NFL Super Bowl XLVI: Super Bowl REMATCH HELL MODE (The Men Who Stare at GOATs)

[Demosthenes11]

which is gonna do more for the pats the jump from their current offense to a genuine deep threat but ocho is gone vs. a great corner but kyle arrington is gone or a great pass rusher but andre carter is gone?

[Xajii]

which is gonna do more for the pats the jump from their current offense to a genuine deep threat but ocho is gone vs. a great corner but kyle arrington is gone or a great pass rusher but andre carter is gone?

Why are these the options? Are the latter two UFAs?

[Deejay]

Point is, in TODAY'S NFL. You need to be able to pass, or be able to stop the pass. Most great teams of today can do both. Saints had a good blitz and a beast secondary the year they won, the Packer's secondary was retarded the year they won, the Giants pass rush was godlike, as well as the Steelers pass rush before that.

The Pats get no pressure on the QB. If they could get consistent pressure, they'd create more opportunities for Brady to do what he does.

[Demosthenes11]

Why are these the options? Are the latter two UFAs?

arrington isn't but he won't be a starting corner if we get a better one. There is a cost vs upgrade analysis here.

[Moss]

@xajii

Lets say you have team A that wins 83% of their games and team B that wins 65% of their games. Just because team B beats team A on a given day doesnt mean team A needs to SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING. You just hope next time that loss doesnt occur at the worst possible time, like the SB. Trying to validate dumb football cliches like "defense wins championships!" (and before you cry 85 bears consider the context of current day nfl) based on who wins a toss up of a game is silly.

[Moss]

That's a silly "what if"

"what if" the Giants had Patrick Willis? He'd do more for our defense than Adrian Peterson would do for our offense. Does that mean our defense is weaker than our offense?

That wasnt a what if, it was an evaluation of the pats which is what started this whole debate.

[Xajii]

@xajii

Lets say you have team A that wins 83% of their games and team B that wins 65% of their games. Just because team B beats team A on a given day doesnt mean team A needs to SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING. You just hope next time that loss doesnt occur at the worst possible time, like the SB. Trying to validate dumb football cliches like "defense wins championships!" (and before you cry 85 bears consider the context of current day nfl) based on who wins a toss up of a game is silly.

It's worth pointing out I am not the person who said "Defense wins championships". Balance wins championships. Deejay's post above looking at the balance of recent Superbowl winners is a good example of this. The Giants played as the most balance team in the postseason and they won.

[Moss]

This assumes quite a bit and proves nothing in turn. You yourself argued a few posts up that my argument wasn't valid because "That doesn't prove anything grand about their organization or team build, it just proves that Lee Evans/Cundiff fucked up. If Wes Welker doesn't drop that pass, or a million other little things go another way, different teams are playing in/winning the SB".

One bounce shouldn't be the margin of victory either way. The Ravens were one bounce away, and were in that position because of a struggling offensive game plan and players. The Patriots were in the position because of a struggling defense.

.

My point was that you shouldnt make sweeping changes to a team based on one game.

[Xajii]

arrington isn't but he won't be a starting corner if we get a better one. There is a cost vs upgrade analysis here.

I'm not familiar with the team's money situation per se, but why is this the case? I thought Arrington was the better of the dismal group that makes up the Patriots' secondary.

[Deejay]

That wasnt a what if, it was an evaluation of the pats which is what started this whole debate.

The formula for beating Brady is grinding their defense and keeping the ball of the his hands. If he had a deep threat receiver, all your doing is making him score even faster and allowing that strategy to hurt the team even more.

You know how you improve the Pats? Give them good pass rushers that cause three and outs. Force teams to punt and allow Brady to dink and dunk all fucking day. Then teams will lose the clock management battle and be forced to throw to keep up on the scoreboard, which would play into the hands of a defense that is built around pass rush.

Giving them a good WR is in no way shape or form going to make them harder to beat as having two good DE would.

[Deejay]

Brady doesn't need deep threats. He can practically score at will. Give him a defense that scares other teams and he'll never have to worry about playing from behind.

[Chun Liroy]

nah Deejay, they need more offensive weapons because they made it to the superbowl with the WORST DEFENSE.

They set4lyfe nigga.

[Moss]

No shit, a great pass rusher is second to only a great QB in value in the nfl. It is a hell of a lot easier to find a fast outside receiver to run go routes all day than it is a great pass rusher.

[Demosthenes11]

The formula for beating Brady is grinding their defense and keeping the ball of the his hands. If he had a deep threat receiver, all your doing is making him score even faster and allowing that strategy to hurt the team even more.

You know how you improve the Pats? Give them good pass rushers that cause three and outs. Force teams to punt and allow Brady to dink and dunk all fucking day. Then teams will lose the clock management battle and be forced to throw to keep up on the scoreboard, which would play into the hands of a defense that is built around pass rush.

Giving them a good WR is in no way shape or form going to make them harder to beat as having two good DE would.

guys how do you beat the pats? You don't let them have a lot of possessions. How should the patriots try and play defense? they should play to force 3 and outs.

john madden everyone

[Moss]

Brady doesn't need deep threats. He can practically score at will. Give him a defense that scares other teams and he'll never have to worry about playing from behind.

So you dont think the lack of a deep threat hurt them in the SB?

[Chun Liroy]

Only in the sense that they can't do hail mary's that good.

[Moss]

Last post before I go to bed. Just consider the context of my argument. Obviously the pats would love to have a great pass rusher, but they are very hard to find and dont come cheap. Robert Meachem should come at a fair price, and I think he or someone like him would have a big impact.

[Deejay]

NO! You know what hurt them more? Time of Possession. The Giants held onto the ball for 38 minutes. The Pats had the ball for 22. Give Brady two-three fucking stops and two-three more drives and the Pats score way more than 17 points.

[Deejay]

Think about that for a hot second. For every minute Brady had the ball, Eli had it for two AND THEY ONLY LOST BY 4 POINTS.

Had the Pats defense actually created a few stops, and prevented the Giants from running up and down the field on them, the entire complexion of the game would be completely different. The Pats could have done more damage and not have been forced to throw downfield late in the game when the offense was trying to protect the lead. And YES I said offense, because the only way they could protect their lead was by scoring more points. Their defense wasn't good enough to hold Eli, which meant Belicic was asking his offense to do more with less.

You're essentially putting all of the pressure on Brady to score more points in half the amount of time as Manning, against the best pass rush in the league. That's a recipe for failure. And now your magic remedy is to add a receiver? LOL

[Tweek]

it's crazy cause moss is usually right. like seriously he's right pretty often but he's so wrong right now :/

if demos was right we would have seen GB, NO and NE all in the super bowl and they would have all won. only reason NE made it that far in the playoffs is some how their D stepped up in the post season and even still BAL should have won. people talk about GB/NE D this year being so bad but forget they lead the league in INTs but i'm sure that had nothing to do with the 30-6 combined record.

the pit/hou/bal/sf was a bad example but deejay already pointed out why.

yeah rules change and you can get further now with a great offense/bad defense partly because of that than you could back in the day and can have a nice record too but defense is still very relevant and it still will be even if an offense centered power house wins a super bowl in the next few years