Report: Brady done for 2008 .

[ORS]

See Red, do you think Cassell can be as good as, oh, let's say Jason Campbell?

[mtbykr]

You feel Pollard's and Wilfork's hit should be interpreted the same way by the NFL (hit below the knee' date=' etc).[/b']

 

IOW, you are saying that the perception of both plays should be the same.

 

You feel Pollard's play wasn't dirty.

 

Therefore, you must also feel the same way about Wilfork's.

 

 

No that's not what I have been arguing. What I have said is that the NFL should give the same outcome given the reason/rule they have set-forth. They said that Pollard was not wrong because even though he hit Brady low, he was engaged with a offensive player. Wilfork was engaged with an offensive player as well.....neither had an 'unimpeded path to the qb' and dove at his legs.

[TheKilo]

Brady Has Torn MCL and ACL

 

Patriots quarterback Tom Brady suffered a torn anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and torn medial collateral ligament (MCL) in his left knee, NFL sources confirmed today. Medical tests on the knee, including an MRI performed Monday, indicated no damage to other knee ligaments and no torn cartilage. The typical course of action for such an injury is to wait 4-6 weeks for the MCL tear to heal, then reconstruct the ACL. Brady will likely undergo surgery in approximately one month and face 6-9 months of recovery and rehabilitation, barring any complications. Patriots training camp begins in mid to late July, a little more than 10 months from now.

[TheKilo]

No that's not what I have been arguing. What I have said is that the NFL should give the same outcome given the reason/rule they have set-forth. They said that Pollard was not wrong because even though he hit Brady low' date=' he was engaged with a offensive player. Wilfork was engaged with an offensive player as well.....neither had an 'unimpeded path to the qb' and dove at his legs.[/quote']

 

Do you feel Wilfork's play was dirty?

[See Red]

See Red' date=' do you think Cassell can be as good as, oh, let's say Jason Campbell?[/quote']

 

About there, 15 TD's/15 INT's, give or take a few on either. And that's 70 less points than Brady's average season, sans last year.

 

I say that because I don't see any reason why he'll be considerably better for New England than Matt Leinart has been when he's been healthy for Arizona. And that's about what Leinart gives the Cardinals, as many INT's as TD's. And if you can't consistently get the ball to Moss deep, he becomes mortal -- we saw it in Oakland.

 

The guy hasn't started a game since High School and barely lead them to a home win against the Chiefs. I don't see it, I'll concede the record argument because the schedule is weak, based off of last year, but I don't see how they'll be a good team, or a team that can do anything in the playoffs. I still think the Bills and Jets may very well be better teams.

[mtbykr]

It's difficult to judge intent, which is what a dirty play is. Define dirty....if you define dirty as 'intentionally trying to hurt someone' then no i don't think it was dirty. He has a good reputation, and is widely respected by teammates, media, ect... as a stand-up honest guy who doesn't want to see anyone get hurt.

 

If I was in his situation, I probably would have done the same thing with my arm....i have taken plenty of falls over the years whether riding, trailrunning, ect.. and the first thing I do (out of instinct) is put out/up my arm. Here's Wilfork's quote:

 

"I have a million and one things going on in my mind," Wilfork said. "You're tripping, a 300-and-something-pound [lineman] tripping, I have no idea what's going on. I don't know where my arm is at. Like I said, it wasn't intentional."

 

 

I guess I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and see it from their perspective.

[TheKilo]

I'm sure no one intends for a play to be construed dirty.

 

So if I'm reading this right you feel that Wilfork's play was not dirty even though he took like three steps and lunged at Losman's knee with his elbow.

[ORS]

Yeah, but look at the 'Skins last year. Good not great defense, good not great running game. I'd use the same adjectives to describe those components from the Pats. Substandard stable of WRs, something the Pats won't suffer from. And they had the best NFC team along with the eventual SB winner in their division. Yet, they still went 9-7.

 

You mention above that they may win 10, but it doesn't mean they are great. I never said they will be w/o Brady. But that schedule is about as cake as it gets. They matchup against the NFC West. Do you see them losing any of those games? I don't. Assuming you are right and they split with NYJ and Buffalo, they go 4-2 in the division. Then there's the Raiders on the schedule. That's 9 more I like them to win with one in the bag already. It's not hard to get to 10 with that schedule.

[See Red]

Besides, one of the "millions of things" going through Wilfork's mind on that play was undoubtedly 'get to, and hit, the QB' because, well, that was his job on that play. Maybe no intent to injure, but I do think there was an attempt to get his elbow in there.

[mtbykr]

I'm sure no one intends for a play to be construed dirty.

 

So if I'm reading this right you feel that Wilfork's play was not dirty even though he took like three steps and lunged at Losman's knee with his elbow.

 

We're just seeing different things. I see Wilfork heading to the qb, and being tripped/tackled around his feet and going down. When he's almost to the ground he put's his elbow out......take losman out of the picture and it looks like a routine big guy hitting the ground after being blocked/tackled/tripped, ect...

 

 

 

EDIT:

So if I'm reading this right you feel that Wilfork's play was not dirty even though he took like three steps and lunged at Losman's knee with his elbow.

 

That's not what happened, look at the vid again:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3POT8n2Qk3g

 

He got hit/tackled/tripped at the feet which cause him to go down all in one motion....at the end of it he puts his arm out. He didn't take 3 steps and lunge throwing his elbow out...................we may differ in our opinion on intent, but at least be honest with your assessment of the actual event.

[See Red]

Yeah, but look at the 'Skins last year. Good not great defense, good not great running game. I'd use the same adjectives to describe those components from the Pats. Substandard stable of WRs, something the Pats won't suffer from. And they had the best NFC team along with the eventual SB winner in their division. Yet, they still went 9-7.

 

You mention above that they may win 10, but it doesn't mean they are great. I never said they will be w/o Brady. But that schedule is about as cake as it gets. They matchup against the NFC West. Do you see them losing any of those games? I don't. Assuming you are right and they split with NYJ and Buffalo, they go 4-2 in the division. Then there's the Raiders on the schedule. That's 9 more I like them to win with one in the bag already. It's not hard to get to 10 with that schedule.

 

I think the Skins defense from last year will be better than the Patriots this year, there really wasn't that much difference between the two last year, even, and the Pats had the benefit of knowing their opponents had to pass quite a bit more. And to be fair, if Dallas isn't resting their guys in week 17 the Skins are probably 8-8. With the wins against the Vikings, Giants, and Bears coming with Todd Collins at the helm, which while not spectacular, he gave them 5 TD's and 0 INT's in the game's he played, so he did play pretty well for them. He gave them a little better, imo, in three of those four games than than what Cassell gave the Pats in the game in which they barely scraped by against the Chiefs.

 

And I also don't think Seattle will be as bad as they looked in week one, so they could give the Pats trouble.

[ORS]

I don't see how you can say the Skins defense from last year will be better than the Patriots defense this year with a straight face. Nevertheless, if you want to split hairs there, knock yourself out. My point was a more general one. The defenses in question can be considered good. Good enough to contribute to winning football. Certainly good enough to contribute to beating the 10 weak sisters they will face in this soft schedule.

 

True, they did beat Dallas with the regulars resting. They also threw a game away due to incompetent clock management by a coach who the game had passed by. As such, I consider them a 9-7 team.

 

You are joking about the Todd Collins performing better at the end of last season, right? His ratings in those 4 games were: 144.7, 56.4, 124.8, 104.8. Cassel's was 116.0 on Sunday. I see one game with enough of a margin in that particular metric to classify it as better.

 

And, there are still 9 cream puffs waiting on that schedule. I think Cassell, a guy who has shown something, at least enough to be the first backup on the best team in football from last year despite others with a better resume, will be steady enough to not cost them the games they should win.

