When will the Patriots realize that they need to draft a WR?

[FirstTimer]

Just shut the fuck up already

Make me faggot.
:smug:

It's not really that odd, going by the ANY GIVEN SUNDAY argument for me to want a more solid team. Would I be taking a hit at certain positions regarding talent? Yes, but the depth of this Patriots team is similiar to those that WON it all.

Depth doesn't really mean much IMO if you aren't as good across the front line on OL and defense.

And what's the point of playing a Super Bowl?

Cash money.

You act as though this idea of "any given Sunday" is new and that some really good teams have either not made it to the SB or lost it when favored.

Of course you could make an argument that the Giants were the best team that season. And of course the Super Bowl would be a factor. But simply winning the SB doesn't close the discussion.

7-9 Seattle goes on a run last season and wins the Super Bowl. Does anyone really make an arguement that they were the best team in football last season?

I mean Green Bay won the Super Bowl last season and squeaked into the playoffs on a tie break.
Hell, even with the Bears splitting the season series with Green Bay prior to the NFCCG I thought Green bay was the far superior team regardless of the 1-1 split and the closeness of the games.

Crazy shit happens in "one and done scenarios" across all sports Was Butler really the second best team in the NCAA two years in a row?


You can generally make conclusions about a team being better than another based on head to head matchups but simply looking at one score of one game and moving on with no second thought is fucking stupid.

You really aren't this simple minded are you?

 

[nflman2033]

Overall I think that Tailback U is beating around as well is that it's easier to transform or influence a team from a position like WR as opposed to having to rebuild a defense or put an Ol together. If Tailback is more worried about New England in the short term a WR (or RB IMO) is a "quicker fix" so to speak and would pay more immediete dividends in the Super Bowl hunt. Obviously I'd put OLand Defense above the "need' for a WR or perhaps RB but those are mor elong term progressive fixes

Really its to a point where its just something to argue about, I honestly have no dog in this fight, I just came in to point out that they won their super bowls without a top WR, and lost one with a top WR, even if the reasons have more to do with defense than WR.

 

[JOHNNYTHECLOWN]

Make me faggot.
:smug:



Depth doesn't really mean much IMO if you aren't as good across the front line on OL and defense.


Cash money.

You act as though this idea of "any given Sunday" is new and that some really good teams have either not made it to the SB or lost it when favored.

Of course you could make an argument that the Giants were the best team that season. And of course the Super Bowl would be a factor. But simply winning the SB doesn't close the discussion.

7-9 Seattle goes on a run last season and wins the Super Bowl. Does anyone really make an arguement that they were the best team in football last season?

I mean Green Bay won the Super Bowl last season and squeaked into the playoffs on a tie break.
Hell, even with the Bears splitting the season series with Green Bay prior to the NFCCG I thought Green bay was the far superior team regardless of the 1-1 split and the closeness of the games.

Crazy shit happens in "one and done scenarios" across all sports Was Butler really the second best team in the NCAA two years in a row?


You can generally make conclusions about a team being better than another based on head to head matchups but simply looking at one score of one game and moving on with no second thought is fucking stupid.

You really aren't this simple minded are you?

It's nothing new, I'm just simply stating, the reason you play the game is to see who wins.

Winner is better team that day.

If that day happens to be the 2nd week in February and two teams have made it through the marathon of a 18 week regular season, a four/five week playoff scenario and they call the team that wins on this day CHAMPIONS... I'd say that that's how you determine the best team that year.

Everyone knows you gotta have the talent, get hot at the right time, stay clear of injuries. But all that matters in the long run is the W.

If you don't get the W, history has a tendency of forgetting you.

HEROES GET REMEMBERED, BUT LEGENDS NEVER DIE...

 

[nflman2033]

I've always believed any team needs to have at least two receiving threats that are mismatches in single coverage. Doesn't matter where these guys line up, but they have to be able to consistently win a one-on-one to stress the defense.

The Patriots have three in Welker, Hernandez, and Gronkowski. I haven't seen a lot of their games, but it seems like they've come up with ways to get all three involved, or at the very least keep two on the field at all times. That is usually enough to have some offensive production, which they're certainly having.

As for the case with the Jets and Steelers, well, they've got some pretty good defenders, too. It's not like the Pats can't beat either team (they've actually dominated both in recent history), they just got caught on a bad game.

I like what they're doing with two TEs. It's very difficult to defend against, especially with a guy like Brady calling the shots.

Yeah, but it isn't a necessity, what really comes down to is having something that works, you can win with all offense like colts or saints win with all defense ravens and buccaneers. It's really all about winning games in January and February. Packers last year steelers in 2005. Hypotheticals are good for debates, but it comes down to a lot more than matching up WR on DB's

 

[Tailback U]

Well Ravens beat that Steelers team twice this season

I think it's pretty safe to say the Steelers need to build a better team to beat the Ravens

Eh, the Steelers blew a lead against Baltimore in their last game so they showed that they can beat the Ravens.

The Steelers and Patriots game was not as competitive.

Stylistically, I think the Ravens and Steelers can beat each other because they play a similar style of football and matchup better.

I don't think the Patriots match up well with the Steelers.

 

[FirstTimer]

It's nothing new, I'm just simply stating, the reason you play the game is to see who wins.

Ok.

Winner is better team that day.

