McDaniels to Brady: "We are not changing a thing"

[NEPatriot]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

5 sacks, 18 times knocked to the ground, yea all is rosey.

Josh had money on the game.

Yes. It was the ONLY game which we saw Brady sacked and knocked downif there was NO TOMORROW.

Giants SCORED and Pats SCORED. If Giants did not SCORE, Pats did not make any effort to SCORE. It was no secret to see it.

14 pts for #1 O team in NFL.? it's sh**ty isn't it.? Pats SCORED more than that when it faced Dolphin and Jet. If you took the LOWEST score of the LAST Jet OR Dolphin game, Pats woud WIN SB42.

I still think that Pats DID NOT want to WIN that game.

What do we really learn about 'injury' report.? Never read or look at it AND don't BET your LIFE on it.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

That's far more ridicolous than those blaming McD. The OL was getting beat up in one on one match-ups, that's not Brady's responsibility.

*ROFLMOA* OH Really? What's so ridiculous about pointing out the FACT that its Brady's responsibility to point out the MIKE and the O-line's job to adjust to his call?

What's ridiculous about the FACT that Brady has the ability to AUDIBLE on any play based on how he sees the defense lined up?

How the hell does Tom NOT take some of the blame? Seriously? What is ridiculous is people like yourself thinking that Brady's ***** doesn't stink in this. He's as much at fault as McDaniels is.

OH, and, btw, if the O-line is getting beat the way they were, don't you think its BRADY'S responsibility to read and adjust the plays to help the O-line out? OH wait. Clearly you don't because you think that the O-line operates seperately from Brady. Otherwise, you wouldn't have made the comments you did because you'd understand the bigger picture.

 

[cornhuskers_2002]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

i want weis

 

[Terry Glenn is a cowgirl]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

The whole team deserves the loss... but, it was obvious that the oline wasn't looking very good that night.

 

[NEPatriot]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

what the hell did BB do during the game when something was NOT right.? Kept watching.!

what happened to 'half time' adjustment.?

when you heard BB say "we are ready", WE were NOT ready on that day.

How did we do when having 2 weeks to prepare for the MOST important GAME in NFL history.? We came up with 14 pts. WOW,holy COW.!

It's really pathetic to think about it.

 

[dhamz]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

What's ridiculous about the FACT that Brady has the ability to AUDIBLE on any play based on how he sees the defense lined up?

I'm quite sure by the way the Giants lined up Brady could have easily predicted that on this play Tuck is going to make Logan his *****. He should have audibled to the Logan is Tuck's ***** play. Next play he should have changed to the Logan is Alfrord's ***** play.

There are no plays in the play book, no audbiles, no blocking schemes, no anything that is going to help if your offensive linemen just can't block their guys. Every successful play starts with that and the guys up front got the heads handed to them consistently.

 

[pats1yes]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

I think there is very little question, Brady is ready to start calling his own plays.

I actually thought that last year.

DO IT BB.

 

[BradyManny]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

*ROFLMOA* OH Really? What's so ridiculous about pointing out the FACT that its Brady's responsibility to point out the MIKE and the O-line's job to adjust to his call?

What's ridiculous about the FACT that Brady has the ability to AUDIBLE on any play based on how he sees the defense lined up?

How the hell does Tom NOT take some of the blame? Seriously? What is ridiculous is people like yourself thinking that Brady's ***** doesn't stink in this. He's as much at fault as McDaniels is.

OH, and, btw, if the O-line is getting beat the way they were, don't you think its BRADY'S responsibility to read and adjust the plays to help the O-line out? OH wait. Clearly you don't because you think that the O-line operates seperately from Brady. Otherwise, you wouldn't have made the comments you did because you'd understand the bigger picture.

Brady is as at fault for the O-Line's weak play as McD? You gotta be kidding me. First off, the O-Line is at fault for the O-Line's play. It really is that simple. Go through Unoriginal's thread, just see how many times a guy is flat-out beat and try and tell me if it has anything to do with where Brady called the mike.

The O-Line was individually getting dominated and in your attempt to absolve McD of any and all responsibility for the loss, you've gone and tried to blame Brady for the poor OL play.

