Superbowl XLVI

matthew8 · 07-02-2012 07:03PM

New England Patriots

eagle eye wrote: »

Torrey Smith is a deep threat.

That's my point. The Patriots don't need a deep threat, but a player like Torrey Smith could work for them ie a guy from the late second round who has serious speed.

tallaghtoutlaws · 07-02-2012 07:16PM

matthew8 wrote: »

That's my point. The Patriots don't need a deep threat, but a player like Torrey Smith could work for them ie a guy from the late second round who has serious speed.

That makes no sense and you are just contradicting yourself.

One thing I dont get is that folk dont see to understand the different types of WR in the game. Generally you have two type Speed and Possession. The speed guy is generally the guy outside who will spread the the defense and stretch the field. The possession guy is generally played out of slot or when on the outside plays crossing routes and in routes.

For the most part any WR lined up outside is considered a deep threat. The odd time you will have OC put these guys inside to get them 1v1 with linebackers but for the most part they are outside deep threats even if the Offense dont use them in that way. Main example the Pats as Branch and Ocho for different reasons are no longer deep threats.

The slots are guys like Boldin, Welker, Cruz, Nelson to name a few. These guys will open up the middle of the field for you or hit you on out routes. The have safe hands and generally have quick movement.

Now having said that many teams have guys who float in and out. But what the Pats need is an outside receiver they know they can depend on to go deep when needs be.

matthew8 · 07-02-2012 07:22PM

New England Patriots

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

That makes no sense and you are just contradicting yourself.

How am I contradicting myself? The Patriots offense is awesome, so awesome that they don't need a deep threat because they did well without one this year. However, if they think they can get even better on offense with a deep threat, a guy like Torrey Smith (late 2nd round) could work for them.

tallaghtoutlaws · 07-02-2012 07:24PM

matthew8 wrote: »

How am I contradicting myself? The Patriots offense is awesome, so awesome that they don't need a deep threat because they did well without one this year. However, if they think they can get even better on offense with a deep threat, a guy like Torrey Smith (late 2nd round) could work for them.

Read what you wrote originally. Had you said what you just said now it would make more sense even if you are wrong saying the Pats don't need a deep threat.

matthew8 · 07-02-2012 07:28PM

New England Patriots

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Read what you wrote originally. Had you said what you just said now it would make more sense even if you are wrong saying the Pats don't need a deep threat.

You're getting "want" and "need" mixed up. The Patriots need a secondary. The Patriots want a deep threat (or do they? Maybe Bill's happy with the offense. I would be). The only thing wrong I can see with what I wrote originally is Torrey Smith type of player, but what I meant was a speedster late in the second round.

tallaghtoutlaws · 07-02-2012 07:37PM

matthew8 wrote: »

You're getting "want" and "need" mixed up. The Patriots need a secondary. The Patriots want a deep threat (or do they? Maybe Bill's happy with the offense. I would be). The only thing wrong I can see with what I wrote originally is Torrey Smith type of player, but what I meant was a speedster late in the second round.

Are you seriously trying to correct me when I talk about the Pats needs? :rolleyes: This coming from the guy who has made some questionable posts in the last few weeks. I have explained a few times in this thread how the Pats can work getting a CB and WR high in the draft but it seems you failed to read that. And they do need a outside guy. Read my explanation as to what an outside guy is.

matthew8 · 07-02-2012 07:45PM

New England Patriots

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to correct me when I talk about the Pats needs? :rolleyes: This coming from the guy who has made some questionable posts in the last few weeks. I have explained a few times in this thread how the Pats can work getting a CB and WR high in the draft but it seems you failed to read that. And they do need a outside guy. Read my explanation as to what an outside guy is.

32 points a game, yeah you definitely need a deep threat.

tallaghtoutlaws · 07-02-2012 07:48PM

matthew8 wrote: »

32 points a game, yeah you definitely need a deep threat.

