Patriot Hater here (1 Viewer)

[-baller]

Ron Borges (WEEI.com) said it best this morning...

"Like a dense fog, they slowly swirl around their emboldened opponents, blinding them to the game’s most critical moments until it is too late and they have driven off the road to victory. Once the fog lifts, they find themselves defeated but lamenting what might have been. When it is all finally over and the fog has lifted, one team feels it could have won. The other knows it just did."

that's awesome.but w/the jets there might have been a little dui involved there, too.

 

[greenline]

I think it was Adalius Thomas last night who said something to the effect of, they'll win they games they should and split they games they shouldn't.

 

[-baller]

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/footbal...&position=4



EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. - Randy Moss’ comments following the 19-10 victory over the Jets yesterday were brief and very much to the point.

The wide receiver didn’t like hearing all the naysayers who didn’t think the Patriots [team stats] could win without Tom Brady [stats].

“I don’t think there’s one person in my face with his microphone that picked us to win today,” Moss said as he peered out at the media. “I’m going to end (my comments) today. The New England Patriots [team stats] are 2-0. We got one in the division. So all you haters keep hating. We’re coming!”

haha....tell 'em, randy!

 

[Mustang Man]

I got to give it to them they are just winners. Yeah sure without Brady they are not a very scary team overall ...

Not really much of a drop off between Cassel and Brady.

Yeah right. they beat KC 42-10 and Jets 35-10 with Brady. Lets see when they play Indy and SD

You mean the 1-1 Colts and the 0-2 Chargers?How about we give credit where credit is due and say "Let's see when they play Buffalo and Denver."

Yeah I do mean them teams, if you think Buffalo and Denver will be better then SD and Indy this year you are reading way to much into the first 2 weeks.

 

[Mustang Man]

Everyone will always justify why they aren't good. Bottom line is they've been good since the turn of the decade and will be in the hunt year in and out until the day Bill Belichick retires. Let's see your team do the same.

I have never said the Pat's are not good just can't stand them because they are bullies vs lesser opponents and when the game is over they run the score up for no reason at all. It will come back to haunt them this year. Don't get to cocky till they play a top rate team.

 

[David Yudkin]

People forget that pre-2007, the Pats played a winning ugly type of a game to perfection. They didn't win 52-7. They could win 12-7 and be happy, no matter how good or bad the opponent was. They didn't care then, and I doubt they care now.

I concur that they have not really been tested so far this year and that they won't win too many games like the DEN/SD game yesterday, but their goal is to avoid playing games like that.

We'll have to wait and see if the offense can score enough when the defense is tested and whether Cassel can lead the 2:00 minute offense to win onthe final drive.

They are not going to march the offense up and down the field. That was last year. But that doesn't mean they won't be in position to win a lot of games.

 

[Mustang Man]

I got to give it to them they are just winners. Yeah sure without Brady they are not a very scary team overall but they just know how to win and can still be a legit contender in the AFC. If they even get to the AFC championship game it has been a great year for them Props to the Pats

Cool post. Hopefully the forebearer of a kinder, gentler Shark Pool.

Gee thanks that is all I was trying to do was give the Pats the props they deserved by beating the Jets after losing their Top Gun Brady. Then it turns into yeah sure now everyone likes the Pats because they are not blowing people out. It is a no win situation bringing up the Pats.

 

[switz]

Anyone remember 2001?Brady was there to not turn the ball over, he wasn't asked to do anything spectacular. I believe they won the Super Bowl that year.Cassell is being asked to do the same thing. He's going to be a completely different QB by week 17, just like Brady was.I am not saying Cassell will turn into Brady, just saying they are being asked to do the same things in their 1st year.