[See Red]

Because last years Redskins defense was a whopping 17 yards and 2 points per game worse than last years Patriots without the benefit of knowing the other team had to throw the ball damn near every play after the second quarter -- keep in mind the Patriots were one of the worst in the league in terms of Yards Per Carry against and they very obviously struggled against the run in games in which the opponents didn't have to abandon it before the second half. And while I'm sure you'll throw at me some insane scenario in which losing one of the best CB's in the league is a good thing, they DID lose one of the best CB's in the league in Asante Samuel. His replacement? A rookie. Or Deltha O'Neal... but I'm a Broncos fan who already suffered through Deltha O'Neal... I'd take the rookie.

 

As far as the Todd Collins point goes, it's kind of moot, isn't it? Matt Cassel isn't going to throw 16 TD's and 0 picks this year... and more importantly, he doesn't get to play the Chiefs every game. 9 cupcakes on the schedule... ALL of them better than the team the Patriots needed a goal line stand to squeak by. At home. Against THEIR backup QB. He's good enough to be the backup on the best team in football based on, what, practice? Please. Or was it the sterling 56.6 QB rating he had against first string offenses running vanilla defensive schemes in the preseason? I don't bring that up as a stat to prove anything... I bring that up to ask what has this guy proven?

[ORS]

You think they are all better than the Chiefs? Well, in addition to your inability to discuss the Patriots rationally, that's pretty much a conversation killer. The Raiders, Rams, 49'ers, and Dolphins all look worse than the Chiefs, or at least as bad.

[Mr Crunchy]

this maybe the year the cost saving patriots get burnt.

they allow their men to walk away rather than over pay and that system has led to a ton of success and they claim its the system that turns average dbax into superstars but i dont see james sanders as lawyer milloy nor do i think that ellis hobbs is good enuff to replace assante samuel.

their defense will be the make or break of this year.

no longer can they be passive and in prevent mode,now they have to be aggressive,have to create turnovers and most important of all is they have to be able to stuff the run with their front 7 and a lil rodney harrison...the afc east has the worst qbs in the nfl,this isnt debatable and i dont give a f*** about brett favre,the ny media will soon see what any knowledgable football fan saw over the years,an overrated psuedo tuff guy who will f***ing kill you and your hopes when he is under pressure...

anyways its our fortune to play in the afc east.

the new linebacker played on every down last week,when was the last time a patriot rookie played in every single defensive play?

hes a beast.

[ORS]

I think the big addition to the Patriots defense will be a healthy Richard Seymour. When he came back from the PUP list in week 7 last year, that was when their problems against the run began. I think they brought him back in haste, and he was never the bookend DE you can count on him being when he's healthy all year. Add in the rookie, Mayo, and the rookie CB with similar measurables to Samuel, and I think you are looking at a net gain, albeit a small one.

[mtbykr]

I think the big addition to the Patriots defense will be a healthy Richard Seymour. When he came back from the PUP list in week 7 last year' date=' that was when their problems against the run began. I think they brought him back in haste, and he was never the bookend DE you can count on him being when he's healthy all year. Add in the rookie, Mayo, and the rookie CB with similar measurables to Samuel, and I think you are looking at a net gain, albeit a small one.[/quote']

 

I agree. Seymore has said he is healthier than he has been in years. Even though he came back last year, he wasn't the same guy. He has said that having a healthy offseason/camp has really helped him. One thing about Mayo that surprised me was that he played all defensive snaps in the KC game. BB never drafts LB's, but prefers vets that can pick up their system quicker....Mayo must have really impressed thus far which helps with our aging LB corp.

 

I think the CB's will be fine, BB def prefers tougher guys vs guys with more skill. I think the defense is improved over last year, but last year the D could afford some mistakes.

[Mr Crunchy]

theres no need to stop the run when youre winning by 4 tds after the half

those stats are ********.

now theyre going to be cautious offensively and will have to stop the run

we do have the hard hitting safeties,brewski had 12 tackles sunday,thomas is looking better and the front wall will indeed be healthier this autumn...

if cassell doesnt play well its mute,he wont have to win a lot of games but he cant afford to turn the ball over or just plain suck...i didnt like the idea of keeping him because he sucked this summer but i think our player personal people know more than i do about his grasp of the offensive schemes and his arm strength hence them retaining him when the other 2 guys looked better.

david woodley played in the nfl,marcus tuiassasopo is playing in the nfl,f***,i think vince evans and mark wilson still have contracts in the nfl,stan humphries went to a superbowl and billy jo mccallister or tolliver or whatever has had a shot in the nfl,who was atlanta's qb in the 99 superbowl?

