Moss to Vikings?

[boston22407]

So the fact that they were out-gained in all three games doesn't concern you? The fact that Brady had a completion rate over 70% before' date=' but under 60% since, doesn't concern you? I could understand if you would sound the least bit objective, but that's not the case. I guess ignorance is bliss.[/quote']

 

you look at stats to to to much

[YanksHater213]

So the fact that they were out-gained in all three games doesn't concern you? The fact that Brady had a completion rate over 70% before' date=' but under 60% since, doesn't concern you? I could understand if you would sound the least bit objective, but that's not the case. I guess ignorance is bliss.[/quote']

 

This is where you clearly display your lack of football knowledge. Have you been watching the Pats at all? We play a bend but don't break defense that relies on turnovers and red zone stops, and that has been exactly what we've been doing in the last 3 games.

 

Minny outgained us by 40 yards. Big whoop, 55 yard drive turned over on downs, 68 yards drive and wind up with a measly field goal, 53 yards that ended the game. That's vintage Patriots defense right there. AD was embarrassingly ineffective after his first drive. Dropping into a prevent to stop big plays at the end of the game gave Minny the yardage advantage.

 

Then in the SD game, up something like 20-3 late in the 3rd, we drop into a prevent to prevent the big plays and Rivers throws under routes for 7-13 yards every time. Drives of 64, 67, and 59. Was our offense overly spectacular? Hell no, they weren't that great, but this game was won by the defense forcing four turnovers.

 

Then with the Ravens we outgained them (not sure what box score you read after you didn't watch the game, but we outgained them 394 to 377) and won as a result of our defense stepping up and stopping them in the 4th and OT.

 

Fact is that yards do not win football games, points do. I don't care if we gain one yard offensively, and the other team gains 900. If you have more points, you did your job, and the Pats are doing it better without Moss. We've been allowing a measly 18 points per game (rough just from looking @ the numbers, not exact at all) since week 4, that is very good for a defense that is supposed to be not that great. They've induced 9 turnovers in their last 4 games, that's something out of a Steelers game. My overall point to you, is you need to stop looking at yards given up and look more into what actually happens on the field throughout the game. They could drive 99 yards every time for all I care, as long as the points don't go on the board (or only in 3 point intervals).

 

Your argument is like in hockey saying a teams defense is awful because they allow more shots against every night. If the puck doesn't go in, it doesn't matter. Same with football. If the points aren't on the board, it doesn't matter.

[boston22407]

thank you YH!

[SCM33]

So the fact that they were out-gained in all three games doesn't concern you? The fact that Brady had a completion rate over 70% before' date=' but under 60% since, doesn't concern you? I could understand if you would sound the least bit objective, but that's not the case. I guess ignorance is bliss.[/quote']

 

Why would it be concerning?

 

We are 6-1 and the defense is getting better.

 

This is a "rebuilding" year and we are 6-1. I am plenty ok with that.

 

Teams like Dallas and Minnesota were supposed to be superbowl contenders. They are 1-7 and 2-5 respectively. I think they have more to be concerned about than us.

 

We are just fine.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

you look at stats to to to much

 

I'm not taking sides but numbers don't lie.

[YanksHater213]

I'm not taking sides but numbers don't lie.

 

To some extent. You can look at numbers, but personally I can take most stats and skew them in a way where I can make them look good or bad.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

To complete the triple post' date=' [b']I'd love to see Moss on the Chiefs[/b]. They're already a very exciting team and if they add another playmaker to that offense they'll be in great shape.

 

HELL NO

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

To some extent. You can look at numbers' date=' but personally I can take most stats and skew them in a way where I can make them look good or bad.[/quote']

 

Well you're using stats in a different way. You're saying since the Pats have won 3 games since Moss departure that they've been a better team. Had the lost those 3 games what would you be saying now? Brady has been off the past few games and that's ******** if you deny it.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

That's fair, but with or without those guys, it's hard to beat last year's team, which as far as having everything, was only matched by the Vikings. You can point out that the Colts and Saints had better records, but those two teams were actually very poor defensively, whereas the Vikings and Packers had both elite offense and defense.

