PostGame Thread 23 Official Week 10 PostGame NE vs IND Reactions

[Brady6]

Yeah.. Cause Pickens really is doing a whole helluva lot.

Pickens is on pace for 1000 yard season. Thornton isn’t on pace for a 1000 yard career.

 

[Triumph]

Daniel Jones getting that extension was absurd

Daboll the great offensive Guru was supposed to fix Dan Jones.

 

[Triumph]

Pickens is on pace for 1000 yard season. Thornton isn’t on pace for a 1000 yard career.

Pickens through 9 games - 566 yards - 3 TDs - 23 first downs and 17.2 yards per reception.

What is not to like?

 

[archstanton543]

Pickens is on pace for 1000 yard season. Thornton isn’t on pace for a 1000 yard career.

Thornton's on a 1,000 yard career pace. If he plays until he's 60.

 

[archstanton543]

Also, why was everyone wearing cold weather gear in a dome yesterday?

 

[h0c2000]

Also, why was everyone wearing cold weather gear in a dome yesterday?

Maybe because it's not a dome? A lot like the old Cowboys stadium.

 

[sb1]

Maybe because it's not a dome? A lot like the old Cowboys stadium.

Yeah it’s an open ended roof with a canvas covering the top that folds into the scoreboard. Cool to watch it work.

 

[1960Pats]

Zappe has an arm?

He has two of them. One on each side.

 

[50-yard-line]

Pickens through 9 games - 566 yards - 3 TDs - 23 first downs and 17.2 yards per reception.

What is not to like?

And Jonnu Smith is on pace for 800 yards and already has 4 TDs.

At some point, you have to believe it’s more than the player determining the numbers - particularly when you’re talking about a WR or RB, who can’t manufacture their chances.

They get ‘em or they don’t, and that’s on the OC and the QB.

Or the GM. I’m sure Pickens here would have behaved like an Angel and wouldn’t have been Boutted to the inactive list, right?

 

[Ian]

You're not serious with this ****, are you?

?

They are simply stats. He shared them with no editorial.

Honestly, reading them is like an ink blot test.

Confused about your response.

Yes, just second-half final QB totals. I posted the first-half totals at halftime, so I posted the second-half totals also after the game ended.

 

[venecol]

Dobbs and Stroud both had huge wins today.
Looks like the Mac Jones era is ovah in New England.
The defense did a great job today with no pass rush.
The plays have been there all season. Pats don't have the talent to complete them.

1. Dobbs is 2-0 w/ a team he joined 2 weeks ago w/o Jefferson & a 2nd yr HC
2. Stroud has a GWD against Joe Burrow's team, is a top 10 QB w/ no name receivers, rookie HC & has the Texans @ #7 WC.
3. Howell drove his team late in 4Q to a game tying TD (3 TDs). His D let Geno drive for GW fg w/ <1 min left.
4. Murray wasn't spectacular in his 1st game back but led a GWD late in 4Q. I hope he keeps winning.
5. Hell, even rookie Aidan O'Connell (who?) had a gwd and won 2 straight w/ lowly Raiders w/ rookie HC. His record: 2-1.

I watched 7 games yesterday and saw a bunch of QBs zipping the ball all over the place.

The thought that the Pats can't replace Mac and Belichick is utter nonsense. Mac is trash. Belichick is dated and uninspiring. Can them both.

 

[1960Pats]

Yep. It's so dumb.

You can add Chuck Noll/Bradshaw to that list as well.

The difference is that Bill is the one with the most losing seasons without his top QB. He's had 8 of them in just his 10 years without Brady.
Triplin never had one in 17 years with any of the QBs he's had.
Harbawl only has 2 in 16 years.
Reid only has 3 in his entire 25 years.
Mike McCarthy (17 years) and Carroll (18 years) only have 4 each.
Those are the HCs that are Bill's rivals now and many of them were mocked by fans here for not being in Bill's class. As it turns out they're not, they're all way ahead of Bill when you count their losing seasons.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The difference is that Bill is the one with the most losing seasons without his top QB. He's had 8 of them in just his 10 years without Brady.
Triplin never had one in 17 years with any of the QBs he's had.
Harbawl only has 2 in 16 years.
Reid only has 3 in his entire 25 years.
Mike McCarthy (17 years) and Carroll (18 years) only have 4 each.
Those are the HCs that are Bill's rivals now and many of them were mocked by fans here for not being in Bill's class. As it turns out they're not, they're all way ahead of Bill when you count their losing seasons.

Are you seriously arguing which coaches have more winning seasons and not number of Super Bowls? Really?

 

[Ian]

Are you seriously arguing which coaches have more winning seasons and not number of Super Bowls? Really?

People that discount Belichick's impact, even with Brady only need to go back and look at the playoff histories of those other coaches in January. People can credit Brady, which is great because you need the quarterback to not falter, and obviously, Brady was the best to ever do it. But there were a fair amount of games over that span that were tight, and they won some of them thanks to the defense, clock management, and some of the in-game decision-making.

