Moss to Vikings?

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Pats are a top 3 nfl team with or with out him

 

Right, so why all the discussion that the Pats are better without Moss? People are acting like it made a huge difference when clearly it didn't do much.

[Emmz]

who cares if brady is better with him or without him' date=' pats are 6-1 you guys are like the guys on espn say the same s*** over and over again. lowering my IQ and everybody else here[/quote']

 

I agree with this, but some other people can't accept that he's not as good without Moss. He's played very mediocre football since Moss' departure.

[yankees228]

Brady's completion rate was 70% with Moss' date=' it's under 60% without him. Do the math [/quote']

 

I don't think there's any way the Pats could have believed that trading Moss would statistically improve their offense. But they obviously felt that, for whatever reason (likely chemistry issues), they had a better chance of reaching their ultimate goal without Moss than they did with Moss.

 

If the discussion centers around whether it was a good trade for the Pats, then I have no idea what the answer to that question is. But while we're privy to the statistical affect Moss has on the offense, we're not privy to the overall affect Moss has on the entire team.

[Emmz]

I don't think there's any way the Pats could have believed that trading Moss would statistically improve their offense. But they obviously felt that, for whatever reason (likely chemistry issues), they had a better chance of reaching their ultimate goal without Moss than they did with Moss.

 

If the discussion centers around whether it was a good trade for the Pats, then I have no idea what the answer to that question is. But while we're privy to the statistical affect Moss has on the offense, we're not privy to the overall affect Moss has on the entire team.

 

Except for that's exactly what ORS is trying to debate. He's actually debating whether or not he helped Brady's stats. That's why this is so stupid.

[boston22407]

I agree with this' date=' but some other people can't accept that he's not as good without Moss. He's played very mediocre football since Moss' departure.[/quote']

 

i dont care if tom threw for 150 yards a game as long as we win its fine to me ,he going to have a good games and he is going to have avg, joe games and that's fine as long as the pats win

[Emmz]

i dont care if tom threw for 150 yards a game as long as we win its fine to me ' date='he going to have a good games and he is going to have avg, joe games and that's fine as long as the pats win[/quote']

 

I agree. And I like the Patriots, I consider them my second-favorite team, but Moss was a huge piece to their offense.

[ORS]

Also' date=' I'd like to point out how inaccurate this is. I said that if the Packers were to improve, than the Vikings will be about the same as last year. Again you're distorting the truth to fit your argument. Your argument was that YOU ACTUALLY EXPECTED Rodgers to play above his previous season's performance. I was illustrating how asinine that was.[/quote']

********. You got butt-hurt because most of the football world was picking the Pack as the team to beat in the NFC, and you came in waving your purple and white banner. You were dead wrong, more wrong than those picking the Pack, and you are trying to deflect attention from your blunder.

[yankees228]

Except for that's exactly what ORS is trying to debate. He's actually debating whether or not he helped Brady's stats. That's why this is so stupid.

 

I don't remember everything ORS has said, but it seems from his last post like he is trying to say there may be a few different reasons for why Brady has played worse in his last three games than in his previous four. But I'm not going to defend his position, or accidentally put words in his mouth. I'm curious as to how he responds.

[Emmz]

********. You got butt-hurt because most of the football world was picking the Pack as the team to beat in the NFC' date=' and you came in waving your purple and white banner. You were dead wrong, more wrong than those picking the Pack, and you are trying to deflect attention from your blunder.[/quote']

 

 

The reasoning to pick the Packers was because you expected them to magically improve, with no reason as to why. I was illustrating a point, I have no reason to cover my ass, considering you pulled that out of yours to try and paint me a certain way. There was no reason for you to bring it up, but it just benefits my point that you really have no f***ing clue what you're on about.

[YanksHater213]

Brady's completion rate was 70% with Moss' date=' it's under 60% without him. Do the math [/quote']

 

3 wins

0 losses

 

No locker room bitching

 

Do the math.

[ORS]

I don't remember everything ORS has said' date=' but it seems from his last post like he is trying to say there may be a few different reasons for why Brady has played worse in his last three games than in his previous four. But I'm not going to defend his position, or accidentally put words in his mouth. I'm curious as to how he responds.[/quote']

This is exactly what I'm doing. She came in very smug after Brady had two rough games following the Moss trade and was acting like there was one and only one reason for it. I suggested the quality of the opposition could have contributed as well. That's it, but she chose to argue my point.....all while I acknowledged both Moss's talent and impact for the Patriots offense, ie I think it's a combination of factors.

[yankees228]

This is exactly what I'm doing. She came in very smug after Brady had two rough games following the Moss trade and was acting like there was one and only one reason for it. I suggested the quality of the opposition could have contributed as well. That's it' date=' but she chose to argue my point.....all while I acknowledged both Moss's talent and impact for the Patriots offense, ie [b']I think it's a combination of factors.[/b]

 

This is reasonable, and the stance I also take in the matter.