 

That's where it's hard for me to believe that they could improve. I thought that Favre would regress from last season, but I didn't expect him to totally revert to gunslinger mode. I didn't expect Rodgers to play like this either, he's actually keeping up with Favre for interceptions. I don't think anyone saw the Vikings, Chargers, Packers or Saints playing so poorly.

 

I sure didn't.

[YanksHater213]

Well you're using stats in a different way. You're saying since the Pats have won 3 games since Moss departure that they've been a better team. Had the lost those 3 games what would you be saying now? Brady has been off the past few games and that's ******** if you deny it.

 

Obviously I would be. I'm saying wins and losses trump stats, and that's a fact. Some numbers don't lie, but Emmz loves isolating certain statistics and using only ones that support her argument. Fact is that we have yet to lose without Moss and are playing better as a team without him, regardless of Brady's completion percent or how many yards we gain.

 

And lets be real, Brady hasn't been "off". People are expecting Brady to be putting up 2007 numbers, which is not the type of game we're playing any more without Moss. People forget that the Pats staple when we were winning Super Bowls was spreading the ball around and having a balanced attack. People expecting Brady to be ruining the league are absurd.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Obviously I would be. I'm saying wins and losses trump stats' date=' and that's a fact. Some numbers don't lie, but Emmz loves isolating certain statistics and using only ones that support her argument. Fact is that we have yet to lose without Moss and [b']are playing better as a team without him, regardless of Brady's completion percent or how many yards we gain.[/b]

 

And lets be real, Brady hasn't been "off". People are expecting Brady to be putting up 2007 numbers, which is not the type of game we're playing any more without Moss. People forget that the Pats staple when we were winning Super Bowls was spreading the ball around and having a balanced attack. People expecting Brady to be ruining the league are absurd.

 

So Brady's completion rate has gone down and getting less yards is kind of helping my argument lol. I want to know how this team improved because I don't really watch the pats. Numbers wise though it's showing you've been a worst team. You can't blame Emmz for bringing up the facts. I think everyone is in denial because it's the Pats and will find every excuse to deny the fact that the team has gone down a bit without Moss. Just for the record I'm mutual in this argument. I'm taking no one side but Emmz is making some points that are being ignored.

[YanksHater213]

It's easy to say we're not as good because we have less yards and are giving up more and blah blah blah. But when you've won 4 in a row all against talented teams, and 3 of them without the guy who supposedly made our offense tick (could be considered 4 since Moss was pretty much a nonfactor in Miami), it makes it look like the change was definitely for the better. Sure, we have less talent, but without him our style of play is completely different, and because of that we're definitely a better team.

 

The Pats and Belichick have ALWAYS thrived on the theory that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. We never won a Super Bowl by having the most talent in the NFL, we've always thrived on having great role players and being able to put anyone out there that has the ability to make the play and put forth their 100% effort.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Lol dude your repeating the same thing but in different words. I'm just going to put an end to it here and say you win. This thread is losing it's purpose and I say we get back to the Vikings/Moss talk not with the Pats.

[Divinity]

I say we get back to the Vikings/Moss talk not with the Pats.

 

Moss won't even be with Minnesota come this Sunday, some team will have claimed him off waivers, its time for Vikings fans to put the No. 84 jersey back into the closet.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Moss won't even be with Minnesota come this Sunday' date=' some team will have claimed him off waivers, its time for Vikings fans to put the No. 84 jersey back into the closet.[/quote']

 

Let me put this in other words. We should be talking Vikings and Moss in this thread not the Pats.

[boston22407]

no team should and will claim him , no one wants to pay him alot of money . just be smart and let him sign him to a cheap deal

[boston22407]

just read seahawks and browns dont want him

seahawks are one of the Bigger teams to get him

 

and why moss was waived? here u go

 

ahoo! Sports' Michael Silver reports that Randy Moss' "boorish" behavior in a locker room incident last Friday contributed to the Vikings' decision to cut him loose.