Wasting my time debating with you or even discussing the matter with you. I am not about to repeat what I already wrote.:rolleyes: And this post sums up your knowledge of the game.

matthew8 · 07-02-2012 07:53PM

New England Patriots

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Wasting my time debating with you or even discussing the matter with you. I am not about to repeat what I already wrote.:rolleyes: And this post sums up your knowledge of the game.

You are ridiculous. You ride around on your high horse talking about slot guys, outside guys and the like, but you never stop to notice the game is about points. The Patriots scored 32 points a game and I don't see a decline about to come. 32 points is enough.

tallaghtoutlaws · 07-02-2012 08:01PM

matthew8 wrote: »

You are ridiculous. You ride around on your high horse talking about slot guys, outside guys and the like, but you never stop to notice the game is about points. The Patriots scored 32 points a game and I don't see a decline about to come. 32 points is enough.

34 points based on 16 regular season games. 33 based on all 19 games. But only someone with very little knowledge or the willing to break it down game by game would bother to stick to that fact.

Take the games the Pats scored less than 30 points or lost. Those teams shut down or made life hard for us across the middle. Had we had an outside receiver to stretch the field it could have been a different game and thats the point.

All well and good having an offense that can destroy the poor secondaries or teams that just couldnt stop the attack through the middle or teams that were not ready for it. But when you start meeting teams who can stop it or adjust to it and you dont have someone outside your linear offense becomes all to obvious.

My proof is even in our last 2 games. As much of a best Gronk is even he struggled against the Ravens at times when they shut our passing attack across the middle down. Teams will watch tape and watch how these teams did that.

But hey if you want to stick to a meaningless stat for the most part you do that.

You ride around on your high horse talking about slot guys, outside guys and the like, but you never stop to notice the game is about points

Are you for real? :rolleyes: When you read the above you will see where I squashed your game being about points idea. But again this part of your post sums you up. You would rather pull nonsense out of your arse than discuss it properly.

matthew8 · 07-02-2012 08:27PM

New England Patriots

My proof is even in our last 2 games. As much of a best Gronk is even he struggled against the Ravens at times when they shut our passing attack across the middle down. Teams will watch tape and watch how these teams did that.

23 points is enough to win typically. 17 isn't a bad total when you're starting drives in your own 10 and not getting great field position from turnovers. It's not like I said that a deep threat would be totally useless, I was pointing out that the offense isn't the side of the ball that needs help.

But hey if you want to stick to a meaningless stat for the most part you do that.

So now points are a meaningless stat?

Are you for real? :rolleyes: When you read the above you will see where I squashed your game being about points idea. But again this part of your post sums you up. You would rather pull nonsense out of your arse than discuss it properly.

Again with the points don't matter bs.

tallaghtoutlaws · 07-02-2012 08:30PM

matthew8 wrote: »

23 points is enough to win typically. 17 isn't a bad total when you're starting drives in your own 10 and not getting great field position from turnovers.

What is it with you and missing points? Are you unable to read what people write?

It's not like I said that a deep threat would be totally useless,

No but you said we didn't need one twice

I was pointing out that the offense isn't the side of the ball that needs help.

And no where did I say we didn't need help elesewhere either so this is a moot point.

So now points are a meaningless stat?

When you use it wrong it is.

Again with the points don't matter bs.

You keep on talking sh1te. I never said they didn't matter I said I squashed your idea once again comprehension failure.

matthew8 · 07-02-2012 08:39PM

New England Patriots

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

What is it with you and missing points? Are you unable to read what people write?

No but you said we didn't need one twice

And no where did I say we didn't need help elesewhere either so this is a moot point.

When you use it wrong it is.

You keep on talking sh1te. I never said they didn't matter I said I squashed your idea once again comprehension failure.

You're one to talk about comprehension failure. You said you squashed my game being about points idea. The game is about points. You said it wasn't. You miss every point anyone gives you that doesn't agree with your opinions. You missed my point about the Patriots scoring enough, you missed my point about the Patriots being able to use a deep threat if they want to improve their offense`and you missed my point about a teams needs being different to what they want.