Belichick doesn't freeze in those moments, and he makes the right decisions when it matters most (the Malcolm Butler thing aside ... that one still irks me ).

I've said it before, put him on the sideline in place of some of the other coaches who have failed recently in the postseason with those same rosters, and I'd be willing to bet the outcome is different. Obviously, his team-building has been lacking on the offensive side of things in recent years, but in a big game, I'd certainly take him in a second over any of those other guys in January (and February), a couple of whom he beat head-to-head in the postseason and for reasons that went beyond the quarterback.

 

[1960Pats]

Just curious how many do you think Tom would have had if BB wasn't always getting in the way? 8, 9, maybe even 10?

To some I wonder if they think Tom should have 20 if we didn’t saddle him with a bad coach.

Yep, they probably think that Tom could have won 10 SB's with the Jets, their coaches and organzation.

This is the kind of stupidity that turns threads into ****. You got the separate Brady forum that you wanted so if you feel the need to take shots do it there. Start up a thread there and I'll join you and we can discuss the true stupidity of starting this dumbass argument again, especially in a post game thread at a time when Bill is being more exposed than ever as below average without Brady.

 

[1960Pats]

Are you seriously arguing which coaches have more winning seasons and not number of Super Bowls? Really?

No, I've never made any such argument. What I'm saying is that Bill is getting exposed by his poor seasons without Brady. And to me Brady was the key and not his coaching.

The coaches I compared to with your Noll/Bradshaw comparison were the coaches who are against Bill now. They don't have nearly as many losing seasons and they didn't have 20 years with Brady.

This is my last word on this because this thread is heading off a cliff and I have some catching up to do. Thanks for the respectful response.

 

[RobertWeathers]

People that discount Belichick's impact, even with Brady only need to go back and look at the playoff histories of those other coaches in January. People can credit Brady, which is great because you need the quarterback to not falter, and obviously, Brady was the best to ever do it. But there were a fair amount of games over that span that were tight, and they won some of them thanks to the defense, clock management, and some of the in-game decision-making.

Belichick doesn't freeze in those moments, and he makes the right decisions when it matters most (the Malcolm Butler thing aside ... that one still irks me ).

I've said it before, put him on the sideline in place of some of the other coaches who have failed recently in the postseason with those same rosters, and I'd be willing to bet the outcome is different. Obviously, his team-building has been lacking on the offensive side of things in recent years, but in a big game, I'd certainly take him in a second over any of those other guys in January (and February), a couple of whom he beat head-to-head in the postseason and for reasons that went beyond the quarterback.

In order to be in a position to contend for Super Bowls, teams need:

1. Competent QB play
2. Decent players at the skill positions
3. Good defense

That formula has been true since forever.

The "Anybody Can Win Super Bowls with Tom Brady", crowd always forget the last two.

 

[Ian]

This is the kind of stupidity that turns threads into ****. You got the separate Brady forum that you wanted so if you feel the need to take shots do it there. Start up a thread there and I'll join you and we can discuss the true stupidity of starting this dumbass argument again, especially in a post game thread at a time when Bill is being more exposed than ever as below average without Brady.

You're getting caught up in a narrative that isn't accurate. I would say that Belichick is getting exposed as not being good at team-building without a quarterback who can make up for the philosophy they've tried to follow when it comes to opting for average talent vs adding impact players. I mean, I get mixing average guys in, but not having at least one impact player at all is just ridiculous. I'm sure somewhere the argument internally with him has been made that, "we didn't win with Moss or Welker" which - while true - happened prior to 2010 before the league really shifted.

Tom was clearly an anomaly, and Belichick's philosophy with the offensive side of the roster is 100% the problem. So I would say his presence exposed that, but the rest is just nonsense. As I said, put Belichick on the sidelines with the rosters some of the teams that have gotten bounced in the postseason in recent years, and I'd be willing to bet it's a different story.

 

[RobertWeathers]

No, I've never made any such argument. What I'm saying is that Bill is getting exposed by his poor seasons without Brady. And to me Brady was the key and not his coaching.

The coaches I compared to with your Noll/Bradshaw comparison were the coaches who are against Bill now. They don't have nearly as many losing seasons and they didn't have 20 years with Brady.

This is my last word on this because this thread is heading off a cliff and I have some catching up to do. Thanks for the respectful response.

My counter is all of those coaches don't have as many Super Bowls because they were unable to identify that they needed a franchise QB or other parts which were necessary to win.

More winning seasons....who cares?

 

[1960Pats]

Right…when he was 45 and retired after the season because he no longer had the physical skills to play? What a point.

It's funny because I thought he was talking about 2019 with all the injuries when Brady got the Pats to 12-4 and a brutal bad call vs KC away from the top seed. He was talking about TB though.