 

dont rule them out just yet

there isnt a more important player on the team but it is a team.

if the sox lost beckett it would be worse than the pats losing brady cause football is more of a team game....lets see how the other 52 men respond

[ORS]

theres no need to stop the run when youre winning by 4 tds after the half

those stats are ********

I suspect this plays a role in what the numbers show too. That said, I can't seem to find a site that breaks down the numbers into 1st Half / 2nd Half of the game categories. Despite it being more popular, football doesn't have a grip on the truly obsessed like baseball does. And, I'm not going through their game logs to tally it up.

[Mr Crunchy]

""Despite it being more popular, football doesn't have a grip on the truly obsessed like baseball does. And, I'm not going through their game logs to tally it up""

 

and for this we can thank God

[See Red]

You think they are all better than the Chiefs? Well' date=' in addition to your inability to discuss the Patriots rationally, that's pretty much a conversation killer. The Raiders, Rams, 49'ers, and Dolphins all look worse than the Chiefs, or at least as bad.[/quote']

 

How is a team losing their hall of fame QB, replacing him with someone who hasn't started in 9 years, and still expecting them to be a good football team a rational argument? How is expecting a rookie CB to be an adequate replacement for an All-Pro being rational? He is what he is... a late second round CB -- the 9th CB taken in the draft. Having a guy that can man up on the leagues best WR's is invaluable and to expect this kid to even be close to replacing Asante Samuel is absolutely insane.

 

Entering week one, ESPN had the Chiefs at 31st in their power rankings above just the Falcons, CBS Sportsline had them 32nd in their power rankings, and Fox Sports had them 32nd in their power rankings.

 

Here's Jason Whitlock of the Kansas City Star's take on the 2008 Chiefs...

They’re going to make a run at 0-16. I hope I’m as wrong about this prediction as my 16-0 prediction a decade ago. I just don’t see how the Chiefs stop anybody next season. We already know they can’t score.

 

The consensus? They would be one of the worst in the league. And given the goings on in the league, week one doesn't look like a particularly great job of how good any team is going to be. But if you want to use that to decide who'll be good and who'll be bad, well, needing a goalline stand to beat a very bad team hardly suggests a 10-6 team -- I'd advise you not to look so deep into week one.

 

And Crunchy, yeah, it's tougher to stop the run when you're not playing to stop the run. Is it not also easier to stop the pass when every play becomes a passing down? Aren't those stats skewed too? Or does that only work one way?

[ORS]

How is a team losing their hall of fame QB' date=' replacing him with someone who hasn't started in 9 years, and still expecting them to be a good football team a rational argument? [/quote']

Here's how, 1/22. He's one of, let's say it all togther now, twenty-two players to have to take the field. Ok, so the QB is important. How important? 2x? 3x? Oh hell, let's make 4x for shits a giggles. Still only 4/22. Who's more rational, the one who recognizes the fact that 18/22 > 4/22, or the one who doesn't?

 

How is expecting a rookie CB to be an adequate replacement for an All-Pro being rational? He is what he is... a late second round CB -- the 9th CB taken in the draft. Having a guy that can man up on the leagues best WR's is invaluable and to expect this kid to even be close to replacing Asante Samuel is absolutely insane.

Easy, CB and RB are the two positions where rookies come in a make immediate impact the easiest. I never said he'd be as good, and I recognize there will be a little give there. I also think the take of an improvement at ILB in Mayo, and the improved health of Seymour will outweigh the give. Stop putting the +/- into a positional vaccum. Look at it as a team, because, according to what I watch on TV, that is how they take the field.

 

Why do I care about preseason power rankings, and more importantly, the cholesterol clogged musings of Jason Whitlock? They've all changed their tune already after one week. It's all about the Lions, Rams, and Raiders now. Two of whom, not coincidentally, are upcoming games for the Patriots, which brings this full circle back to the ease of their schedule, something you continue to ignore while you try and parse minor quibbles about the general statements people are making.

