NFL - Are You Ready For Some Football?!! - Post SuperBowl

[Koyaanisqatsi]

In any case, a tiny bit of reflection on a great season that ended up wasted:

You guys can argue all you want; this was one of the best teams in football history (which is the most I'll grant any team, given the difficulty in comparing across eras.) They lost, but that mostly means it was a great team that wasted a season.

This is the second year in a row that the Pats season has been drastically altered by losing a linebacker. (Was reading a theory on the offensive slowdown toward the end of the year that made sense--once Colvin was gone, the offense slowed down because there was no depth left at LB and they wanted to avoid running the old men into the ground. I hadn't thought about it, but that was exactly when NE went to more ball control and less score early and often. Obviously other factors were involved, weather, defensive changes, etc., but it seems to fit the evidence.) Belichick needs to get over his 'only vets can play LB for me' schtick and fix the problem.

It'll be interesting to see whether or how much the spygate bull**** backs off after this...how much was driven by wanting to take the Pats down a notch and how much was legitimate. That's the only upside as far as I'm concerned...to be honest, the media and anti-Pats crusaders had already sucked enough joy out of a year of great accomplishments that I'm not even as bothered by this loss as I was last year's. It sucks, but even a win wouldn't have been so much enjoyment as finishing out the string and watching as the rest of the world dismantled everything the Pats did out of spite.

I really wish people would stop saying how great Matt Light is.

I knew what was going to happen on the Eli-to-Tyree play as soon as Manning didn't immediately go down. NE has had several plays this year just like that; I don't know if the secondary gives up or what, but every time there's a just-missed sack it ends up a completion downfield. I was just surprised it wasn't a score right then.

If I were on the anti-Pat bandwagon, I wouldn't get too comfortable...they'll be back again for at least a few more seasons. And probably even more pissed off than they were this year. Oh, and for the people claiming they were on that bandwagon all along--it started well before this season. Just because it's a long-running bandwagon doesn't mean it's any less of one...unless you were rooting against them continuously since 2001, you're on it.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by snoopy369
That said, I never consider the "anti-" bandwagon to be a negative thing. You're supposed to have loyalty for one team, but you're free to hate as you wish...

Yeah, but there's generalized hate, and then there's specific hate.

[SlowwHand]

To be specific, I think the Pats suck.

[reismark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The point is that usually when a QB from a team that plays great defense leads a 4th Q drive to win it, he gets the MVP... and usually there are no questions asked (Rice's MVP in SB XXIII being an obvious exception).

Doesn't make it any less wrong. Too often, said QB would never have been in position to make a game-winning drive if not for the play of his defense. And also too often, said game-winning drive could have easily gone sour for said QB if not for mistakes by the defense of the other team he's playing. (Like tonight... the game should have been over midway through that drive, but Hobbs couldn't bring down a ball he intercepts nine times out of ten, and it was a horrible throw to boot.)

It's the MVP of the game, not the MVP of the last drive.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
To be specific, I think the Pats suck.

Case in point.

[reismark]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Just because it's a long-running bandwagon doesn't mean it's any less of one...unless you were rooting against them continuously since 2001, you're on it.

And most were rooting FOR the Patriots against St. Louis, remember. (I certainly was, but let's just say I've been solidly anti-Ram since Bert Emanuel got jobbed to their benefit.) The Patriots didn't become the subject of wide scorn until their third win, and to this day, it surprises me, because all these years they won with Brady & scrubs (for the most part); not going the "elite star" route until this year.

[Imran Siddiqui]

this was one of the best teams in football history

Yes. But so were the 1998 Minnesota Vikings. Not every team that is "one of the best teams in football history" is brought into the mainstream debate.

Was reading a theory on the offensive slowdown toward the end of the year that made sense--once Colvin was gone, the offense slowed down because there was no depth left at LB and they wanted to avoid running the old men into the ground.

That's a silly-ass theory. No coach makes their offense less explosive because the defense has less depth. That's ridiculous. They went more to ball control because defenses were stopping the long pass.

And probably even more pissed off than they were this year.

You mean like how they were going to be more pissed off than EVAR for this SB because the spygate stuff came out again the day before the game?!

Just because it's a long-running bandwagon doesn't mean it's any less of one...unless you were rooting against them continuously since 2001, you're on it.

2003, actually. Everyone was loving on the Pats after they beat the Rams. It wasn't until they beat the Panthers that people started realizing how much of an utter ******* Belichick was.

Of course this year everyone knows, all the way to the end (walking off the field before the game is over... yeah, what a *****).

[reismark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course this year everyone knows, all the way to the end (walking off the field before the game is over... yeah, what a *****).