[Emmz]

This is exactly what I'm doing. She came in very smug after Brady had two rough games following the Moss trade and was acting like there was one and only one reason for it. I suggested the quality of the opposition could have contributed as well. That's it' date=' but she chose to argue my point.....all while I acknowledged both Moss's talent and impact for the Patriots offense, ie I think it's a combination of factors.[/quote']

 

No, I was addressing someone else (YanksHater) who was smugly proclaiming them a better team without Moss. You never once said that Moss had an impact on their offense until now. I agree that it was good for the chemistry of the Patriots, but Brady has struggled without him to stretch the field like he did. Even when he's not catching passes, he makes your team much better. YH, since the beginning of the thread, has been denying his effect on the offense, so when you defended him, I assumed that you were on the same boat.

 

I apologize, but without the knowledge that you considered Moss a factor in the offense, you just sounded like YH.

[Emmz]

3 wins

0 losses

 

No locker room bitching

 

Do the math.

 

Except for on like, page 2 you said that he had no impact on the passing attack. You just sound like a homer.

[ORS]

 

The reasoning to pick the Packers was because you expected them to magically improve, with no reason as to why. I was illustrating a point, I have no reason to cover my ass, considering you pulled that out of yours to try and paint me a certain way. There was no reason for you to bring it up, but it just benefits my point that you really have no f***ing clue what you're on about.

Yeah, I had no reason to bring that up. None at all, I mean nobody had just challenged the validity of my opinion. You're totally clean here.

[ORS]

No' date=' I was addressing someone else (YanksHater) who was smugly proclaiming them a better team without Moss. [b']You never once said that Moss had an impact on their offense until now[/b]. I agree that it was good for the chemistry of the Patriots, but Brady has struggled without him to stretch the field like he did. Even when he's not catching passes, he makes your team much better. YH, since the beginning of the thread, has been denying his effect on the offense, so when you defended him, I assumed that you were on the same boat.

 

I apologize, but without the knowledge that you considered Moss a factor in the offense, you just sounded like YH.

One' date=' I'm not quick to say anything. I don't think they are a more talented team without him, nor do I think they are more explosive offensively. I do, however, think there is some merit to the idea that they may play more consistent and cohesively as a team without him due to him taking plays off and his impact to team morale.[/quote']

Just stop already.

[Emmz]

I didn't read that part of that post, I'm pretty sure I just read that you said that it couldn't be dismissed as easily as I was trying, because my response was the rankings of the passing offenses of the teams you said were possible reasons to Brady's passing struggles. Sorry, but I didn't see this until now. I still think you were wrong about Rodgers, I still think you're wrong if you still think that it was the defense of the three teams he's faced that's been the reason he's struggles, but I do apologize for not reading that. It would have saved a lot of time.

[YanksHater213]

I really have nothing to say other than we have 3 wins and no losses against 3 good teams without Moss. The offense is looking much better.

 

Morons will continue to say "WELKER ISNT HAVE 13 RECEPTIONS PER GAME". Well I say, who gives a f***? We're back to the 2001-2004 "who gives a f*** about stats" offense.

 

We're a better team now without Moss, I firmly believe that. If you don't agree, well I'll be laughing all the way to the bank when we're winning games.

[Emmz]

This message is hidden because YanksHater213 is on your ignore list.

 

wat?

[YanksHater213]

Bahahhahahahahahhahaha. Classic ignorance.

[Emmz]

Bahahhahahahahahhahaha. Classic ignorance.

 

I was just kiddin'. I wouldn't block you, I've only blocked Gom so far.

[Emmz]

50 bucks says I get a counter block, any takers?

[YanksHater213]

I don't block anyone. I have thick skin.

[Emmz]

I really have nothing to say other than we have 3 wins and no losses against 3 good teams without Moss. The offense is looking much better.

 

Morons will continue to say "WELKER ISNT HAVE 13 RECEPTIONS PER GAME". Well I say, who gives a f***? We're back to the 2001-2004 "who gives a f*** about stats" offense.

 

We're a better team now without Moss, I firmly believe that. If you don't agree, well I'll be laughing all the way to the bank when we're winning games.

 

Except the 2001-2004 teams had 5 all pro defenders. The Patriots do not have a good defense, they have a genius of a coach, but Brady used to have a much better completion rate in 01-04 as well. I think you're a little ahead of yourself. I said it before, I'll say it one more time, the 2001-2004 teams had very formidable defense, with excellent ball control offensively. This team does not have the ball control or the defense of those teams. They were very fortunate to beat the Chargers last week, this week the Vikings defense just s*** the bed late.

 

If you're an "ends justify the means" person, then by all means, the Patriots are on a roll, but they've looked very questionable.

 

And @ you saying the offense looks better. That simply isn't true. They beat 3 disappointing teams, and looked very vulnerable during all three of them.

[Dojji]

Frankly in the early part of that run, those defenders were not all-pro. Or at least were not considered to be all-pro. They used the same clever coach and made some great plays and made a championship or two happen and eventually the league recognized that the performance of those players played a role in what the coach was able to do. Much like people are starting to realize that guys like Jarrod Mayo are pretty danged good right now.

 

THe Bill Belichick effect is overrated. A coach is not a wizard -- he needs talent to work with to get the job done. No one can win a Superbowl with a practice squad. If a coach is getting the job done, then he's found a way to get some extra talent out of the guys he has or a scheme that takes advantage of the existing talent of a set of underappreciated players.

 

Point is that if even a great coach is getting the job done that mean the team he's getting it done WITH is at least good.

[Palodios]

THe Bill Belichick effect is overrated. A coach is not a wizard -- he needs talent to work with to get the job done. No one can win a Superbowl with a practice squad. If a coach is getting the job done, then he's found a way to get some extra talent out of the guys he has or a scheme that takes advantage of the existing talent of a set of underappreciated players.

 

Point is that if even a great coach is getting the job done that mean the team he's getting it done WITH is at least good.

 

Right, but who drafts the team? Who turns the talent into skill? Who makes good players better? This season he's turned a pile of rookies and no-namers into the team with the best record in football.

[Dojji]

If a coach is getting the job done, then he's found a way to get some extra talent out of the guys he has or a scheme that takes advantage of the existing talent of a set of underappreciated players.

 

I didn't say what I said to disparage Belichick. But even Belichick needs to have something to work with. That's the point I'm trying to get through to Emmz. Yeah, Belichick's schemes are playing a more prominent role than the name players, but that doesn't mean the coach is bigger than the team, it just means that he's getting solid performances from guys we haven't learned to appreciate yet.

[a700hitter]

Throw all the bouquets that you want at Belechick. This Patriot team is not championship caliber. It's competitive. Big whoop. That's more a result of parity than genius coaching. They've played two good teams so far and they are 1-1. They got dominated by the Jets and they squeaked out a 3 pt win against Baltimore. They were practically given the game by an underperforming crappy San Diego team which played like they were asleep until the 3rd Quarter. The Patriots are way over-rated.

[Emmz]

Frankly in the early part of that run' date=' those defenders were not all-pro. Or at least were not [i']considered[/i] to be all-pro. They used the same clever coach and made some great plays and made a championship or two happen and eventually the league recognized that the performance of those players played a role in what the coach was able to do. Much like people are starting to realize that guys like Jarrod Mayo are pretty danged good right now.

 

Most of their defenders were older, and while they may not have been all pros in title, they were considered top-caliber defenders. Do you even realize how hard it is to be an all pro? Most of your HOF-worthy players get one or two all pro selections. You don't just get all pro because you're good at burning the clock off so it looks like you're a good defender. And Jerod Mayo was considered by the end of his first season to be a very good player, so I don't see the connection at all. The Pats defense isn't even close to the level it was in 2001-2004.

 

THe Bill Belichick effect is overrated. A coach is not a wizard -- he needs talent to work with to get the job done. No one can win a Superbowl with a practice squad. If a coach is getting the job done, then he's found a way to get some extra talent out of the guys he has or a scheme that takes advantage of the existing talent of a set of underappreciated players.

 

The man turns most of his defensive draft picks into gold. In addition, the guy built a dynasty that was by no means overpowering. It was built on defense and and ball control. Yes it's overrated, but you make it seem like I'm trying to call the guy a magician. Belichick could make pretty much any team with an accurate passer, a good receiver and a steady runner look better than it is.

 

Point is that if even a great coach is getting the job done that mean the team he's getting it done WITH is at least good.

 

Again, if you think the ends justify the means, sure. But the NE defense is 5th in total defense this season, and haven't matched their season scoring average for 3 weeks in a row, while Tom Brady has passed sub-60%, and the defense continues to give away yards, especially through the air.

[Emmz]

Throw all the bouquets that you want at Belechick. This Patriot team is not championship caliber. It's competitive. Big whoop. That's more a result of parity than genius coaching. They've played two good teams so far and they are 1-1. They got dominated by the Jets and they squeaked out a 3 pt win against Baltimore. They were practically given the game by an underperforming crappy San Diego team which played like they were asleep until the 3rd Quarter. The Patriots are way over-rated.

 

The Ravens, Chargers, and Vikings have fallen far short from their expectations so far. The Patriots have been garbage offensively recently, and they've been garbage defensively all season.