 

[TD Ryan]

Gee thanks that is all I was trying to do was give the Pats the props they deserved by beating the Jets after losing their Top Gun Brady. Then it turns into yeah sure now everyone likes the Pats because they are not blowing people out. It is a no win situation bringing up the Pats.

nah... it's cool Mustang Man.it isn't a no-win for all of us.it's a good thread that you started.nobody's looking to kick you in the olive branch here.we need more people that can have a discussion without the venom and polarization.there's more parity than ever with IND, NE, and SD all showing some vulnerability and somehow the NYG are flying under the radar too.I doubt NE has the horses to win it, but your original point that NE knows how to win is very accurate.

 

[Mustang Man]

People forget that pre-2007, the Pats played a winning ugly type of a game to perfection. They didn't win 52-7. They could win 12-7 and be happy, no matter how good or bad the opponent was. They didn't care then, and I doubt they care now.I concur that they have not really been tested so far this year and that they won't win too many games like the DEN/SD game yesterday, but their goal is to avoid playing games like that.We'll have to wait and see if the offense can score enough when the defense is tested and whether Cassel can lead the 2:00 minute offense to win onthe final drive.They are not going to march the offense up and down the field. That was last year. But that doesn't mean they won't be in position to win a lot of games.

Here is where the Pats lose being the top end team that will contend for a title. No fear going into the 4th facing Cassel. When Brady had the ball and needed to score you almost new that he would lead them to victory. Cassel is not going to be able to bring that fear into an opposing defense. That counts for a lot in the playoffs.Also before the playoffs this defense should wear down I would think they will be on the field a lot more this year and be in mostly low scoring tough games. This will wear on the aging defensive players they have. I have doubt the defense will hold up during the regular season. Maybe a Pat's fan can educate me on the depth they might have. I am really not sure but I do know they have some older players and last season it really did not matter cause they blew out most teams and the defense had a lot of bye weeks.

 

[Megalomaniac]

Had NE played KC this week...with a week of gameplanning and preparation and Cass at QB.......would the result have been the same?

They had a full week to gameplan for the Jets. The result was they scored exactly one touchdown, and that was thanks to an interception that set them up in the red zone. They had great field position all day, but only managed to turn it into 4 FGs. Maybe Cassell will get better as the season goes along, but this team looked a lot more like Chi/Balt/etc. than they did like the NE that we're used to. "Ugly" wins count the same as pretty-looking wins, and NE still looks like a team that can contend in a weak division and will probably be good for 10 wins or so, but they certainly weren't the same team yesterday as they were with Brady.

LOL. Are you expecting after one week of gameplanning that NE was going into New York and win any other way? KC does not equal NYJ...close but not quite. Cass will be playing much better 8 weeks from now...believe me.

My evaluation of yesterdays game may be colored by the fact that I think the Jets were absurdly overrated and will probably not make it to .500 this year. If you think the Jets are a legitimate playoff team, then obviously you'll consider NE's win to be more impressive than I do. Seriously, though, the Jets suck, at least right now.

I also think WAY to many were overrating NYJ. I'm not taking anything away from one game.....but the NYJ are still a much better team than KC. NY was a major player in FA this offseason......so while I won't take much from NE beating them in one game.....I expected more from the Jets against a NE team without Brady. This year's score at NY....was about the same as last year's 20-10 loss in Wk 15....with Brady and that historic offense.

 

[David Yudkin]

People forget that pre-2007, the Pats played a winning ugly type of a game to perfection. They didn't win 52-7. They could win 12-7 and be happy, no matter how good or bad the opponent was. They didn't care then, and I doubt they care now.I concur that they have not really been tested so far this year and that they won't win too many games like the DEN/SD game yesterday, but their goal is to avoid playing games like that.We'll have to wait and see if the offense can score enough when the defense is tested and whether Cassel can lead the 2:00 minute offense to win onthe final drive.They are not going to march the offense up and down the field. That was last year. But that doesn't mean they won't be in position to win a lot of games.