Can't really blame Belichick for that. The clock *did* tick down to zero before the clock official realized he should have stopped it sooner, and added a second. Either that, or FOX's graphics lied to us.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by reismark
Can't really blame Belichick for that. The clock *did* tick down to zero before the clock official realized he should have stopped it sooner, and added a second. Either that, or FOX's graphics lied to us.

But then Pats players came back (that's how they fielded a defense), but Beli kept walking.

BESIDES, he walked off WITHOUT shaking Coughlin's hand. The clock may have hit zero, but you usually shake the opposing coach's hand and say good job and all that stuff.

[snoopy369]

Belichick knew there was time on the clock, it was explained to him before he left the field. That move was pure **** and adds fuel to the "Belichick is a poor sport" fire.

I knew what was going to happen on the Eli-to-Tyree play as soon as Manning didn't immediately go down. NE has had several plays this year just like that; I don't know if the secondary gives up or what, but every time there's a just-missed sack it ends up a completion downfield. I was just surprised it wasn't a score right then.

That's true of EVERY team, pretty much... once the routes break down, the receivers are supposed to go into scramble mode, and it often works. Not as often as a normal play does, or everyone would scramble every time; but often enough that you go, "Wow, that's amazing" since it looks like the play is dying. Entirely mental

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's a silly-ass theory. No coach makes their offense less explosive because the defense has less depth. That's ridiculous. They went more to ball control because defenses were stopping the long pass.

As I said, defensive adjustments were part of it, among other things. I wouldn't be too surprised if that was one of the factors, though. I agree it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it does fit the way Belichick plays the game (see also: going light on Maroney after Morris was injured until he was needed, some of the games he plays with the defensive line). Belichick gets a lot of credit for creativity, particularly on defense, but he also has a tendency to overthink a lot.

You mean like how they were going to be more pissed off than EVAR for this SB because the spygate stuff came out again the day before the game?!

Again, that was the claim, but I suspect the players had the same reaction a lot of the fans did: What, this again? It's a lot harder to shake things off when you feel like you've already met that challenge and defeated it. As much as the press has been claiming the Pats are unflappable under any circumstances it's been obvious all year they're not. I don't think it cost them the game, the Giants did that...but I suspect the second round of crap was a negative influence, not a positive one.

Just because it's a long-running bandwagon doesn't mean it's any less of one...unless you were rooting against them continuously since 2001, you're on it.

2003, actually. Everyone was loving on the Pats after they beat the Rams. It wasn't until they beat the Panthers that people started realizing how much of an utter ******* Belichick was.

No, sorry, 2001 is my cutoff. Unless you've rooted against them from the time they were underdogs, you're on the bandwagon. Enjoy the ride.

[Jaguar]

The real reason why those broken-sack plays always result in big completions is that it's simply impossible to cover all the receivers for that long. Remember the Jags-Pats game, where Brady had all the time in the world and completed a billion passes?

Sure, the broken-sack plays look like a disaster for the offense because the blocking has broken down, but they're usually the plays where the QB holds onto the ball longest. And that means that people will be open.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But then Pats players came back (that's how they fielded a defense), but Beli kept walking.

BESIDES, he walked off WITHOUT shaking Coughlin's hand. The clock may have hit zero, but you usually shake the opposing coach's hand and say good job and all that stuff.

Then what was the video I just saw on ESPN of Belichick congratulating Coughlin in the middle of a crowd of players?

Honest question...I stopped watching as soon as the 4th down pass was dropped, so I didn't see it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

it does fit the way Belichick plays the game

What, moronically? Beli is smarter than that.

Again, that was the claim, but I suspect the players had the same reaction a lot of the fans did: What, this again?

So, what... before the game, oooh, this is going to piss them off sooo much. But when they lose, it was a "negative influence"?

So why in the Hell am I going to believe them being "pissed off" about losing heartbreakingly in the SB?

No, sorry, 2001 is my cutoff. Unless you've rooted against them from the time they were underdogs, you're on the bandwagon. Enjoy the ride.

You have literally no clue what a bandwagon is.

Or this is just another category of "sore-loserdom", ie, claiming an anti-X team bandwagon began well before it actually happened to claim some sort of victim mentality.

Hint... after the 2001 team won the SB, everyone aside from a handful of Pats fans thought it was a fluke... they were STILL underdogs... also evidenced by the next season when they failed to make the playoffs.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi

Then what was the video I just saw on ESPN of Belichick congratulating Coughlin in the middle of a crowd of players?

Honest question...I stopped watching as soon as the 4th down pass was dropped, so I didn't see it.

Didn't look like congratulations to me, it looked like Belichick trying to get off the field... I saw it, and was very mystified, but it fits what I've seen in the past, so ...