RealGM

"It doesn't matter," Ryan said. "It doesn't matter what I think or what anyone else thinks. It matters how we win. That's where my focus is. Other than that, I don't really worry about it too much. I don't think about it. I don't worry about it."

NO-KG-AI wrote:Well, the Falcons have done OK despite him not being elite, so I guess resting on his laurels is fine, as long as he doesn't plan on winning titles

Seriously, the Falcons are probably capped out in terms of ceiling until Ryan takes a step forward.

NO-KG-AI wrote:Well, the Falcons have done OK despite him not being elite, so I guess resting on his laurels is fine, as long as he doesn't plan on winning titles

Seriously, the Falcons are probably capped out in terms of ceiling until Ryan takes a step forward.

sunshinekids99 wrote:^^^^^^Really flawed statement. Really doesn't make much sense seeing the Pats could have won that game if plays turned out differently and they are the odds on favorites to represent to the AFC in this year Super Bowl.

Now to your point about Seymour which might even be more flawed. Richard Seymour is not a pass rusher, his career high is 8 with the Patriots. Lets look at the Pats last year, they had two guys at 10 sacks for the season. Yes Seymour was a great player for the Patriots, but that defense also took a hit becasue Bruschi, Harrison, and Vrabel got old.

burgundy wrote:

sunshinekids99 wrote:^^^^^^Really flawed statement. Really doesn't make much sense seeing the Pats could have won that game if plays turned out differently and they are the odds on favorites to represent to the AFC in this year Super Bowl.

Now to your point about Seymour which might even be more flawed. Richard Seymour is not a pass rusher, his career high is 8 with the Patriots. Lets look at the Pats last year, they had two guys at 10 sacks for the season. Yes Seymour was a great player for the Patriots, but that defense also took a hit becasue Bruschi, Harrison, and Vrabel got old.

wow, their are just so many things wrong here, it just makes me shake my head and laugh about all the casual football fan who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Seymour is a freaking beast and Pats lost alot when he left. his ability to clog up the middle and command double and triples teams was freaking amazing.

you defiantly showed your ignorance when you talking about Seymour's sack total, which has nothing to do with real football. Pats play a 3-4 and that defense is designed to get the LBs sacks NOT THE DL!

sunshinekids99 defiantly has no clue in what he is talking about. Seymour dominated the line and McGinest, Vrabel, and Colvin were assigned to go after the quarterback.

when Seymour was on the Pats, New England was averaging 45 sacks a year, when he left, the teams started to only average 35 sacks a year. that is a huge difference that is not a coincidence and has nothing to do with LBs getting slower, because the LBs have not been getting slower. Seymour and Warren were just freaking monsters in controlling the line.

sunshinekids99 wrote:

burgundy wrote:

sunshinekids99 wrote:^^^^^^Really flawed statement. Really doesn't make much sense seeing the Pats could have won that game if plays turned out differently and they are the odds on favorites to represent to the AFC in this year Super Bowl.

Now to your point about Seymour which might even be more flawed. Richard Seymour is not a pass rusher, his career high is 8 with the Patriots. Lets look at the Pats last year, they had two guys at 10 sacks for the season. Yes Seymour was a great player for the Patriots, but that defense also took a hit becasue Bruschi, Harrison, and Vrabel got old.

wow, their are just so many things wrong here, it just makes me shake my head and laugh about all the casual football fan who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Seymour is a freaking beast and Pats lost alot when he left. his ability to clog up the middle and command double and triples teams was freaking amazing.

you defiantly showed your ignorance when you talking about Seymour's sack total, which has nothing to do with real football. Pats play a 3-4 and that defense is designed to get the LBs sacks NOT THE DL!

sunshinekids99 defiantly has no clue in what he is talking about. Seymour dominated the line and McGinest, Vrabel, and Colvin were assigned to go after the quarterback.

when Seymour was on the Pats, New England was averaging 45 sacks a year, when he left, the teams started to only average 35 sacks a year. that is a huge difference that is not a coincidence and has nothing to do with LBs getting slower, because the LBs have not been getting slower. Seymour and Warren were just freaking monsters in controlling the line.

I’m a big fan of facts in sports and unfortunately for you, the numbers don’t back you up. Let’s take a quick look at the numbers for the Super Bowl winnings seasons to last year.

2001- Sack Total- 39

2003- Sack Total- 41

2004- Sack Total- 45

2011- Sack Totals- 40

So I’m not seeing this huge discrepancy in Super Bowl winning years to last year for the Patriots. When looking at the numbers the main issue I’m seeing is the personnel on defense. They went from having corner backs like Ty Law and Asante Samuel to Kyle Arrington and Leigh Bodden. Then you get a change in outside linebackers from Mike Vrabel and Willie McGinest to the likes of Adualalis Thomas and Tully Banta Cain. Not to mention the fact guys like Tedy Bruschi and Rodney Harrison flat out got old.

Now to Richard Seymour and what he brought to the Patriots. The guy was flat out a freak. Very strong player that was devastating against the run and for his position got to the QB and a good rate. The problem for Seymour is his last few years with the Patriots he wasn’t the same player. He had knee problems and seemed to lack a desire to get back to his elite level. While a gifted player no doubt, I’m missing the difference in pass rush in Patriots Super Bowl seasons to last years team. If the Pats had traded a young Seymour I agree with you he would have been a too big of a lose to that defense. But they traded the other Richard Seymour and to be honest it was a good move for them.

