Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Belichick surrendered?


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

Unlikely as it may be, it is mathematically possible that they fall one game short of making the playoffs.

Risks like that are why you don't just 'surrender' when it's still possible to win.

They only needed what, three onside kicks to go their way?

You have a valid point, but you don't want to injure your players and lose even more games to put you even further out of playoff contention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlikely as it may be, it is mathematically possible that they fall one game short of making the playoffs.

Risks like that are why you don't just 'surrender' when it's still possible to win.

sorry bro....you said yourself you didnt watch the game.....the patriots D had no answer for the saints......i dont even think i remember seeing the saints punter more than twice all game. and honestly....the saints were gunna score again late, but missed a easy field goal (karney looked retarded out there last night)

the patriots had no chance at all. and they have a big game against miami next week on the road (they are 0-4 on the road) if we beat them next week then we are a game back....they slip up again (rooting on you panthers) the phins can win the division......so they have plenty of season ahead of them to make the decisions they did last night (to sit the starters at the end)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So being up 59-0 against the Titans you leave your starters in and try and score more. But, being beat down by the Saints on Monday night you pull your starters to save injury? Hmmm...ok.

Pretty much. Heck, that was a weekly thing in 2007.

Technically, any play you leave the starters in for is an injury risk.

And yeah, Peyton came back from 21 points down with even less time a few years back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is a poo hole of a human.

His defensive genius status should really be questioned right about now. That D looked horrible, and add to that their second half implosions all season, and that spells one and done in the post season.

IMO, the Vikings, SD, Indy, and NO could all take them to the house....possibly AZ as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is a poo hole of a human.

His defensive genius status should really be questioned right about now. That D looked horrible, and add to that their second half implosions all season, and that spells one and done in the post season.

IMO, the Vikings, SD, Indy, and NO could all take them to the house....possibly AZ as well.

you must have seen a different game then i saw. The pats D did very well, but brees had some awesome throws. The hardest position in the league is a DB back, even with great coverage you can get beat.

hopefully the saints are peaking too early and will bust at the end of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More dog sh*t from drama king Florio.

Apples & Oranges, that TENN game was back in October and after that the Pats had easy TB then a bye.

It's late in the season, mathematically or not anyone who watched that game knew they were not coming back. 21 pts in 5 mins saints were in bradys face all night, C'mon :rolleyes:

Hit the showers early get on the bus get rdy for miami.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Even limited as he was I still don't think they have replaced his production, and not just the sack stats. The games Clowney missed it was very obvious what his value still was. Risky move but whatever. They only had 32 sacks last year and if that drops then it's going to get ugly. I see the improvement in run stopping but not in pass protect in any way.  
    • I have zero issues with this.  
    • Sorta related.  I just looked up a stat:  Success rates for NFL draft's second rounders.  I was surprised that it is 49%.  The success rate for first rounders is 58%.   Here success does not mean those that did not bust, it means that roughly half of the players selected in the second round become full-time starters at some point in their careers.  Busts do that too.  However, considering the fact that a first round talent is worth up to 1800 points (first overall pick) more than the first pick of the second round and as low as 350 points (last pick in first round) higher than the last pick in round 2, it seems there could be cases in which it would be to your advantage to trade out of round 1 and draft two or three second rounders for the value.  Of course, the elite players are likely to be gone, and some positions overwhelmingly suck after round 1 (traditionally, like QB or LT, for example), but if you need to find starters at positions like DT, G, LB, S, C, TE, RB, etc, there could be a time when you trade back for more starters.  I was surprised that the margin between rounds 1 and 2 was only 9%.    While I realize that some of you sofa scholars are thinking, "Well duh?  Trading back gives you more players." as you wipe the Cheetos off your shirt.  Not the point.  The point is you have to consider the draft,the needs (and the number of them), and you need to scout the second and third rounds like you do the first, the cap, and the long-term impact.  If you can find 2 players with a 49% chance of becoming a starter, are you better off than drafting one player who has a 58% chance in the long term? So if I traded away my first rounder for two second rounders (a trade most teams would make) regularly, when I got 10 second rounders (by trading 5 first rounders), 5 would be starters.  If I did not trade and kept my 5 first rounders, 3 would be starters.  Furthermore, their rookie contracts would be much cheaper than the 5 first rounders. 
×
×
  • Create New...