VikingLord wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:13 pm
allday1991 wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:23 am
Yes i seen the stats and still find in quite hilarious, that after 3/4 of a season we can come to the conclusion Brady is regressing. As i said everyone thought Brees was regressing at the end of last year, and hes on a 80% completion percentage this year. Case a point a all time great who has put up multiple amazing seasons cant be written of as regressing with 3/4 of a mediocre season. If you think the pats cant put up big numbers on us i dont know what to say, they put up 41 points on the monsters of the midway and best reconized defence in the league.
OK, there is a difference between noting a falloff in production from the prior season and claiming someone is regressing overall. Maybe that is the confusion here. I noted Brady's production is lower *this season*. Neither I, nor you, know how he will perform next season. His play *this season* has regressed as compared to his play last season, and the Tom Brady of *this season* is the Tom Brady the Vikings will play against on Sunday.
And as far as your claim they put up 41 points against Chicago goes, are you talking about this game that the Pats won 38-31?
They were out-gained in both passing and rushing yardage by the Bears and had less time of possession, and 14 of those 38 points they scored came from defensive/special teams TDs (I don't know which since I didn't watch the game, but the stat is near the bottom on that page). The Pats hardly dominated the Bears.
Look, I'm not saying the Pats suck. I'm not saying Tom Brady sucks. I'm not making any claim he is permanently regressing.
But the league-wide stats don't support a claim the Pats are a great team this year. Not on offense, and not on defense. They don't support the claim that Tom Brady is a top-3 QB in the league this year. Why any Vikings fan would just bend over before this game and say the team doesn't have any chance in this upcoming game is beyond me. I get why a homer Pats fan would come on here and say that, but look at the stats and how the two teams match up and if you're just looking at this game, the Vikes match up very well against the Pats and should have a very good chance to win if they don't screw themselves with stupid mistakes and play a complete 60 minutes of football. That is something, admittedly, they've struggled with this season, but just like they were due to put together a solid performance in a prime time game, I say they're more than due to come out and put a solid game together against a good opponent on the road.
I guess we'll see.
I wouldn't look at what the Pats looked like 6 weeks ago to compare to your team. That's honestly a rookie mistake, so to speak. If you're hanging on what they did on October 21, you're going to be disappointed on Sunday.
Michel got hurt in that game, Gronk didn't play, Burkhead wasn't there, and it's October. NE doesn't really start to crank it up until around Thanksgiving.
I agree the stats don't support NE is great, but honestly do you think that matters now? Stats are sort of meaningless, especially if they represent something that truly isn't reflective of what your team is capable of.
What you may not get is the wishful thinking "the Pats window is closing" mantra and beating of that drum, has been going on for like 5-7 years now.
NE knows depth is key and it's a marathon, not a sprint, so looking back to Sept and October for hope is almost irrelevant now.
As for Brady. he's been missing numerous key players all year at different times, and truthfully as a diehard of over 36 years and season tickets in my family since '78, I can be an honest fan and be disappointed with him not battling through not having his favorite targets, a bit better than he has.
I can't imagine this continues. We shall see, yes.