It wasn't Brady's best game by any stretch, but if we're assigning blame, the OL and coaching certainly shoulder more of it. First, the OL for getting physically dominated unlike it had all season and second, McD and BB for not adjusting to compensate for the fact that the OL was getting dominated - if you can even compensate for that at all, as plenty argue that you can't.

But to think that Brady's mike calls were the reason the OL sucked it up? I'm not buying that one. Want to say Brady missed some open throws? Sure, he did. Or that he looked deep to Moss on plays where there wasn't time for it? Yeah, maybe he did. But to blame his identification of the mike on the total self-implosion of the offensive line???

EDIT: As for Brady's ability to audible - now you're really making excuses for McD...and I haven't even tried to put any blame on him. Yet your so sensitive to any criticism that could possibly go McD's that way that you have already have paved the way to deflect said criticism. Basically, you're saying, McD didn't do his job well enough, it's Brady job to correct for it at the LOS. Brady's not a friggin offensive coach, he's a quarterback, he gets paid to read defenses and throw the ball to the open receivers, he does not get paid to design an offense or design and call plays, he is an implementor of the offense.

Again, the group to blame here is first and foremost the offensive line, but in your haste to avoid any criticism on your BFF McDaniels here, you've gone and blamed Brady for far more than he deserves.

 

[upstater1]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

I'm thinking that Weis, with these weapons, would have taken the Giants to the cleaners.

Weis excelled at keeping the opposition off balance, and that was the key to the Patriots' offensive success in those years.

McDaniels calls some interesting plays and he has designed a really efficient offense, no doubt.

But he's pretty predictable. That's fine when you're executing (and the Patriots do execute very well) but he seems lost when things aren't going according to plan. Weis, on the other hand, was the master at disguising plays and tricking the defense into thinking you were doing to opposite of what you were showing them.

 

[chech1965]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

I heard on ESPN radio that an unnamed or source player on the Pats said that at halftime Brady went to McDaniels and asked about adjustments on the protection and some adjustments in the timing, count. The player said that Josh turned to Brady, rather pissed off and said "No, we have a plan, the plan is good, we are not changing it".

Wouldn't surprise me. I almost got the vibe from the game that they didn't want to win. Obvious bad calls on the 4th down and the blitz in the red zone are among some of the calls that just didn't seem Patriot-like.

Who knows...<shrug>

:scared:

 

[NEPatriot]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

I'm thinking that Weis, with these weapons, would have taken the Giants to the cleaners.

Weis excelled at keeping the opposition off balance, and that was the key to the Patriots' offensive success in those years.

McDaniels calls some interesting plays and he has designed a really efficient offense, no doubt.

But he's pretty predictable. That's fine when you're executing (and the Patriots do execute very well) but he seems lost when things aren't going according to plan. Weis, on the other hand, was the master at disguising plays and tricking the defense into thinking you were doing to opposite of what you were showing them.

where was WEIS when we needed him.?

 

[BradyManny]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

I'm thinking that Weis, with these weapons, would have taken the Giants to the cleaners.

Weis excelled at keeping the opposition off balance, and that was the key to the Patriots' offensive success in those years.

McDaniels calls some interesting plays and he has designed a really efficient offense, no doubt.

But he's pretty predictable. That's fine when you're executing (and the Patriots do execute very well) but he seems lost when things aren't going according to plan. Weis, on the other hand, was the master at disguising plays and tricking the defense into thinking you were doing to opposite of what you were showing them.

I agree with your assessment, McD is great at creating an efficient offense, but disguise is not part of his offense. The offense under McD has relied on the offense out-executing the defense by taking what the defense gives them, but it does not rely on any deception or mis-direction. In some ways, this is great - they simply wait for the D to commit to stopping one thing and then go in another direction, but on the night of the Super Bowl, they did not execute well enough.

While it's hard to argue with the Read and React type offense that has brought them so much success, and its hard to argue with how amazing the offense was last season, I do believe that in the instance in which the offense is not executing well enough, some deception might help.

 

[captain stone]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

I'm thinking that Weis, with these weapons, would have taken the Giants to the cleaners.

Weis excelled at keeping the opposition off balance, and that was the key to the Patriots' offensive success in those years.

McDaniels calls some interesting plays and he has designed a really efficient offense, no doubt.