Paully D · 07-02-2012 08:45PM

tallaghtoutlaws · 07-02-2012 08:52PM

matthew8 wrote: »

You're one to talk about comprehension failure. You said you squashed my game being about points idea. The game is about points. You said it wasn't. You miss every point anyone gives you that doesn't agree with your opinions. You missed my point about the Patriots scoring enough, you missed my point about the Patriots being able to use a deep threat if they want to improve their offense`and you missed my point about a teams needs being different to what they want.

No actually I understood everything you said but you are wrong so it doesn't matter. You arguments are stupid and even when I pointed out the Pats struggled in the lower scoring games rather than debate it you pulled out more nonsense to back up your own opinion. Just like the Favre debate.

The points thing I said you were wrong not the points thing being wrong. I said if you use the points scoring properly in a debate which you failed to do it can be right but there is a flip side. If you are going to use point you have to be able to break down every game including the low scoring ones which you tried to do and got it wrong and made no sense in doing so and missing my point completely.

5 games this season the Pats struggled to move the ball with the same offense that destoryed other teams. Those were the games they scored low in and lost in. But see you missed that point because you were so concerned in trying to hammer home your own point. an outside guy in these games would have spread the field and stretched the defense and allowed them to keep the interior open or get 1v1 on the outside. Branch and Ocho just couldnt do that for us as that was their roles this season.

As for missing people's points. No I aee them for the most part and if I know they are wrong I will call them out unless their points are nonsense and a waste of time trying to even discuss.

As for the point about the teams needs and what they want, nope I didn't miss it that falls into the category in my last paragraph for two reasons it is clear you dont understand the role of a deep threat or outside WR. It is clear you dont even know how the Pats used their system this year and how it hurt us not having a proper outside guy.

But hey keep on trucking.

matthew8 · 07-02-2012 08:57PM

New England Patriots

I'm done with you. You said points don't matter, you're pretending you didn't. I broke down why their offense wasn't poor against the Ravens/Giants, you ignored me. I said if they want to get better on offense a deep threat would help, but yet again you ignored me.

tallaghtoutlaws · 07-02-2012 09:01PM

matthew8 wrote: »

I'm done with you. You said points don't matter, you're pretending you didn't. I broke down why their offense wasn't poor against the Ravens/Giants, you ignored me. I said if they want to get better on offense a deep threat would help, but yet again you ignored me.

This is what you call a break down?

23 points is enough to win typically. 17 isn't a bad total when you're starting drives in your own 10 and not getting great field position from turnovers. It's not like I said that a deep threat would be totally useless, I was pointing out that the offense isn't the side of the ball that needs help.

This explains nothing. :rolleyes: I saw this and already responded to it. This doesnt even make sense and no where did you say our offense wasnt poor in the above bit.

neilster · 07-02-2012 11:00PM

eagle eye wrote: »

Dwayne Bowe would be top of the list, Vincent Jackson also, then Marques Colston. Three big, fast men, just ideal for the Patriots.

On a headcaseometer .....it would be Colston then Jackson & Bowe

Bowe has all the god-given talent in the world but can be difficult

I think Jacksons troubles are overdone...his biggest problem is that AJ Smith wont respect him and he keeps going out and producing ...i think the chargers franchise him

Colston might be best as he wont take a home town discount and is as reliable as the day is long ...1000 yrds every season...very durable ....catches in traffic ...very brave ...cant spell diva.....talk about a perfect Pats player....would Colston have delivered a SBowl ? mighty close

neilster · 07-02-2012 11:14PM

matthew8 wrote: »

You're getting "want" and "need" mixed up. The Patriots need a secondary. The Patriots want a deep threat (or do they? Maybe Bill's happy with the offense. I would be). The only thing wrong I can see with what I wrote originally is Torrey Smith type of player, but what I meant was a speedster late in the second round.