Here is where the Pats lose being the top end team that will contend for a title. No fear going into the 4th facing Cassel. When Brady had the ball and needed to score you almost new that he would lead them to victory. Cassel is not going to be able to bring that fear into an opposing defense. That counts for a lot in the playoffs.Also before the playoffs this defense should wear down I would think they will be on the field a lot more this year and be in mostly low scoring tough games. This will wear on the aging defensive players they have. I have doubt the defense will hold up during the regular season. Maybe a Pat's fan can educate me on the depth they might have. I am really not sure but I do know they have some older players and last season it really did not matter cause they blew out most teams and the defense had a lot of bye weeks.

The Pats have two players on defense that would remotely (IMO) be considered old . . . Bruschi and Harrison. Backing them up are Pierre Woods and Brandon Meriweather (first round pick last year). They are both competent and Meriweather would be a starter on other teams. Same thing with several of their other defensive backups.The team being old is mostly a myth, but that's the only thing (pre Brady injury) people had to hang their hat on in terms of potential deficiencies. The team certainly is not perfect, but they don't have a lot of glaring issues. At some point, some teams may be able to throw on them and others may run on them, but overall I don't see them being a turnstile defensively.Through 2 games last year the defense had to play 108 plays. Through 2 games this year, they've had to play 110.

 

[David Yudkin]

Had NE played KC this week...with a week of gameplanning and preparation and Cass at QB.......would the result have been the same?

They had a full week to gameplan for the Jets. The result was they scored exactly one touchdown, and that was thanks to an interception that set them up in the red zone. They had great field position all day, but only managed to turn it into 4 FGs. Maybe Cassell will get better as the season goes along, but this team looked a lot more like Chi/Balt/etc. than they did like the NE that we're used to. "Ugly" wins count the same as pretty-looking wins, and NE still looks like a team that can contend in a weak division and will probably be good for 10 wins or so, but they certainly weren't the same team yesterday as they were with Brady.

LOL. Are you expecting after one week of gameplanning that NE was going into New York and win any other way? KC does not equal NYJ...close but not quite. Cass will be playing much better 8 weeks from now...believe me.

My evaluation of yesterdays game may be colored by the fact that I think the Jets were absurdly overrated and will probably not make it to .500 this year. If you think the Jets are a legitimate playoff team, then obviously you'll consider NE's win to be more impressive than I do. Seriously, though, the Jets suck, at least right now.

I also think WAY to many were overrating NYJ. I'm not taking anything away from one game.....but the NYJ are still a much better team than KC. NY was a major player in FA this offseason......so while I won't take much from NE beating them in one game.....I expected more from the Jets against a NE team without Brady. This year's score at NY....was about the same as last year's 20-10 loss in Wk 15....with Brady and that historic offense.

IMO, you can't really consider last year's Week 15 game for much of anything. They played in a monsoon and neither team could do much of anything. I would not say the Jets did anything to slow the Pats down, the weather did.

 

[Megalomaniac]

Had NE played KC this week...with a week of gameplanning and preparation and Cass at QB.......would the result have been the same?

They had a full week to gameplan for the Jets. The result was they scored exactly one touchdown, and that was thanks to an interception that set them up in the red zone. They had great field position all day, but only managed to turn it into 4 FGs. Maybe Cassell will get better as the season goes along, but this team looked a lot more like Chi/Balt/etc. than they did like the NE that we're used to. "Ugly" wins count the same as pretty-looking wins, and NE still looks like a team that can contend in a weak division and will probably be good for 10 wins or so, but they certainly weren't the same team yesterday as they were with Brady.

LOL. Are you expecting after one week of gameplanning that NE was going into New York and win any other way? KC does not equal NYJ...close but not quite. Cass will be playing much better 8 weeks from now...believe me.

My evaluation of yesterdays game may be colored by the fact that I think the Jets were absurdly overrated and will probably not make it to .500 this year. If you think the Jets are a legitimate playoff team, then obviously you'll consider NE's win to be more impressive than I do. Seriously, though, the Jets suck, at least right now.