This Patriots team didn’t get out of the Super Bowl hunt when they moved Richard Seymour. The Pats quite frankly got old on defense and when they those players did get replaced they were replaced with inexperienced players.

I don’t feel you can point to the pass rush and say you need that to be in the title hunt. It’s just quite frankly not accurate. The best thing for teams is to win the turnover battle. While of course a pass rush can assist in that area it is not the end all be all for generating turnovers. The Patriots are also greatly assisted in that area with Tom Brady under center.

I’m all for petty insults to “casual” football fans; I just suggest if you’re going to act like you know the game have the facts to back you up. I

sunshinekids99 wrote:

burgundy wrote:

sunshinekids99 wrote:^^^^^^Really flawed statement. Really doesn't make much sense seeing the Pats could have won that game if plays turned out differently and they are the odds on favorites to represent to the AFC in this year Super Bowl.

Now to your point about Seymour which might even be more flawed. Richard Seymour is not a pass rusher, his career high is 8 with the Patriots. Lets look at the Pats last year, they had two guys at 10 sacks for the season. Yes Seymour was a great player for the Patriots, but that defense also took a hit becasue Bruschi, Harrison, and Vrabel got old.

wow, their are just so many things wrong here, it just makes me shake my head and laugh about all the casual football fan who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Seymour is a freaking beast and Pats lost alot when he left. his ability to clog up the middle and command double and triples teams was freaking amazing.

you defiantly showed your ignorance when you talking about Seymour's sack total, which has nothing to do with real football. Pats play a 3-4 and that defense is designed to get the LBs sacks NOT THE DL!

sunshinekids99 defiantly has no clue in what he is talking about. Seymour dominated the line and McGinest, Vrabel, and Colvin were assigned to go after the quarterback.

when Seymour was on the Pats, New England was averaging 45 sacks a year, when he left, the teams started to only average 35 sacks a year. that is a huge difference that is not a coincidence and has nothing to do with LBs getting slower, because the LBs have not been getting slower. Seymour and Warren were just freaking monsters in controlling the line.

I’m a big fan of facts in sports and unfortunately for you, the numbers don’t back you up. Let’s take a quick look at the numbers for the Super Bowl winnings seasons to last year.

2001- Sack Total- 39

2003- Sack Total- 41

2004- Sack Total- 45

2011- Sack Totals- 40

So I’m not seeing this huge discrepancy in Super Bowl winning years to last year for the Patriots. When looking at the numbers the main issue I’m seeing is the personnel on defense. They went from having corner backs like Ty Law and Asante Samuel to Kyle Arrington and Leigh Bodden. Then you get a change in outside linebackers from Mike Vrabel and Willie McGinest to the likes of Adualalis Thomas and Tully Banta Cain. Not to mention the fact guys like Tedy Bruschi and Rodney Harrison flat out got old.

Now to Richard Seymour and what he brought to the Patriots. The guy was flat out a freak. Very strong player that was devastating against the run and for his position got to the QB and a good rate. The problem for Seymour is his last few years with the Patriots he wasn’t the same player. He had knee problems and seemed to lack a desire to get back to his elite level. While a gifted player no doubt, I’m missing the difference in pass rush in Patriots Super Bowl seasons to last years team. If the Pats had traded a young Seymour I agree with you he would have been a too big of a lose to that defense. But they traded the other Richard Seymour and to be honest it was a good move for them.

This Patriots team didn’t get out of the Super Bowl hunt when they moved Richard Seymour. The Pats quite frankly got old on defense and when they those players did get replaced they were replaced with inexperienced players.

I don’t feel you can point to the pass rush and say you need that to be in the title hunt. It’s just quite frankly not accurate. The best thing for teams is to win the turnover battle. While of course a pass rush can assist in that area it is not the end all be all for generating turnovers. The Patriots are also greatly assisted in that area with Tom Brady under center.

I’m all for petty insults to “casual” football fans; I just suggest if you’re going to act like you know the game have the facts to back you up.
I

burgundy wrote:

2001- Sack Totals- 39

2003- Sack Totals- 41

2004- Sack Totals- 45

2008- Sack Totals- 30

2009- Sack Totals- 31

2010- Sack Totals- 36

2011- Sack Totals- 40

41.6 sacks > 34.2 sacks...... yeah that is a huge difference, and you just lost this one, because i guess you don't understand numbers or simple math

Brady is way better than Eli, but Giants' front four of Pierre, Osi, Canty, and Tuck, are just way better than what the Pats have been putting up the last few years. and the falcons don't have any front four that can pass rush like the Giants.

dtown8 wrote: the old Pats use to force alot of fumbles in their super bowl runs, like 20 a season, and last year they only forced 10 fumbles, so you are not making any good points

jvalanciunas wrote:
everybody wants to give mad credit to Eli Manning, but real football fans know the main reason why the Giants won was because of the Giants' front defensive four, which is the best in the league

Brady is a great football player, but their is a reason why the Pats stop winning championship after the traded away Seymour