But he's pretty predictable. That's fine when you're executing (and the Patriots do execute very well) but he seems lost when things aren't going according to plan. Weis, on the other hand, was the master at disguising plays and tricking the defense into thinking you were doing to opposite of what you were showing them.

I hold this Truth to be Self-Evident: Skippy is too predictable. If it looks like a run, then it is a run; if it looks like a pass, then it is a pass. Adjustments? We don't need no steenking adjustments. We're the highest-scoring offense in NFL history, d%#*!@t.

BB, McD, TB and the OL are all to blame. All of 'em.

 

[jeffbiologist]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

Eight pages of crap. The Giants beat us. They deserved to win, they beat us on offense,defense, special teams and coaching. There is enough blame to go around so that every member of the team has to have a gut check every time they look in the mirror. Remember, they played and LOST the most important game in the history of football.....we only watched it.

 

[BradyIsaYankeeFan]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

Admit it. The Pats were outplayed and outcoached. Belichick was the captain of The Titanic, and he had this arrogance that the Pat machine was too formidable to sink. Maybe rightfully so, because every DC and analyst in the NFL knew that to have any success against the Pats' offensive juggernaut, you had to rush the QB. Easier said than done because no team was able to do that to the Pats for years. When it finally happened in the SB, everyone on the Pats - players and coaches - looked stunned.

Giants DC Spanoulo gambled that his linemen could get to Brady before he had time to pick apart his weak secondary. He won, and without as much blitzing as I thought he would need. McD made no halftime adjustments. Belichick hardly spoke to him during the game. Micromanaging is one thing, but letting your assistant know he was getting his QB killed is perfectly acceptable. They abandoned the running game entirely. Even if Maroney gains no yards, it would've given Brady a breather. Throw in a few draw plays! Too many options to discuss that McD had available to him against a fierce pass rush, but he was clearly outcoached.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

Admit it. The Pats were outplayed and outcoached. Belichick was the captain of The Titanic, and he had this arrogance that the Pat machine was too formidable to sink. Maybe rightfully so, because every DC and analyst in the NFL knew that to have any success against the Pats' offensive juggernaut, you had to rush the QB. Easier said than done because no team was able to do that to the Pats for years. When it finally happened in the SB, everyone on the Pats - players and coaches - looked stunned.

Giants DC Spanoulo gambled that his linemen could get to Brady before he had time to pick apart his weak secondary. He won, and without as much blitzing as I thought he would need. McD made no halftime adjustments. Belichick hardly spoke to him during the game. Micromanaging is one thing, but letting your assistant know he was getting his QB killed is perfectly acceptable. They abandoned the running game entirely. Even if Maroney gains no yards, it would've given Brady a breather. Throw in a few draw plays! Too many options to discuss that McD had available to him against a fierce pass rush, but he was clearly outcoached.

How do you run a draw play when the part of your line that is collapsing on almost every play is right up the middle and not on the edges?

 

[PatsFanJess]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

Admit it. The Pats were outplayed and outcoached. Belichick was the captain of The Titanic, and he had this arrogance that the Pat machine was too formidable to sink. Maybe rightfully so, because every DC and analyst in the NFL knew that to have any success against the Pats' offensive juggernaut, you had to rush the QB. Easier said than done because no team was able to do that to the Pats for years. When it finally happened in the SB, everyone on the Pats - players and coaches - looked stunned.

Giants DC Spanoulo gambled that his linemen could get to Brady before he had time to pick apart his weak secondary. He won, and without as much blitzing as I thought he would need. McD made no halftime adjustments. Belichick hardly spoke to him during the game. Micromanaging is one thing, but letting your assistant know he was getting his QB killed is perfectly acceptable. They abandoned the running game entirely. Even if Maroney gains no yards, it would've given Brady a breather. Throw in a few draw plays! Too many options to discuss that McD had available to him against a fierce pass rush, but he was clearly outcoached.

Umm where have you been? Just about everyone on this board has admitted that.
Why are we wasting time worrying about this? It's no longer the 2007 season. It's over. Let's hope it was a lesson learned and it's time to move on.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

I'm thinking that Weis, with these weapons, would have taken the Giants to the cleaners.

Weis excelled at keeping the opposition off balance, and that was the key to the Patriots' offensive success in those years.