How can you honestly say the Pats offence is awesome ...if the SuperBowl had been won you would have some tangible proof for this statement...Tallaght is right on all counts here

In the Tight End area ....yes but the recieving corps isnt ...you have the best slot reciever in the league but a slot reciever (Welker has but hes a freak) wont be moving the ball in the final minutes down the field along the sideline for 38 yards where he beats Moore at scrimmage and outruns the slightly mispositioned Chung (safety) down the sideline .....his speed meant Chung didnt get their in time...a deep threat will and you on a talented roster dont have one

Ochocinco got paid $6m (salary and signing bonus) to deep threat to 300 yards and he rarely got open or knew his routes or ran them right

Branch got $3m to beat his man with speed even less...he has good hands and knows the system which ok for the bread and butter stuff but it isnt a deep threat and Ochocinco will be cut and Branch will probably return on the vet minimum

neilster · 07-02-2012 11:32PM

matthew8 wrote: »

You are ridiculous. You ride around on your high horse talking about slot guys, outside guys and the like, but you never stop to notice the game is about points. The Patriots scored 32 points a game and I don't see a decline about to come. 32 points is enough.

Its a meaningless stat look at the schedule

it included in the first half teams like Miami ...Chargers ...Jets home and away who were awful....Oakland ...a sputtering Dallas
it included in the 2nd half of the season like Buffalo ..Miami...Redskins...Indy...Philly ...Kansas (before Crennel)

These teams were dispatched ruthlessly but they all have losing records by and large

When the opposition stiffened and the defences moved closer to the elite ...what were the results

Pitts 17 25 loss
Giants 20 24 loss
Ravens 23 20 win very tight one
Giants SBowl 17 21 loss

what are the hallmarks here ?

the scores are low ...the offence seems to have been figured out ...no deep threat and no 32 points scored

GoldFour4 · 07-02-2012 11:37PM

New England Patriots

matthew8 wrote: »

I'm done with you. You said points don't matter, you're pretending you didn't. I broke down why their offense wasn't poor against the Ravens/Giants, you ignored me. I said if they want to get better on offense a deep threat would help, but yet again you ignored me.

Dude at the end of the day points dont matter. Its about being better then other team. You could win a game 3-0. 3 points is a bad score but your still better then the other team at the end of thr day.

Whereas the Panthers rarely scored less then 20 points and we had a losing record. Its about having a balanced team not about having a high powered offense.

Sean The Lad · 08-02-2012 12:51AM

Morrisseeee wrote: »

Ah come on lads, it's clear what the Pats need, and that's a QB that's clutch in the 4th Q, someone like............say.....................Tebow
/Only kiddin, I'm still hurting from the beatings ye gave us

agree 100 percent :L:L:L

Sean The Lad · 08-02-2012 12:54AM

neilster wrote: »

Its a meaningless stat look at the schedule

When the opposition stiffened and the defences moved closer to the elite ...what were the results

Pitts 17 25 loss
Giants 20 24 loss
Ravens 23 20 win very tight one
Giants SBowl 17 21 loss

or maybe its because they are the 3 best teams you have to face? :pac:

matthew8 · 08-02-2012 01:52AM

New England Patriots

neilster wrote: »

How can you honestly say the Pats offence is awesome ...if the SuperBowl had been won you would have some tangible proof for this statement...Tallaght is right on all counts here

Are you fking kidding me? The Pats offense was the third best in the league in a great year for offenses.

neilster wrote: »

Its a meaningless stat look at the schedule

it included in the first half teams like Miami ...Chargers ...Jets home and away who were awful....Oakland ...a sputtering Dallas
it included in the 2nd half of the season like Buffalo ..Miami...Redskins...Indy...Philly ...Kansas (before Crennel)

These teams were dispatched ruthlessly but they all have losing records by and large

When the opposition stiffened and the defences moved closer to the elite ...what were the results

Pitts 17 25 loss
Giants 20 24 loss
Ravens 23 20 win very tight one
Giants SBowl 17 21 loss

what are the hallmarks here ?

the scores are low ...the offence seems to have been figured out ...no deep threat and no 32 points scored

The Jets are a bad defense. Yeah right. And I said the offense could use a deep threat, but the defense comes first.

malachyscott wrote: »

Dude at the end of the day points dont matter. Its about being better then other team. You could win a game 3-0. 3 points is a bad score but your still better then the other team at the end of thr day.