A favorite local restaurant catered the Vikings' buffet Friday. Moss went up to the table and yelled, "What the [expletive]? Who ordered this crap? I wouldn't feed this to my dog!" Per the St. Paul Pioneer-Press, the room got quite except for one player who said, "Shut the (expletive) up, Randy." Brett Favre even shot Moss the stink eye. The Vikes also had concerns about Moss' poisonous attitude rubbing off on Percy Harvin. Coach Brad Childress reportedly explained, "This just doesn't fit with how we treat people, how we talk to people and how we act."

[suns]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AuROUr3pyXaINaG8fJWO1Eo5nYcB?slug=ms-mossbehavior110210

[Emmz]

This is where you clearly display your lack of football knowledge. Have you been watching the Pats at all? We play a bend but don't break defense that relies on turnovers and red zone stops, and that has been exactly what we've been doing in the last 3 games.

 

Minny outgained us by 40 yards. Big whoop, 55 yard drive turned over on downs, 68 yards drive and wind up with a measly field goal, 53 yards that ended the game. That's vintage Patriots defense right there. AD was embarrassingly ineffective after his first drive. Dropping into a prevent to stop big plays at the end of the game gave Minny the yardage advantage.

 

Then in the SD game, up something like 20-3 late in the 3rd, we drop into a prevent to prevent the big plays and Rivers throws under routes for 7-13 yards every time. Drives of 64, 67, and 59. Was our offense overly spectacular? Hell no, they weren't that great, but this game was won by the defense forcing four turnovers.

 

Then with the Ravens we outgained them (not sure what box score you read after you didn't watch the game, but we outgained them 394 to 377) and won as a result of our defense stepping up and stopping them in the 4th and OT.

 

Fact is that yards do not win football games, points do. I don't care if we gain one yard offensively, and the other team gains 900. If you have more points, you did your job, and the Pats are doing it better without Moss. We've been allowing a measly 18 points per game (rough just from looking @ the numbers, not exact at all) since week 4, that is very good for a defense that is supposed to be not that great. They've induced 9 turnovers in their last 4 games, that's something out of a Steelers game. My overall point to you, is you need to stop looking at yards given up and look more into what actually happens on the field throughout the game. They could drive 99 yards every time for all I care, as long as the points don't go on the board (or only in 3 point intervals).

 

Your argument is like in hockey saying a teams defense is awful because they allow more shots against every night. If the puck doesn't go in, it doesn't matter. Same with football. If the points aren't on the board, it doesn't matter.

 

You use stats like scoring PPG, but you question my football knowledge? That's like using fielding percentage to judge how good a player is defensively, or ERA to judge how good a pitcher is, and telling me that I lack baseball knowledge. You have to look at other stats, otherwise you're just basically saying that the ends justify the means, which is fine, but it means that the Patriots are a very fortunate team, and does nothing to prove your point that the Pats are better without Moss.

[Emmz]

Then in the SD game, up something like 20-3 late in the 3rd, we drop into a prevent to prevent the big plays and Rivers throws under routes for 7-13 yards every time. Drives of 64, 67, and 59. Was our offense overly spectacular? Hell no, they weren't that great, but this game was won by the defense forcing four turnovers.

 

Just stop it already, the Pats are ranked 31st in pass defense. It wasn't a prevent defense, which leads me to believe either:

 

A. You didn't watch the game, and are talking out of your ass

 

or

 

B. You have no clue what you're on about

 

Just face it, the only argument you have is that they're 3-0, which has nothing to do with whether or not they play better without Moss.

 

Finally, what does Moss have to do with the defense again? Does he hurt their feeling too much with his antics that they play better when he's gone?

[YanksHater213]

Just stop it already, the Pats are ranked 31st in pass defense. It wasn't a prevent defense, which leads me to believe either:

 

A. You didn't watch the game, and are talking out of your ass

 

or

 

B. You have no clue what you're on about

 

Just face it, the only argument you have is that they're 3-0, which has nothing to do with whether or not they play better without Moss.

