Page 2 of 89
Re: New England Patriots
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 3:08 am
by elliseamos
Spike wrote:EllisEamos wrote:
Coach wrote:
Pats don't need a running game.
ridley, woodhead, and vereen are just fine in my book.

Have you changed your opinion since March, Spike?
Re: New England Patriots
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 4:38 am
by spike
elliseamos wrote:Spike wrote:EllisEamos wrote:
Coach wrote:
Pats don't need a running game.
ridley, woodhead, and vereen are just fine in my book.

Have you changed your opinion since March, Spike?
digging up an RM2 post; this must've really been sticking in your craw.
Re: New England Patriots
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 7:50 am
by wap
wasn't that vereen's first playoff game? damn impressive
Re: New England Patriots
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 5:47 pm
by Coach
I think it's now safe to say that Belichick's strategy to go with two tight ends, who are charged with blocking and running routes and making catches akin to a star wideout, is a bust.
The strategy, when both all-world tight ends are healthy, is awesome.
However, Belichick failed to calculate the percentage increase in injury to his tight ends due to the overwhelming workload. It's asking too much - even of fine specimens in Gronk and Hernandez.
Now, the Pats are stuck without their two best offensive weapons (Hernandez's high ankle sprain is still a huge problem - read Greg? Bedard of the Globe) for the second straight Super Bowl run.
They can still get there and win it, but they'll need a strong Plan B. Is it Vareen and Ridley? Perhaps so...
Re: New England Patriots
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 6:06 pm
by 4/5
Coach wrote:I think it's now safe to say that Belichick's strategy to go with two tight ends, who are charged with blocking and running routes and making catches akin to a star wideout, is a bust.
The strategy, when both all-world tight ends are healthy, is awesome.
However, Belichick failed to calculate the percentage increase in injury to his tight ends due to the overwhelming workload. It's asking too much - even of fine specimens in Gronk and Hernandez.
Wut?
Re: New England Patriots
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 6:53 pm
by Green Habit
4/5 wrote:Coach wrote:I think it's now safe to say that Belichick's strategy to go with two tight ends, who are charged with blocking and running routes and making catches akin to a star wideout, is a bust.
The strategy, when both all-world tight ends are healthy, is awesome.
However, Belichick failed to calculate the percentage increase in injury to his tight ends due to the overwhelming workload. It's asking too much - even of fine specimens in Gronk and Hernandez.
Wut?
Yeah, I don't get this at all either.
Tony Gonzalez would also likely disagree.
Re: New England Patriots
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 7:45 pm
by Self
I... I just... I'm trying not to post in this forum until the Pat's season is over. Damn you, Coach.
Re: New England Patriots
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 8:07 pm
by Orpheus
Not only does it work for the Pats, but several other teams as well. I'm gonna have to go with a big "disagree" on that.
Re: New England Patriots
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 10:13 pm
by elliseamos
spike wrote:elliseamos wrote:Spike wrote:EllisEamos wrote:
Coach wrote:
Pats don't need a running game.
ridley, woodhead, and vereen are just fine in my book.

