PBF81

Weird year for sure. Look at the South divisions. LOL. 6 of the 8 teams 7-9 to 9-7. Only SF and KC as double-digit win teams in the West divisions, KC barely. It was obvious that this was going to be a much rougher year for KC. As to the NFC, hasn't it always just been the Eagles, Dallas, and Niners this season though? Both Dallas and Philly appear to be folding late in the season. Neither has any significant momentum going into the playoffs. This is one of those seasons that seems to illustrate the "parity" of the league. What do you think are the two best teams from each conference?

What are you, his mom? He hasn't answered them directly. He's hedging, as he often does. I'm just not letting him off the hook.

OK, so that's two more games (Pats and Broncos) per your admission. So does it change anything if I reword the argument to 12-4 instead of 13-3? As to the Jets game, suggesting that coaching had nothing to do with that one is a bit of a reach given that we ran the ball 16 times by our RBs, against a team that ultimately had a 24th ranked rushing defense, and contrasted with 2-and-half times that in passing plays. Perhaps a more suitable game-plan would have been wise. Allen doesn't create the game-plans. Good coaches find workarounds in situations like that in close games. Yeah, Allen sucked, but our coaching easily could have helped him out a little bit more. And yeah yeah, Dorsey schmorsey, is McD in charge, or isn't he.

So you think that beating the 4-12 Pats, 6-10 Jets, and Broncos or Jags was out of the question, three of the four? Well, OK. Agree to disagree. The talent is relative, that's what was fundamental. Apparently you believe that the Pats, Jets, Jags, Broncos and possibly the Bengals have more talent than we do. I wholeheartedly disagree.

He might be COTY if we had the 1st Seed locked up. The only reason why we're in it for the 2nd Seed, is because the AFCS and AFCW are as weak as they've been in years.

That doesn't answer the question as to which of the two underlying points that I made you fundamentally disagree with, much less why. That's OK, no worries. Again, this isn't all that important.

What? I was referring to the games we won that you ascribe "complimentary football" to for our wins under Brady. Three of those 5 wins were against teams QB'd by Zach Wilson, Shtick, and Zappe. That's a fact. You seem to be dismissing the notion that it shouldn't take much more than an average, if even that, to beat any of those teams. Hence, perhaps why they've lost an average of 11 games. Again, call me crazy. Either way, is this that important to you? I'm truly not sure what you're arguing at this point.

Fundamentally, why not? Fundamentally there are two primary points there. First, that the D has played very well considering the injuries. Secondly, that we have more talent all around than just about every team of the teams that we've lost to. Do you take issue with the notion that our d has played incredibly well given the injury situation? Or do you take issue with that notion that we do not have more talent than at least three of the teams that we've lost to? Jets, Pats, Denver, Jags, Eagles, or Bengals? Curious where the disagreement is.

Feel free to add the required details to actually make that a legitimate argument. Otherwise, so you're implicitly stating that "complimentary football" means a positive time-of-possession then? Be clear here. And otherwise, using simply the Chargers game as an example, with no one on the field offensively for them of any consequence, they managed to hold us to 52 plays, 13 below our average, while we allowed them 65 plays, 5 plays more than our average. We won. So you're insisting that running few plays, what, helped us win? Our time-of-possession in that game was about 27 min. It could also be that we're 5-1 in the last six because three of the teams we played and beat had QBs like Stick, Wilson, and Zappe and are a combined 15-33, on three teams among those with the worst 8 records in the league. Call me crazy. LOL.

This team with all of the talent that it has, and particularly given how the D has played given the injuries and new starters, should be 13-3 at minimum with the 1st Seed and HA locked up. Yet it isn't. McD has this team coming into games comatose too often, has it performing way too inconsistently, etc. Again, if we win a Super Bowl things change, but until then, we need to stop underachieving in the playoffs and losing for stupid reasons or to inferior teams. This is a prime opportunity for him to shine in that regard. The only team that's arguably better than we are is Baltimore, arguably. We have more talent on offense to be sure however. But if we make a Wild-Card or Divisional round exit again, losing to a team that doesn't have our talent, or Allen, then that should paint the determining picture quite clearly.

Well, then define "complimentary football" as you used it, particularly in the context of the discussion at that point, which was diminished offensive production? If you cannot do that, then nothing that you laid out makes much sense.

What's off the reservation is merely saying "complimentary football" while ignoring any details or supporting it in any way. It's difficult to have a rational conversation that way and just throwing cliched terms out there leaves people to have to guess what you're attempting to say. Just sayin'. Either way, who cares. If you believe all that, then great. We should be fine for a Championship. If not, many if not most will strongly be "suggesting" some changes. LOL This really isn't that important. Point are points and other metrics are other metrics. If everything is boiled down to simply wins, great, but let's maintain that standard then from now on out until the season's over. It should be tremendously concerning however that Diggs, in his prime, has averaged 38 yards per game under Brady, and only one TD.

Well, it would appear that that "complimentary football" offense is minimizing Allen, Diggs, & Co. to make the defense and McD shine. Many would suggest that that's a huge part of the problem, particularly considering that our D seems to take a vacation once the playoffs begin, being among the worst playoff Ds in the league under McD. If the goal is a Championship/Lombardi, that's one thing. If it's to make McD look good, entirely another. Just sayin'. Great, so if he's as good as you're implying, then we can all look forward to the explosive offensive performances that this team is capable of with Allen, Diggs, Cook, Kincaid, Davis, Shakir and the OL in the league with the fewest (zero) significant injuries to it of any team in the league.

I think that our D has a little something to do with our losses against Jax, NE, Cincy, and Denver. If you think otherwise, great. Agree to disagree. Otherwise, under Dorsey, our offense is averaging about a half-point less than it did all last season under Dorsey. Our yardage, 1st-Down generation, particularly in our more important last two games, and scoring, is not significantly different from all of last season or Dorsey's full compliment of 10 games. It's funny how that when one points out trends, things like Dorsey's first bunch of games are discounted, the play of our D is heavily discounted, and there's little consideration for a downward spiral of a trend. But never fear, Brady's got all the opportunity in the world to show how great he is @ Miami and in the playoffs. Doesn't he.

So yesterday's win was a "Brady thing" then? In games vs. KC Love on Green Bay played a much better game than Allen did, and Zappe played at least an equally good if not better game against them in weeks before and after we did. Wins over the Jets and Chargers are hardly impressive, and Dallas is clearly in a slump, averaging not even 17 ppg over the past three weeks. The point is how well the offense has played, not wins based upon anything including five games with positive TO margins, which has little to do with Brady.

BTW, our offense in general has not been significantly different in terms of points or yards on average than it was before Brady, and the trend is not favorable. We'll obviously see how it shakes out on Sunday.

I think you missed the point. 3.7 YPC sucks. So yeah, more carries, but to what effect generally. Personally I'd rather see Diggs with 6-8 catches and 100 +/- yards.

A lot of that is narrative based upon aggregate stats which are skewed by that Dallas game. Cook's our primary ball carrier and apart from the Dallas game, he's averaged an incredibly pedestrian 3.7 YPC otherwise in five games under Brady. He has no rushing TDs in any of those games.

It was definitely a rash judgement to have annointed him our next OC. It always takes a bunch of games for a steady-state of play to emerge, during that time opposing coaches and coordinators contribute to defining that. Unfortunately for McD, that's going to impact him as well, perhaps not in immediate job security, but at minimum in terms of future expectations. We'll see. First things first, gotta beat Miami. Hoping that Tennessee beats the Jags with their division and playoffs on the line isn't wise. Whether Pittsburgh with Rudolph can beat the Ravens' second teamers remains to be seen, as it even does that they don't play Jackson. Then of course if we do make the playoffs, if we get ousted by a worse team, which is pretty much every team in the AFC with the possible exception of Baltimore, then that will factor in as well. Is he?

He likely had a few too many glasses of Korbel & grape soda last night, his mom hasn't made any coffee yet, and he probably threw up all over his Billy Belichick PJs. It's also a big step down from that top bunk in that state. All that's missing was a negative reference to the AFL era Bills. He's just upset that despite our offense looking like the Jets offense, his Pats couldn't beat us. He shouldn't worry, there's always next season. Billy will improve for next season, if he's still around, and hopefully get that 1st overall pick instead of what appears to be the 4th or 5th.

You're not kidding. The honeymoon with Brady is over. The Pats have a good D, but not that good. And last week at the Chargers which have a terrible D, it was OK but far from great. Not going to cut it like that in the playoffs. It may not even cut it next week if we need the win. Definitely cause for concern. Imagine playing like that offensively @Baltimore ...

Three weeks is a long time to have a player(s) be idle though.

Skillset Presumably you meant the typo.

Probably asked him, Allen's got a broader skillset than Brady, how come you're not 14-2 right now? ... then have him instructions on how to do it.

That's funny!