Ok. But that doesn't blindly make them the best team that YEAR. Way to not understand that.

Other fans of your own team get it...and have admitted as much in this thread. This isn't some secretly held and difficult to understand idea.

 

[FirstTimer]

Eh, the Steelers blew a lead against Baltimore in their last game so they showed that they can beat the Ravens.

The Steelers and Patriots game was not as competitive.

Stylistically, I think the Ravens and Steelers can beat each other because they play a similar style of football and matchup better.

I don't think the Patriots match up well with the Steelers.

Nah JTC just looks at boxscores and ignores styles, talent levels, causation, etc.

ZOMG the score!

Meatheaded bullshit at it's finest.

 

[nflman2033]

Eh, the Steelers blew a lead against Baltimore in their last game so they showed that they can beat the Ravens.

The Steelers and Patriots game was not as competitive.

Stylistically, I think the Ravens and Steelers can beat each other because they play a similar style of football and matchup better.

I don't think the Patriots match up well with the Steelers.

In that game your right, but let's face it the patriots have a head coach who can make the changes with the team he has right now and match up a lot better the next time they play. That and some tapped practices could go a long way to helping them beat the steelers next time

 

[JOHNNYTHECLOWN]

Nah JTC just looks at boxscores and ignores styles, talent levels, causation, etc.

ZOMG the score!

Meatheaded bullshit at it's finest.

I'm not talking about the most TALENTED team, in that case give the title to the fucking Eagles or the Raiders or some other shitty team that lacks discipline and can't execute.

The BEST TEAM executes when it matters most, and if you're executing when it matters most, you'll win the Super Bowl.

 

[killgod]

I don't think the Patriots match up well with the Steelers.

They always been for the most part the same teams, yet Brady is a career 7-2 vs them.

Most of the time I'd say the Steelers were a more talented team on paper top to bottom, but it's never really mattered in the past.

 

[DSpydr84]

Yeah, but it isn't a necessity, what really comes down to is having something that works, you can win with all offense like colts or saints win with all defense ravens and buccaneers. It's really all about winning games in January and February. Packers last year steelers in 2005. Hypotheticals are good for debates, but it comes down to a lot more than matching up WR on DB's

As far as "offensive production" is concerned, I solidly believe that it is a necessity. Show me any great offense in the history of the game, and I'll show you at least two guys on the field that could win a one-on-one. Likewise, any poor offense is usually the result of not having two guys on the field that can create a mismatch as a receiving threat.

Look at the case with the two Superbowl teams you mentioned. The Ravens' only threat was Shannon Sharpe; the Bucs was Keyshawn Johnson. That's why their offense wasn't productive. The defense can have a bracket around the star receiver, and put numbers in the box. Game over.

Likewise, the Saints/Colts/Packers of today have a plethora of guys that can win matchups. Does the quarterback play a factor? Absolutely, but the players down field still need to get open.

Winning games is an entirely different debate. As far as moving the chains and scoring points, you need to have two guys on the field that can create space. You just have to.

 

[FirstTimer]

I'm not talking about the most TALENTED team

And I never said it only had to do with TALENT.

So The rest of what you said doesn't matter.

The BEST TEAM executes when it matters most, and if you're executing when it matters most, you'll win the Super Bowl.

 

[JOHNNYTHECLOWN]

And I never said it only had to do with TALENT.

So The rest of what you said doesn't matter.

I know what you said, and I'm telling you you're talking about talent.

The BEST team wins.

GIVE ME A TEAM THAT GETS HOT AT THE RIGHT TIME over THE BEST TEAM OF THE REGULAR SEASON - Because the team that gets hot will be named Champion of that year... and last time I checked, the Champ is the best

 

[FirstTimer]

I know what you said, and I'm telling you you're talking about talent.

You're wrong.

The BEST team wins.

Wrong.

 

[JOHNNYTHECLOWN]

You're wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Double Wrong.

 

[FirstTimer]

Wrong.






Double Wrong.

Ok meat head.

 

[JOHNNYTHECLOWN]

Ok meat head.

rly:

 

[FirstTimer]

rly:

Yes.

Rly.

:bored:

 

[nflman2033]

As far as "offensive production" is concerned, I solidly believe that it is a necessity. Show me any great offense in the history of the game, and I'll show you at least two guys on the field that could win a one-on-one. Likewise, any poor offense is usually the result of not having two guys on the field that can create a mismatch as a receiving threat.

Look at the case with the two Superbowl teams you mentioned. The Ravens' only threat was Shannon Sharpe; the Bucs was Keyshawn Johnson. That's why their offense wasn't productive. The defense can have a bracket around the star receiver, and put numbers in the box. Game over.

Likewise, the Saints/Colts/Packers of today have a plethora of guys that can win matchups. Does the quarterback play a factor? Absolutely, but the players down field still need to get open.

Winning games is an entirely different debate. As far as moving the chains and scoring points, you need to have two guys on the field that can create space. You just have to.

What debate are you talking about, we are talking about winning the super bowl. You dont have to have a WR like that to win a super bowl, that's all I said.

 

[DSpydr84]

What debate are you talking about, we are talking about winning the super bowl. You dont have to have a WR like that to win a super bowl, that's all I said.

I'm talking about the Patriots not needing to draft a WR.. as the thread title suggests?? :dunno: