Brady's body language with his young receivers

guppy wrote: All week long we heard from the media about Tom Brady's "body language", and how he went too far in demonstrating his frustration with his rookie receivers.  Now that topic had its one week shelf life, and can be put to rest, Thank God.  Jeezus, what tempest in a teapot.  But that goes with the territory for Brady.  If it was Peyton Manning doing the same thing, it would have been "great leadership", and "he's a perfectionist", etc., etc.

George1963 wrote:

guppy wrote: All week long we heard from the media about Tom Brady's "body language", and how he went too far in demonstrating his frustration with his rookie receivers.  Now that topic had its one week shelf life, and can be put to rest, Thank God.  Jeezus, what tempest in a teapot.  But that goes with the territory for Brady.  If it was Peyton Manning doing the same thing, it would have been "great leadership", and "he's a perfectionist", etc., etc.

Get real Gup. For 14 years I had to listen to how Manning was worse than Hitler if he rolled his friggin' eyes on the bench after a guy dropped a TD pass. Now Brady F bombs a guy on the field who rounds off a pattern on a 3rd and long that he (Brady) put them in and he's a "competitor".
He acts like an a-hole and a few people in the media say so and you say that's typical?
Like they've always been out to get him?
C'mon.

Please.  Absolutely there a few in the media who on a pretty consistent basis show their dislike of all things Patriots (the two I mentioned).  And my point is, its a doulble standard, only because its the Pats.  "Running up the score" is a perfect example.  The Pats run up the score, and its "classless".  Someone else does the SAME thing, and its "a remarkable display of offensive football".  All the criticism about his "body language" was worth maybe a mention last week, and then drop it.  But some in the media went on and on like Brady just ruined the rookies confidence so much that they will be so pyschologically scarred for life that they will probably give up on the idea of having a career in the NFL, and it will be all his fault.  Like they know what Brady's relationship is with these guys in practice and all week.  Sure.  Way too much was made of it.  But that goes with the territory for TB.  Taking small things and blowing them up into big ones is pretty much standard operating procedure for the entire NFL fanbase outside of NE.  Brady called for a flag ONE time on Terrell Suggs when Suggs hit him (not hard) below the knees, and since then, he "constantly cries like a baby for penalties". 

I just don't like Shannon Sharpe.  Never have.  Don't care if anyone has a problem with that.  

Its like you, and your biases George.  Being demonstrative or passionate makes only TB an "a-hole".  Anyone else does it, you probably just shrug your shoulders or barely notice.  That kinda makes you the embodiment of the flip side of Rags.   In Rags' eyes the Pats can do nothing wrong.   In yours they can do nothing right.  

I don't truly 100% mean that.  But you are the one who just somehow worked Peyton Manning and Adolf Hitler into the same sentence.  Still shaking my head at that one.  So who is the one who needs to get real here?  Just don't pigeon hole me into the same slot as Rags or Frank, and I'll give you credit for objectivity regarding the Pats....... on the rare occasion that you show some.  LOL. 

Tell you what.  Won't the AFC championship game between the Pats and Colts be fun or what? 

Especially since its going to be in Foxboro.

LRJets wrote: "Running up the score" is a perfect example. The Pats run up the score, and its "classless". Someone else does the SAME thing, and its "a remarkable display of offensive football". 

Gup, where does Rags fall with his patented answer, "if you don't want a team to score fifty, stop them".

Most think professional courtesy between coaches when a game is out of reach is the answer.


LR, So when the Panthers were up 31-0 on the Giants in the 4th Q on Sunday, what were they when they added on 7 more?  What should they have done differently?



The Panthers kept the gas pedal down in the second half, putting the game away by scoring on its first two possessions of the third quarter as Newton connected on a 20-yard strike to LaFell and then scored a quarterback draw.



Newton later connected on a 47-yard TD pass with Ginn.

George1963 wrote:I don't think the Dolphins are a flukey team.


Dolphins.   Flukey.


I'm clever when I don't even mean to be.   


Very good. 

Yes, the Dolphins are 3-0 and beat the Colts.   But the Pats are supposed to win the division every year.  By now you should know how things work around here.

George1963 wrote:
the press doesn't kiss the collective ass of Brady/Belichick/Kraft/the Patriots almost non stop


Not nearly enough.  The press is unfair.  We get no respect.  Its us against the world.

George1963 wrote:
Screaming at people on the field when you're playing like crap yourself isn't bush,



Screaming at people?  You mean like this?  

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

guppy wrote:

LRJets wrote: "Running up the score" is a perfect example. The Pats run up the score, and its "classless". Someone else does the SAME thing, and its "a remarkable display of offensive football". 

Gup, where does Rags fall with his patented answer, "if you don't want a team to score fifty, stop them".

Most think professional courtesy between coaches when a game is out of reach is the answer.


LR, So when the Panthers were up 31-0 on the Giants in the 4th Q on Sunday, what were they when they added on 7 more?  What should they have done differently?


31 isn't 50+ .  The only defense to this theory starts from Pop Warner or high school on up.  When a third stringer is put in to "temper" the score on any level, you can't blame them for wanting to do good and possibly move up the depth chart.   The Pats critics if I remember correctly a few seasons ago was when the Patriots were up by 40-something, BB went for a TD instead of a FG. It had appearances of runnng up the score.  I'm sure George would/can recall.

LRJets wrote:

guppy wrote:

LRJets wrote: "Running up the score" is a perfect example. The Pats run up the score, and its "classless". Someone else does the SAME thing, and its "a remarkable display of offensive football". 

Gup, where does Rags fall with his patented answer, "if you don't want a team to score fifty, stop them".

Most think professional courtesy between coaches when a game is out of reach is the answer.


LR, So when the Panthers were up 31-0 on the Giants in the 4th Q on Sunday, what were they when they added on 7 more?  What should they have done differently?


31 isn't 50+ .  The only defense to this theory starts from Pop Warner or high school on up.  When a third stringer is put in to "temper" the score on any level, you can't blame them for wanting to do good and possibly move up the depth chart.   The Pats critics if I remember correctly a few seasons ago was when the Patriots were up by 40-something, BB went for a TD instead of a FG. It had appearances of runnng up the score.  I'm sure George would/can recall.


31 vs. 51 is not the issue.  Look at your own words above.  The issue is "game is out of reach".

Yes, BB did go for TD instead of kicking a FG.  That is exactly the point.  As he explained it, kicking a chip shot FG to add on 3 meaningless points would have been rubbing salt into the wound even more than going for a TD, where the defense has a reaonable opportunity of keeping any more points off the board.   Kicking a FG would have been unsportmanlike.  Running another play where the defense has a chance of stopping them was the preferred professional courtesy.    Again, unfair press.  Carolina Panthers blow out - good.  NE Patriots blowout - bad.  

 

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:
the press doesn't kiss the collective ass of Brady/Belichick/Kraft/the Patriots almost non stop


Not nearly enough.  The press is unfair.  We get no respect.  Its us against the world.

George1963 wrote:

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:
the press doesn't kiss the collective ass of Brady/Belichick/Kraft/the Patriots almost non stop


Not nearly enough.  The press is unfair.  We get no respect.  Its us against the world.

OK Rodney.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

George1963 wrote:Yes, BB did go for TD instead of kicking a FG.  That is exactly the point.  As he explained it, kicking a chip shot FG would have been rubbing salt into the wound even more than going for a TG, where the defense has a reaonable opportunity of keeping any more points off the board.   Kicking a FG would have been unsportmanlike.  Running another play where the defense has a chance of stopping them was the preferred professional courtesy.    Again, unfair press.


Whoa. First off, show me where BB himself ever said that. My recollection is that that was a press invention. Second, it's nonsense. We were through this on the aol board. I gave you examples in '06 and '08 when he kicked in blowouts. I gave you an example of him doing it in '07. 
I never,ever heard of that until it started being said in '07 about the Patriots, and I'm sure you never did either because it's bull.


My recollection is that he, himself, did say it.  That's why I said it.  It was, and still is, my memory.  That's where I got it from.  He used the words, "three meaningless points" when he was saying why he didn't kick it.  I distinctly remember those three words coming out of his mouth, and I took note of the word "meaningless" when he said it.  And its not bull.  It makes perfect sense to me.  It was not a press invention.    So I will respectfully correct you on that. 

Do you really think he gives a rats ass what the margin of victory is, when you're talking winning by 24 or winnning by 27; or 31 vs. 34, or whatever?   I think all he really cares about is the W.  The difference between this margin of victory or a slightly higher margin of victory does not matter to him.   Why would it?  Do you think he really goes through the thought process that he really cares or wants that extra 3 points or 7 points when there no implications, such as tie breaker or whatnot because if the margin is a higher number, that makes him feel better?  Is it really plausible that his main motivation is some animosity against his counterpart on the other sideline, that that's the main thing on his mind?  So after being in this business for 34 years, and knowing just about everybody in the business, he wants like hell to get that extra punch in the gut in?  For what?  To accomplish what?  Please.  Its nonsense.  It makes no sense that his brain would work that way.   I simply don't buy it.  I believe that if he runs another play  here  or there, its for his team's purpose only, and wants to validate what they did in practice.  Its to add experience running a set or a play and seeing how his team executes it.   The other team is really not at all relevant.  He's not interested in making being best friends with the opponent.  But he's not interested in shoving the guy's face in the mud either.  There's no point to it.  That's not what he sees as his job is about after 34 years.  That's not where he gets his kicks.  The W is all that really matters.  And excution, and not getting sloppy.  They matter.  The margin of victory?  Not so much.   

Again, what I recall from '07 was that the cries of doochbaggery for running it up came 99% from rival fans.  The cries of outrage rarely, if ever, came from the actual players or coaches on the teams who got run up on.  (I recall maybe one out of ten.)   The players and coaches were more embarrassed than anything that they couldn't stop it.  They were far more concerned with what they themselves did or did not do, than with what the Patriots did.  Afterwards, they always talked about what they had to do to fix their team.   The Pats were not their concern.  It was the fans were the biggest babies about it, not the actual participants in the games. 

Again, my thing is the double standard.  Pats do it = bad.  Peyton Manning or Drew Brees, or anyone else, does it = great.  Different standards, depending on who is doing the running up, pure and simple.  To me, that is what is bull.   

And the only explanation for that very real double standard that exists against the Pats, and not against others, is that people don't like BB personally because of his frankly rude personality.  So they transfer that dislike of him as a person to his decisions as a coach in the management of the game on the field.   That's what you do.  He's a bad guy; therefore, his coaching decisions are bush.  Thats your formula, and the formula for those in your camp.  Although his manners, if you will, and his football coaching are two separate subjects; you, like most others, combine them.  And when you combine them, you come away with negative opinions about his end-of-game management decisions.  But the true origin and source of those negative opinions is the dislike of him personally, not genuine disagreement about Xs and Os or game strategy or managemement.  JMO.

LRJets wrote:Yes, BB did go for TD instead of kicking a FG. That is exactly the point. As he explained it, kicking a chip shot FG would have been rubbing salt into the wound even more than going for a TG, where the defense has a reaonable opportunity of keeping any more points off the board. Kicking a FG would have been unsportmanlike. Running another play where the defense has a chance of stopping them was the preferred professional courtesy. Again, unfair press.



Two ways of looking at that scenario.  It's not  only the manner how BB proceeded.  It was probably looked at in terms of the end result.  Seven points vs. three points.
I'm fairly sure BB didn't look at the "odds" of making a FG vs. going for a TD, and he said, "I'll go for the more difficult therefore raising the odds tremendously to score". 
Question:  If a TD was scored, does the team attempt in earnest to make the point after?

You know the answer.

Not sure I'm following you here.  You are now reading BB's mind?  I'm telling you you are wrong about his thought process.  As I just posted to George, I recall BB using the word "meaningless", as in, "why kick a meaningless chip shot FG?"  Just run another play is what you do.  Its football.  You have the ball on offense.  Its not yet time to take a knee, there's too much time left.  Its 4th down.  Just run a freakin play.  The other team's potentially fragile sensibilites is not what professional sports teams and coaches are concerned about.  So you're wrong about whether BB looked at the "odds" of a 25 yd FG vs. making a first down or a TD.  He did.  It was much easier to kick the FG.  But it would have been, in his words, "meaningless".  So he ran another play.  The goal is to finish the game on OFFENSE with the ball in your hands, taking a knee.  That's what his goal is every game.  Run out the clock with the ball in your hands on offense.  The goal is not to kick a meaningless FG, and then have to kick off, and finish the game on defense, while the other team tries their Hail Mary or whatever.  Its 4th down.  You have the ball deep in the other guy's territory.  There's no point to a FG, and then giving the ball back to the other side.  Just run a play.  Try to keep the ball, or score if you're that close, makes no difference.  Its pro football.  Just run a play and see what happens.  See if you can keep the ball on offense, or if you happen to score, that's kinda what you're supposed to do anyway.  Its not rocket science.

If you score, do you kick the extra point?  Of course you do.  That's the rules, whatever the rules call for is what you do.  Would any player or coach in the NFL have even the slilghtest problem with that?  Not in the least. 

George1963 wrote:Not sure I'm following you here.  You are now reading BB's mind?  I'm telling you you are wrong about his thought process.  As I just posted to George, I recall BB using the word "meaningless", as in, "why kick a meaningless chip shot FG?"  Just run another play is what you do.



No Gup. It's what he did in 2007. Not all the time. He did kick an FG once in 2007, and he went for it on fourth down just this past weekend. Of course was at the end of a five minute drive and the last of six straight Blounte runs up the middle, which is what teams usually do with a big fourth quarter lead, but he did it. But the majority of the time he was in that situation in 2007, 7 times just from a quick look, he went for it. Most of the time before and since he does what everybody else who isn't trying to run up the score does. He takes the three.



1:56[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]FG[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] kicked a 30-yard field goal NE 52 - BUF 28


I will still disagree with you.  I think whatever he does, whether its kicking a FG or going for it on 4th, whether by a run, or a short pass, which is the equivalent of a run, his primary motivation is just to win the game.  He is not standing there concocting in his mind that his number one priority is to run up the score in an unsportsmanlike fashion.  After 34 years, that is simply not the overriding motivation.  There are far more important things to consider and do than running up the score.  The overriding motivation is just get the W, whatever that particular game situation calls for.  And it won't be the same every game, if you're looking for some kind of consistency. 

I will grant you that 2007 was probably different than every other year.  Even though we can't 100% read his mind, I do believe in '07 he was so pissed and angry about the ridiculous broo-ha-ha that was made out of spygate, that his anger was played out by figuratively giving the finger to the rest of the world and pounding the opposition into the dust and running up the score.  I do believe in his mind he was saying, "OK, so you think our success was based on some stupid video taken of an opponent's sideline coaches giving signals out in the open in some previous game?  I'll show you how little that bullshit mattered.  Up yours rest of world.  With no f*ing videotape we're still going to score 45 points a game every week."

But now, six years removed from '07, I think you (and others) are just trying too hard to find some kind of bad, unsportsmanlike motivation for current end of game decisions.  You easily assume evil intent is there because the guy is a dick personally, and because of the past history of '07.  I think current end of game management is simply, "we do whatever is best for our team, and to get the W." 

But hey, that's what opinions are all about.  Thats why I can have my two opinions that (1) fans complained about running up the score, but opposing coaches and players, the actual participants in the games, did not; and (2) there is a double standard that other teams who add on late to already big leads are praised, whereas if NE does the same thing, they are criticized.