Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

New England Patriots Thread Mod Warning Post #253

1101102104106107203

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,438 ✭✭✭j8wk2feszrnpao


    Can't see us winning, but then again it wouldn't be first time I've said that and we've gone onto win.
    Kansas are on fire and I think they'll win comfortably.
    I can def see us winning, esp at home.
    I still don't have massive faith in the defense, but the offense looked itself last week. I know the Colts were missing players, but they still left at least another 2 TDs out there.
    The Kansas offense has been on fire, but their D hasn't.
    Has the makings of a high scoring shootout.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,012 ✭✭✭BizzyC


    I think Kansas take this one.
    Their O has too many weapons for us to matchup against, I think it will be a shootout but their D will have more stops than ours will and that will make the difference.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 41,974 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    We do what we did last week. Leave four guys on the line and just cover every receiver.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 625 ✭✭✭dh1985


    eagle eye wrote: »
    We do what we did last week. Leave four guys on the line and just cover every receiver.

    KC are a long way ahead of the colts offensively. They can run the ball too which the colts are weak at.
    This is a massive game. Would imagine even after a couple of seasons having past that belicheck is stil hurting from that hiding by the chiefs back in '14. Ok we went on to win the superbowl that year but that was an embarrassing loss thats hard forgotten


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,111 ✭✭✭Christy42


    eagle eye wrote: »
    We do what we did last week. Leave four guys on the line and just cover every receiver.
    I have Hunt on my fantasy team so this works great for me.

    If you go man coverage you will also need some on the QB. Mahomes can run.

    It will not be easy to shut them down. Even the Jags struggled. As mentioned their defense also has issues so should be a good match!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭Hazys


    Big win


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 41,974 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Yeah, offense has got it going again but the D was awful for most of that game.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,798 ✭✭✭Big Pussy Bonpensiero


    Delighted to have been wrong, and what a games as well. The O looks so different with Edelman and Gordon. It has essentially given us 3 more weapons as it frees Gronk from the double team on every play. Hightower also played very well after all the criticism he got in recent weeks.

    A few notable stats after last night (stolen from reddit):

    Brady becomes the winningest player in NFL history, now ahead of Vinny by 1.

    Brady is now 96-1 in regular season when ahead at home at HT. Only loss was last year vs the Chiefs.

    We also now have a 12 game winning streak against teams with a better record, 1 more breaks the record.


    Crisis looks to be over but as was said above our D looked woeful last night, albeit against an incredible offence. We also have still yet to win away this season and next week we have a tough game at the Bears followed by a game in Buffalo.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,438 ✭✭✭j8wk2feszrnpao


    Defense not a surprise. There isn't a single pro bowl talent in the D. They were up against an impressive offense, but considering the Chiefs were only on the field for 24mins and Mahomes missed a number of open targets; it could have been a lot worse.

    Happy with offense. They also left some points out there; that Chiefs defense sucks as well. Thought we over ran the ball. I know it chewed up clock, and we mainly ran it well; but it just meant we were in 3rd down a lot of times.

    Overall a good win. The offense showed what it is, but so did the D.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,012 ✭✭✭BizzyC


    What a shootout!
    Good to see Michel running the ball well and Gordon getting more involved in the pass game.
    I had expected our D to give up 36+, I just thought the KC D would do a better job then they did.
    We really need help in the front 7, once again no sacks... our coverage is being hung out to dry on every passing play.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 4,149 Mod ✭✭✭✭bruschi


    Any one else not too convinced with Brady, or should we just be happy he ground (pardon the pun) out the win? I thought some of his throws to players out of the slot or backfield were particularly poor, missed a wide open Edelman one time. His fumble was a really, really bad play too. Made his usual good throws and did well to rush for the TD, but the errors were a lot more than normal. Am I being too picky?

    I felt it was the running game that won that one though. Michel had a great game, and to compliment it White and Barner both had some runs that went for good yardage. They were successful on the run and kept a lot of momentum going.

    Defence was muck. Some good redzone stops, but really, the big plays conceded were killers. Gostkowski made some great kicks, particularly under pressure and his form looks to be right back up there. I dont blame him for the squib kick nor the kick landing on the 1, those are special teams orders.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,438 ✭✭✭j8wk2feszrnpao


    Brady was 24/35 for 340yards. And they scored 43pts. He did have the lost fumble, but did very well to run for the TD. I'd have had Brady thrown it more often against their secondary. He missed some targets, but he's still getting to know Gordon and it's just Edelmans 2nd game back.

    I'd say you are being too picky. He wasn't the outstanding player, but I thought he did very well.

    Not sure why we are continuing with those short kicks. It hasn't worked.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭Hazys


    I thought the defense did pretty well if you discount the 2 blown coverages and a drive starting on the 4 yard line, which accounted for 21 points (there was a 3rd blown coverage but the Chiefs were already in the red zone at that point). But that is still discounting two massive F'ups but i think those two F'ups lie solely on the Safeties so in terms of grading the defense the Dline, LBs, and CBs did very well. Had the safeties played as well this game wouldn't have been close.

    These blown coverages have happened far too often this season. Harmon accounted for two last night and one in the Lions game, probably another one. D McCourty was the other one and his coverage game this season has been very questionable. I believe the safety mistakes have been unprecedented this season but honestly i think they are correctable especially for McCourty (they better be!)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,760 ✭✭✭me89


    Short at TE today, Hollister is officially out and Gronk didn't travel with the team so that's him out, that leaves us with Allen ðŸ™


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭Hazys


    Rappoport is reporting that the Pats are optimistic that the Michel injury isn't that bad but an MRI today will confirm...thats probably the kiss of death tho.

    Hopefully its only a 4-5 week injury and he is back after the bye


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭Hazys


    Injury not serious, could miss time but not much per Rappoport...great news


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,042 ✭✭✭irishrover99


    Hallelujah but it is worrying about his knee history.
    Let’s hope yesterday’s was just a freak accident and I suppose it’s probably a good sign that his knee withstood what looked like a bad twist.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭Hazys




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭Hazys


    Pats in the running for Patrick Peterson, i'd gladly give up a 1st for him!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,798 ✭✭✭Big Pussy Bonpensiero


    Hazys wrote: »
    Pats in the running for Patrick Peterson, i'd gladly give up a 1st for him!

    He'd be more than that but we can't afford him surely? Sure I thought we're struggling with the cap as is?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭Hazys


    Possibly a 1st and a 3rd but anything more than that and the Pats don't engage.

    For everything i ready the Pats Cap should be good if they restructure a contract or two. He's only due $5m this year and cap hits of $11m and $12m the years after are very doable.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,042 ✭✭✭irishrover99


    And when are they going to get a backup/replacement for Brady.
    I believe this won't happen as they need and will keep the 2 second and 3 third round picks for other positions.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 41,974 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    I wouldn't be very excited about Peterson. I'd be of the opinion that if we are going for a big player it should be a wrecking ball defensive end.

    It doesn't matter how good a defensive back is if you are giving a QB all day to throw it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,798 ✭✭✭Big Pussy Bonpensiero


    All pro is all pro. If one becomes available in their prime you do everything that is reasonable to get him. Our secondary would look so different which in turn would allow the D to focus on getting to the QB more and stopping the run. He would have a massive impact with Gilmore opposite him.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 41,974 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    All pro is all pro. If one becomes available in their prime you do everything that is reasonable to get him. Our secondary would look so different which in turn would allow the D to focus on getting to the QB more and stopping the run. He would have a massive impact with Gilmore opposite him.
    So you think that he can stop passes getting through no matter how long the receiver has?
    Our problem is that we are never getting to the QB, just rewatch our last two games.
    Imo we have the DB's to do a great job if they get a bit of help from the guys up front.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,798 ✭✭✭Big Pussy Bonpensiero


    No my point is our D isn't good enough to win a SB, especially if our O isn't firing. We need improvements mainly at LB imo. But we're not getting those, not this season anyway.
    And I agree, our secondary is fine, but if we get another top CB we can apply more pressure with our front 7. PP, Gilmore and McCourty would allow us to do that, and it would also allow us to play our SS more aggressively.

    We certainly don't need PP, but if we can get him he would significantly improve our (very realistic) SB chances, or at least a lot more than anyone else can. And that, for me, is enough of a reason to go aggressively for him.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,012 ✭✭✭BizzyC


    I think getting Pat P would help.
    When we had Revis and Browner at corner we were able to get a lot more pressure up front as the QB was forced to hold the ball much longer than they wanted to. Either we beef up the pass rush, or we change the play of the DB's to buy the pass rush more time.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,798 ✭✭✭Big Pussy Bonpensiero


    Another championship for title town last night with the Red Sox closing out the World Series.

    An unprecedented level of success for Boston/NE across the 4 major sports since 2000. The most successful city despite having half the teams other major cities have.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭Hazys


    The 2 year drought is finally over!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,599 ✭✭✭ScrubsfanChris




Advertisement