McDaniels calls some interesting plays and he has designed a really efficient offense, no doubt.

But he's pretty predictable. That's fine when you're executing (and the Patriots do execute very well) but he seems lost when things aren't going according to plan. Weis, on the other hand, was the master at disguising plays and tricking the defense into thinking you were doing to opposite of what you were showing them.

The legend of Charlie Weis is far greater than Weis himself. People forget how agravating he was with his over reliance of the FB draw on third downs (he cost us the game vs. Washington in 2003 with that one as I vividly remember). Or how many three and outs we had especially in the 2003 season (a 37% third down percentage rate and 15th in the NFL). McDaniels even with no weapons in 2006 has never had worse than 42.1% conversion.
People also forget that Weis used to like to give up on the run after the first half quite a bit (again especially in 2003).

Weis was a very good OC, but way overrated by Patriots fans. I remember quite a few people hoping he would get the Buffalo job after the 2003 season because he had a very mediocre year and if it wasn't for the Pats having the best defense in Patriots history that year and one of the best in NFL history (IMHO), the offense would have been exposed far more (it was 17th in yards and 12th in points and that is factoring in the 5 TDs the defense scored that year).

Speaking of the 2003 defense, why doesn't Pees get nearly as much crap as McDaniels? The defense since Crennel left has never been nearly as good. Definitely not as good as the 2003 season. We won three championships largely on a great defense and an offense that doesn't make a lot of costly mistakes. Yet, everyone always blame the offensive side of the ball and McDaniels even after having the most prolific offense in NFL history with a good, but not great defense.

I'm sorry, but we could have won the 2001 and 2003 Super Bowl with any good OC. It was the defense that carried those teams to victory. Yet people focus on the offensive side of the ball when it appears that Belichick is most concerned about the defensive side. Why else would he and not Peas be working with the starting defense when the offense is on the field and why would he break from tradition and hire an established coach to be a special defensive assistant and secondary coach?

 

[BradyIsaYankeeFan]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

How do you run a draw play when the part of your line that is collapsing on almost every play is right up the middle and not on the edges?

I realize that, but I look at the draw as the opposite of the play-action pass when the D is playing the run. It's a play to keep the defense honest instead of coming after Brady play after play. There were of course other things to do like a 4 WR set as someone already mentioned or using 2 TE sets to protect Brady a bit more. Like I said, it was both the players and the coaching. Kaczur didn't do his job, and neither did Light. Brady couldn't roll out to buy himself time because the Giants DEs kept him in the pocket. The Pats O-line were basically beaten up by just 4 Giants up front, the same four guys I saw the Dallas O-line push around all season including the playoffs. And I thought the Pats had a slightly better line than the Cowboys too. The Cowboys O-line owned the Giants linemen for 3 quarters of the NFC playoffs too, but they just ran out of gas in the final 15 minutes. The Pats O-line were beaten from the first Brady pass of the game.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: McDaniels to Brady: 'We are not changing a thing'

I realize that, but I look at the draw as the opposite of the play-action pass when the D is playing the run. It's a play to keep the defense honest instead of coming after Brady play after play. There were of course other things to do like a 4 WR set as someone already mentioned or using 2 TE sets to protect Brady a bit more. Like I said, it was both the players and the coaching. Kaczur didn't do his job, and neither did Light. Brady couldn't roll out to buy himself time because the Giants DEs kept him in the pocket. The Pats O-line were basically beaten up by just 4 Giants up front, the same four guys I saw the Dallas O-line push around all season including the playoffs. And I thought the Pats had a slightly better line than the Cowboys too. The Cowboys O-line owned the Giants linemen for 3 quarters of the NFC playoffs too, but they just ran out of gas in the final 15 minutes. The Pats O-line were beaten from the first Brady pass of the game.

There was no way to keep the D-Line honest, which is the point. They were selling out upfield on every play. That was a recipe for absolute disaster if one of two things had happened:

1.) A run play goes to an area where the D-lineman was contained, because no other Defender would be anywhere in the area.

2.) The 5 man line holds off the 4 man rush and makes a huge play in the passing game on a couple of early drives in a row.

Had either of those happened, this game would have been a Patriots blow out. However, it didn't, and the 'pin your ears back' approach was able to work because the O-line stunk out the joint.