[mtbykr]

Entering week one, ESPN had the Chiefs at 31st in their power rankings above just the Falcons, CBS Sportsline had them 32nd in their power rankings, and Fox Sports had them 32nd in their power rankings.

 

Here's Jason Whitlock of the Kansas City Star's take on the 2008 Chiefs...

 

 

The consensus? They would be one of the worst in the league. And given the goings on in the league, week one doesn't look like a particularly great job of how good any team is going to be. But if you want to use that to decide who'll be good and who'll be bad, well, needing a goalline stand to beat a very bad team hardly suggests a 10-6 team -- I'd advise you not to look so deep into week one.

 

 

 

Let's not get carried away trying to predict the pats season based on their performance against the chiefs. Cassel has to come in when their QB and leader of the team goes down to what appears to be a season ending injury. The air got sucked out of Gillette on Sunday, and players/personall all said that when TB didn't come back in the 2nd half they knew his season was probably over. Cassel came in without any reps with the 1st team, and did a decent job...then the pats had to adjust to the chiefs new QB. This is a lot going on during one game where your season changes....a lot more can be argued after the Jets on Sunday.

 

The pats were expected to go to the superbowl, so it's not crazy to think their still a playoff team without TB.

[Mr Crunchy]

never mind the chiefs,based on their summer efforts they looked like s***.

they lack intensity and appear to be afraid to hurt someone.

in a strange way this should inspire a mediocre and suspect defense but if it dont then it will be a long fall after watching bc saturday and the pats sunday.

[TheKilo]

Brady's knee is infected:

 

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1127260

 

 

Doctors are so concerned about containing the infection in Tom Brady [stats]’s left knee they have performed three procedures in an attempt to eradicate it, according to a source familiar with the Patriots [team stats] quarterback’s travails on the West Coast.

 

While Brady acknowledged on his Web site that he had one arthroscopic procedure done to “clean and to test the wound” last Wednesday, the Herald has learned there have been two additional procedures performed since that time, with the same goal in mind.

 

According to the source, the fear is the patellar tendon graft used to replace Brady’s anterior cruciate ligament is in danger of becoming compromised. Should that occur, the entire ACL reconstruction would have to be removed and redone from scratch.

 

Now, I'm not a doctor but I know that can't be good.

[jacksonianmarch]

No, that is bad. That is very bad. One of the interesting things about joint surgeries is that the joint space is so vulnerable for infection that those who operate on ACL's and knee replacements typically do so in a helmet that keeps their breath from getting around the mask and into the wound. The orthopods are very scared of joint infections. For good reason. They are very hard to treat without reopening and anything that was introduced during the initial surgery is compromised. The hardware that was placed becomes the harborer of the infectious organisms and it needs to come out. The graft itself is likely not the culprit, but the two screws needed to secure the graft in place likely is. If the infection is as bad as they say, he might require removal of the graft, antibiotics for a couple weeks and then another ACL reconstruction once the joint has calmed down.

[YanksHater213]

I had a successful ACL reconstruction, with the patella tendon too, and that was probably the worst thing I've ever gone through. I can't imagine having to have that same surgery again after a month.

[mtbykr]

http://blogs.weei.com/mikepetraglia/2008/10/23/not-good/

 

Kremchek specializes in the type of surgery that was performed on the New England Patriots star quarterback on Oct. 6 and is very familiar with various circumstances that result from the repair of a damaged ACL.

 

“What will probably have to happen is that they will have to go in, remove everything–including the screws, everything—because everything has to be sterile and clean for (the repair) to take,” Kremchek said.

 

What does that mean in terms of timetable?

 

“Next year, I have to think, is seriously in doubt,” Kremchek said.

 

Now it becomes clearer why so many people are concerned.

 

Worst case?

 

“His career could be in jeopardy,” Kremchek said.

 

[Gom]

This is bad. I hope he recovers, and I hate the Patriots.

[Dojji]

That was the sound of all Patroits pretensions of continuing their dynasty ending.