YanksHater213

I don't think our defense was as ready as they could be for that Giants game. Plus our offense was way too cocky and not ready for a defense like the Giants. I mean, we all remember Brady's quote that went to the effect of something like "really, you're only giving us 14 points?" We weren't tested enough that year defensively to be ready for that game (not breaking up Boss' retarded catch, Samuel's INT gaffe that would have won it, etc).

You really can't say that we relied on our defense to win games though, no matter what the numbers said. We were winning games by 4 touchdowns. We were not winning games with our defense. Teams who rely on offense (01-02 Rams, 07-08 Pats, all those Colts teams until they won) do not nearly do as well as teams who rely on their defense.

They were teams that solely relied on offense to win their games, rather than having a defense to lean on.

You know who the 07/08 Pats kind of reminded me of? The 01/02 Rams...

Numbers wise, sure. But we didn't win s*** and that counts for a lot in my book. It was a fun and magical year but you don't win the Super Bowl and you are not one of the best ever. Also, SCM I think the time of possession numbers would have looked much better in the Vikings and Ravens games had we not dropped into deep zones so much in the second halves. We were taking away the big play which effectively made us depend on the other team making mistakes underneath. I agree though on the whole, we need the ball longer.

That's how I interpreted how we were doing this at least.

I'm not saying you agreed with me, just I agreed with everything you said.

2007/08 was retarded. I mean, I can't say I wasn't so juiced up at the time, I loved the TDs, love the offense, but looking back, that was not Patriots or Belichick football at all. I'd prefer to win 17-3 way more than 52-0

I think they can once it's all said and done (which was part of the reason I picked Sproles as my KR), but for now they count as their specific draft slot, which is partly why I've been picking quite a few versatile players.

f***ING THANK YOU! SOMEONE SPEAKING SOME f***ING SENSE!

6-1, best team in the NFL, etc. All that really matters. What's the Vikings record again?

Nothing you say makes any sense. It's stupid and when I read it, it's like Chinese. You know nothing about football, stop posting in here.

Mesko is a f***ing brilliant punter. He's got a boot. Best one we've had since Tom Tupa.

I don't ever want to get married anyways, I guess jokes on you?

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

You can't make a f***ing new position this late into the draft. If you want one, use your backup spot for one.

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

Jeff Faine, C Wanted to take this guy before WB would (just incase it was who he was looking for for his center)

nvm hold on for a second

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.

If no one updates the chart tonight (hint: probably wont be - f*** you kilo, coco, etc, you lazy sobs), I'll do it again the same way I did it in the morning providing I'm up early enough before physical therapy in the morning (so pretty much it comes down to how drunk I am tonight). Ital make sure your list is updated for me so I can do it.

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.

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.

I love Kilo's Reddick pick, but I personally don't really think it fits the 2nd unit that he's been crafting all that well.

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.