 

Finally, what does Moss have to do with the defense again? Does he hurt their feeling too much with his antics that they play better when he's gone?

So you're going to say that we were not playing a prevent defense in the second half of the Chargers game? Either:

 

A: You didn't watch the game and are talking out of your ass

 

or

 

B: You have no clue what you're talking about

 

It was clear as day, we were dropping both safeties back and sometimes a nickelback while playing man under and jamming at the lines, with sporadic blitzing from the linebackers. If that's not a prevent defense then I don't know what is.

 

Having Moss gone changes the identity of the ENTIRE team. I know you're used mediocre squads up in Minnesota so let me explain. Offensively, we go from a purely passing team to a team that's going to run the ball and kill you on short under receptions, which effectively kills the clock and puts less pressure on the defense.

 

With Moss we were going 3 and out FAR more often than we have in the last few weeks. We often used to try to go deep on first down (spoiler alert: deep throws to Moss were 100% incomplete this season) which put us at second and long, we'd then hit a medium rush or a short under route to Welker/Tate/et al, then be stuck on third and long. Without Moss the Pats are getting a lot more third and shorts, and keeping their defense off the field for longer stretches than the have since maybe we had Dillon. With Moss we gave up 24, 28, and 30, without him (counting the Miami game as without him since he was invisible that week) we gave up 14, 20, 20 and 18. Looks like a positive correlation to me.

 

Also using points per game in football is MUCH more valid than using yards per game or anything like that.

 

Total Offense: 1. SD 4. Dal

Total Pass Yds: 1. SD 3. Dal 4. Den

 

What do we see there? Some teams with great yardage numbers flat out blow.

 

My question to you is why do you think it matters that the Pats are 28th in total defense when they're 6-1 and have the best record in the NFL?

 

Hint: It doesn't f***ing matter how many yards a team gives up, it matters how many points they score and allow. Thats how you win and lose football games, points, not yardage.

[WhiskeyBreath]

Agreed. Yardage totals are useless. Teams can give up a big portion of yardage in garbage time when playing prevent defenses and the other team just constantly throwing.

 

Another important thing most people aren't thinking about is last year the Pats were terrible late in the game. They were easy to defend because teams knew they were just going to try to hit Moss deep for a TD when they were trying to comeback in late situations.

[Emmz]

You're just rephrasing that the ends justify the means. The Chargers have statistically outplayed their opponents. They have the best defense and offense, but they lose because of their lack of efficiency in the end zone. They're a very good team that's had bad play calling and even worse luck. The Patriots are a mediocre squad that's faced three of the most inefficient red zone teams in the NFL. The fact that you can even argue that it doesn't concern you displays a lot of homerism.

[YanksHater213]

The outcome of the game is 100 times more important than what happens in it.

[mvp 78]

I guess bad luck is not picking up a dropped lateral and leaving the ball on the ground after not being touched? Really, luck? Coaching has nothing to do with it?

 

I'll take a mediocre squad with great coaching over a great squad with crap coaching any day.

[yankees228]

Yards gained and yards allowed do have predictive value, which I think is all Emmz is saying. They're not the end all be all, but if a team is giving up a ton of yards, it stands to reason that the points my follow at some point in the future. It's similar to the correlation between WHIP and ERA. I don't think a team can rely on turnovers and red zone defense, especially in the playoffs, because the best offensive teams aren't going to give the ball away all that often.

 

On the flip side, yards allowed also has to be taken into context. If a team has a big lead and drops back into a prevent style defense, they're going to allow yards, which they're essentially giving away in order to eat up clock.

[boston22407]

EMMZ and YH lol

stop talking about it both you guys are just going back and forth saying the same s*** over and over

[Dipre]

http://mattwilsonjazz.com/images/photo_gallery_images/Photo_9.jpg

[YanksHater213]

I refuse to be friends with someone who says dumb s*** as often as Emmz does.

[Flynnatic10]

I refuse to be friends with someone who says dumb s*** as often as Emmz does.

 

i guess viking fans dont get along with the world :dunno: