentioned how conservative the Pats are when it comes to Blitzing and to be honest it is something I have never really paid attention to and broken down. Taking out the plays were Jones and Wilfork just burst through he actually has a point we run very few designed blitzes with the front 7.

If Talib fits right in and closes up that hole we have in the secondary one thing I would like to see like you said is more aggression and designed blitzes to utilise Jones and Co a lot more. We have some very strong hard hitting Pass rushers in that front 7 and it would be interesting to see more aggressive blitzes.

mongoman

SixtyTwo wrote: »

He has a right to his opinion. Calling him a joke is ridiculous at best.

Of course he has and I have an equal right to mine. I mentioned 'some' and not a specific poster btw. The point was made to highlight an overreaction that appeared to be focusing on the negative and nothing more.

SixtyTwo wrote: »

For a guy who is not a Pats fan you seem obsessed with the Pats thread.

What are you on about? Get your facts right please, that was actually my first ever time to post in the Pats thread .

SixtyTwo wrote: »

I got what he was getting at. Why nit pick.

I said that regardless of how well ye are playing, the playoffs will always be tough. So please explain to me how that can be defined as nitpicking?

SixtyTwo

mongoman wrote: »

Of course he has and I have an equal right to mine. I mentioned 'some' and not a specific poster btw. The point was made to highlight an overreaction that appeared to be focusing on the negative and nothing more.

Of course you have a right to your own opinion also but calling him a joke is stupid at best.

What are you on about? Get your facts right please, that was actually my first ever time to post in the Pats thread .

My bad it was in the wacky thread where you kept banging on about the Pats as if you were a Pats fan. Sorry intention wrong thread.

I said that regardless of how well ye are playing, the playoffs will always be tough. So please explain to me how that can be defined as nitpicking?

It was obvious what he was talking about. By asking why is this year different you are just nit picking a point that didn't come across properly.

Son Of A Vidic

SixtyTwo wrote: »

Agreed. One of the commentators made that point about the Pats last Sunday also. He mentioned how conservative the Pats are when it comes to Blitzing and to be honest it is something I have never really paid attention to and broken down. Taking out the plays were Jones and Wilfork just burst through he actually has a point we run very few designed blitzes with the front 7.

The lack of blitzes shows a lack of faith in our secondary unit and a fear of exposing them. We all know the risks associated with running a blitz package. If the signing strengthens the secondary unit and if McCourty continues to show the improvement he has shown while playing at safety. Then we might in turn begin to see more aggressive Blitzes coming in.

SixtyTwo

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

The lack of blitzes shows a lack of faith in our secondary unit and a fear of exposing them. We all know the risks associated with running a blitz package. If the signing strengthens the secondary unit and if McCourty continues to show the improvement he has shown while playing at safety. Then we might in turn begin to see more aggressive Blitzes coming in.

Bill has always been conservative when it comes to blitzing though.

Son Of A Vidic

SixtyTwo wrote: »

Bill has always been conservative when it comes to blitzing though.

He has, but a stronger secondary would see an increase.

SixtyTwo

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

He has, but a stronger secondary would see an increase.

Problem I find we have been lacking any physical pass rush and blitzes for a long time now. You would probably have to go back to 2001-2005 to find solid blitzing packages being used and even then Bill always like to play it conservative. Having said that we had a balanced defense at the time so there wasn't much need for heavy blitz packages.

I just find in recent years he has gone ultra conservative. As you said our secondary hasn't helped that at all. But we got to ask ourselves if our secondary tightens up will we see heavier blitzes or will we just see a regular amount if you know what I mean. At some point he is going to have to depend on the front 7 and trust they can get to the QB. We certainly have the personnel for it.

mongoman

SixtyTwo wrote: »

My bad it was in the wacky thread where you kept banging on about the Pats as if you were a Pats fan. Sorry intention wrong thread.

No, I'm a 49'ers fan who grew up in the golden Montana era. Still a fan, but I don't really care for the current team and their style of play. I have great admiration for Brady because he reminds me of Montana and what he has achieved down the years. I just can't stand irrational haters, regardless of who they support. And for doing so I have made myself a target for some, which is so fooking ridiculous when you think about it.

SixtyTwo

mongoman wrote: »

I just can't stand irrational haters, regardless of who they support. And for doing so I have made myself a target for some, which is so fooking ridiculous when you think about it.

Im pretty sure it was your childish comments that folk on both sides of the line disagreed with you about.

Either way you do yourself no favours coming into a Patriots thread and calling some Pats fans a joke while quoting a Pats fan.

As for the irrational haters you get used to them after awhile. Their sole mission in life is to piss Pats fans off. But being a 49ers fan you don't need to worry about them

Son Of A Vidic

SixtyTwo wrote: »

As you said our secondary hasn't helped that at all. But we got to ask ourselves if our secondary tightens up will we see heavier blitzes or will we just see a regular amount if you know what I mean. At some point he is going to have to depend on the front 7 and trust they can get to the QB. We certainly have the personnel for it.

I think our front seven have been playing some great stuff at times this season, certainly some of the best stuff for the last couple of years. And to give my thoughts on the point you raised RE:heavier packages or more regular? I'd say Bill is more likely to fall on the more regular side of the coin.

Interesting to see us use five zone exchanges plays during Sunday's game. Combined with blitzes, these pressure packages were utilised on 32% of the Rams snaps. Up until the Rams game, we only blitzed 11% of the time in the first seven games.

Pretty interesting that I think and no doubt it was a factor in us driving them off the pitch all day. I sure Bill noticed and if that doesn't shout that we need to put more faith in the front seven, then I don't know what will.

SixtyTwo

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Interesting to see us use five zone exchanges plays during Sunday's game. Combined with blitzes, these pressure packages were utilised on 32% of the Rams snaps. Up until the Rams game, we only blitzed 11% of the time in the first seven games.

Touches on my point about the last time we saw aggressive Blitz and Coverage packages. Zone exchanges were something that made our defense hard to figure out back during our Super Bowl winning days. Linemen selling the blitz and then dropping back into Zone while a LB did the opposite. Olinemen struggle with it when our Defense was on fire during those Bowl wins.

Son Of A Vidic

SixtyTwo wrote: »

Touches on my point about the last time we saw aggressive Blitz and Coverage packages. Zone exchanges were something that made our defense hard to figure out back during our Super Bowl winning days. Linemen selling the blitz and then dropping back into Zone while a LB did the opposite. Olinemen struggle with it when our Defense was on fire during those Bowl wins.

Absolutely and mixing the exotic packages certainly worked on Sunday. When Bradford dropped back to pass on fourth and 6(or thereabouts)in the fourth quarter, Mayo rushed Bradford, as Cunningham faked a rush and then dropped back into coverage. Ninkovich ended up getting a sweet sack. It was beautiful play to watch from the stands and one of the reasons I was all warm and glowing when I first posted in here after the game.