Whereas the Panthers rarely scored less then 20 points and we had a losing record. Its about having a balanced team not about having a high powered offense.

That's what I'm saying. Points show how good an offense is and they'd have run away with the whole thing if their defense was decent.

bruschi · 08-02-2012 08:42AM

The Patriots do need an outside WR to compliment Branch who is a solid guy who can make good catches. But they need a speed guy who can get down the field, what they hoped Ocho was going to be but didnt work out.

they also need to make improvements on the defence. McCourty needs to get his rookie season form back, need another CB and an upgrade at safety. Its not a case of only having one option or one choice, they need upgrades at a few positions.

All this shíte about having the third best offence, or scoring 32 points and they dont need to improve it is just that, shíte.

The Patriots didnt win the superbowl. If they want to win it, they have to make changes.

That is the ultimate goal and what they aim for like other teams at the start of the year. Their team last season was not good enough to win it, so it needs improving. Having the third best offence means nothing if you dont win the superbowl, and scoring 17 points will rarely win you a superbowl. They need an improvement at WR, that is a clear need for the offensive side of the ball.

Johnny_Fontane · 08-02-2012 09:51AM

New England Patriots

If you really want to look deep into it, you say Brady missed that pass to Welker, he was pretty open and he just missed his target.

kryogen · 08-02-2012 10:01AM

New England Patriots

If you really want to look deep into it you could say the Welker, Hernandez, Branch etc.. all dropped catches they should have caught and had a huge bearing on the result.

Only so many drops a team can take in a low scoring game.

Lothaar v2 · 08-02-2012 10:47AM

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

If you really want to look deep into it, you say Brady missed that pass to Welker, he was pretty open and he just missed his target.

This.

The pass wasn't *bad*, but it was far from perfect. It's possible that Welker ran a sloppy route (he usually widens further on Seam routes), essentially making Brady's pass inaccurate, cos he aimed further outside. For a QB at Brady's level, though, I'd still expect him to throw a better pass when his WR is wide open. If Welker had pulled that catch in, it would have been a very good catch.

Regarding the Pats 'need' for a deep threat WR... I call bullsh1t on that. There's no question that it would improve the offense. An upgrade is an upgrade. But, considering the ridiculous stats the Pats' passing game had this year, it's far from a need. It's like saying: "Y'know, if we had the best group of WRs of all time, passed for 6,000 yards and 60 TDs in the regular season, we'd have a better chance at winning the Bowl!" Well, duh! In other words, "If we had better players, we'd be better!"

If the Niners had an elite QB, they could have gone all the way (nearly did anyway). That would upgrade pretty much their major weakness. This makes some sense.

Upgrading the Pats passing game would be upgrading their major STRENGTH - after one of the best seasons of all time. There are plenty of other things that need to be fixed first.

The Pats WRs were excellent all year, as was Brady.

tallaghtoutlaws · 08-02-2012 11:16AM

Lothaar v2 wrote: »

Regarding the Pats 'need' for a deep threat WR... I call bullsh1t on that. There's no question that it would improve the offense. An upgrade is an upgrade. But, considering the ridiculous stats the Pats' passing game had this year, it's far from a need. It's like saying: "Y'know, if we had the best group of WRs of all time, passed for 6,000 yards and 60 TDs in the regular season, we'd have a better chance at winning the Bowl!" Well, duh! In other words, "If we had better players, we'd be better!".

Sorry Andy I have to disagree. The point of a teams needs is to have the best players on the field that give you the best chance of winning every game and winning the whole show. As excellent as the Pats WR corp have been all season the team 100% needs to upgrade its outside WR. Just look at the numbers for their outside guys.

With the amount of picks the Pats have they can upgrade every position including the the so called real needs. Every player you draft is taken with the ambition to upgrade a certain position on the field.

jman0war · 08-02-2012 12:43PM

The pass to Welker was behind him but catchable.

The worst pass was at the start of the 4th Qtr, the interception at 14:15
Ball was under-thrown and resulted in a pick.

Superbowl XLVI

Comments