Have you changed your opinion since March, Spike?
digging up an RM2 post; this must've really been sticking in your craw.
#1, i didn't know who had written it, i just remembered somebody posting it.
#2, answer the question.
Re: New England Patriots
Posted: Tue January 15, 2013 12:37 am
by Coach
Green Habit wrote:4/5 wrote:Coach wrote:I think it's now safe to say that Belichick's strategy to go with two tight ends, who are charged with blocking and running routes and making catches akin to a star wideout, is a bust.
The strategy, when both all-world tight ends are healthy, is awesome.
However, Belichick failed to calculate the percentage increase in injury to his tight ends due to the overwhelming workload. It's asking too much - even of fine specimens in Gronk and Hernandez.
Wut?
Yeah, I don't get this at all either.
Tony Gonzalez would also likely disagree.
The point is the offense - at it's most dominant form - depends on two healthy ultra superstar tight ends, who are asked to do more than your average tight end (catch a 50 yard bomb, line up as a full back, etc.). The the odds of at least one of the two high flying TEs getting injured is too great given their risky behavior on the field....by risky, I mean physically demanding.
Check out last year's Super Bowl, where an unhealthy Gronk made the difference.
I'd argue that you will rarely see a healthy Gronk and Hernandez on the field together anytime soon. The high ankle sprain that Hernandez is playing on could set him back a whole season. I admire his guts out there, though.
Re: New England Patriots
Posted: Tue January 15, 2013 12:47 am
by warehouse
breaking news: people get hurt playing football
Re: New England Patriots
Posted: Tue January 15, 2013 12:50 am
by Coach
warehouse wrote:breaking news: people get hurt playing football
and some players are injury prone more so than others
Re: New England Patriots
Posted: Tue January 15, 2013 3:01 am
by elliseamos
so if i'm to read you right, coach, you'd prefer Belichick built his team around scrubs and avoided drafting superstars just so he wouldn't have to depend on them? ask San Diego how that's working out.
Re: New England Patriots
Posted: Tue January 15, 2013 8:05 pm
by rich
Coach, you build your team the best you can with the best personnel available. Players get hurt, and the Patriots mentality has always been "next guy up." It sucks going forward without Gronk, but they've played a third of the season without him, and it's obvious that he probably should not have been out on the field to begin with. The way he was moving against Miami I had a feeling that this (season) wasn't going to end well for him.
The Patriots won't be able to use their entire playbook without him, but that's okay. It's a matter of putting together a game plan that is effective. I have no doubts that the Pats will be able to put up points against Baltimore, their defense is not nearly what people think it is. It's somewhere in the middle of the league, not elite.
The Patriots biggest issues will be limiting Flacco's deep throws up the sides. He's been very effective doing that. Of course Jim Caldwell is not the most creative playcaller in the world, so I like that advantage that NE has.
I think the point spread for this game is far too high, if I was betting I'd take the 9 points and be happy. I think the Patriots win, but I think it's going to be a very competitive game. Baltimore has no fear, which I love about them, and they'll come in and play well. I think the Patriots win, 31-27.
Re: New England Patriots
Posted: Tue January 15, 2013 9:22 pm
by elliseamos
By Field Yates | ESPNBoston.com
Veteran official Bill Leavy will serve as the referee this Sunday for the AFC Championship, according to a reports from FootballZebras.com and from Jim Daopoulus.
Leavy has 18 years of experience as an NFL official, which includes work in a Super Bowl. He will be joined by a crew of top-rated officials from the regular season: umpire Chad Brown, head linesman Tony Veteri, line judge Jeff Seeman, side judge Doug Rosenbaum, field judge Scott Steenson, and back judge Perry Paganelli.
Leavy, a retired firefighter, has not previously worked a conference championship game, but has 14 games of postseason experience during his career. He was the referee for the Patriots' game against the Bills in Week 10 of this season, during which 21 penalties were called, including seven on the Patriots. He did not work a Ravens game this season.
During the regular season, Baltimore was the second-most penalized team in the NFL, with 121 called against them, including a league high 1,127 penalty yards. The Patriots were penalized just 97 times for 840 yards.
FYI
Re: New England Patriots
Posted: Mon January 21, 2013 2:49 am
by Green Habit
Pats fans, I feel for you. Baltimore really fucked shit up in the AFC this year, huh?
Re: New England Patriots
Posted: Mon January 21, 2013 5:38 pm
by elliseamos
yup. congrats to them. still not sure why Belichick didn't sign Pollard when he had the chance. That guy has ruined 4 seasons for this team.

Re: New England Patriots
Posted: Mon January 21, 2013 5:56 pm
by j88ryan
Re: New England Patriots
Posted: Mon January 21, 2013 6:06 pm
by elliseamos
i could understand 1 or 2 of those, but 12? that seems forced.
Re: New England Patriots
Posted: Mon January 21, 2013 6:14 pm
by nah
fucking talib