I also think WAY to many were overrating NYJ. I'm not taking anything away from one game.....but the NYJ are still a much better team than KC. NY was a major player in FA this offseason......so while I won't take much from NE beating them in one game.....I expected more from the Jets against a NE team without Brady. This year's score at NY....was about the same as last year's 20-10 loss in Wk 15....with Brady and that historic offense.

IMO, you can't really consider last year's Week 15 game for much of anything. They played in a monsoon and neither team could do much of anything. I would not say the Jets did anything to slow the Pats down, the weather did.

Great point. Still doesn't discount the fact that I expected much more from NYJ given the offseason & Brady injury.

 

[Avery]

People forget that pre-2007, the Pats played a winning ugly type of a game to perfection. They didn't win 52-7. They could win 12-7 and be happy, no matter how good or bad the opponent was. They didn't care then, and I doubt they care now.

I concur that they have not really been tested so far this year and that they won't win too many games like the DEN/SD game yesterday, but their goal is to avoid playing games like that.

We'll have to wait and see if the offense can score enough when the defense is tested and whether Cassel can lead the 2:00 minute offense to win onthe final drive.

They are not going to march the offense up and down the field. That was last year. But that doesn't mean they won't be in position to win a lot of games.

Here is where the Pats lose being the top end team that will contend for a title. No fear going into the 4th facing Cassel. When Brady had the ball and needed to score you almost new that he would lead them to victory. Cassel is not going to be able to bring that fear into an opposing defense. That counts for a lot in the playoffs.Also before the playoffs this defense should wear down I would think they will be on the field a lot more this year and be in mostly low scoring tough games. This will wear on the aging defensive players they have. I have doubt the defense will hold up during the regular season. Maybe a Pat's fan can educate me on the depth they might have. I am really not sure but I do know they have some older players and last season it really did not matter cause they blew out most teams and the defense had a lot of bye weeks.

The Pats have two players on defense that would remotely (IMO) be considered old . . . Bruschi and Harrison. Backing them up are Pierre Woods and Brandon Meriweather (first round pick last year). They are both competent and Meriweather would be a starter on other teams. Same thing with several of their other defensive backups.The team being old is mostly a myth, but that's the only thing (pre Brady injury) people had to hang their hat on in terms of potential deficiencies. The team certainly is not perfect, but they don't have a lot of glaring issues. At some point, some teams may be able to throw on them and others may run on them, but overall I don't see them being a turnstile defensively.

Through 2 games last year the defense had to play 108 plays. Through 2 games this year, they've had to play 110.

Adalius Thomas is 31.Mike Vrabel is 33.

By real life standards Vrabel and Thomas are pretty young but for NFL linebackers, I'd say that would be considered old as well.

I don't know how that compares to the NFL as a whole and you can argue that there are good young backups ready to replace them, but having over 1/3 of your defensive starters over 30 seems old to me.

 

[Mustang Man]

People forget that pre-2007, the Pats played a winning ugly type of a game to perfection. They didn't win 52-7. They could win 12-7 and be happy, no matter how good or bad the opponent was. They didn't care then, and I doubt they care now.I concur that they have not really been tested so far this year and that they won't win too many games like the DEN/SD game yesterday, but their goal is to avoid playing games like that.We'll have to wait and see if the offense can score enough when the defense is tested and whether Cassel can lead the 2:00 minute offense to win onthe final drive.They are not going to march the offense up and down the field. That was last year. But that doesn't mean they won't be in position to win a lot of games.

Here is where the Pats lose being the top end team that will contend for a title. No fear going into the 4th facing Cassel. When Brady had the ball and needed to score you almost new that he would lead them to victory. Cassel is not going to be able to bring that fear into an opposing defense. That counts for a lot in the playoffs.Also before the playoffs this defense should wear down I would think they will be on the field a lot more this year and be in mostly low scoring tough games. This will wear on the aging defensive players they have. I have doubt the defense will hold up during the regular season. Maybe a Pat's fan can educate me on the depth they might have. I am really not sure but I do know they have some older players and last season it really did not matter cause they blew out most teams and the defense had a lot of bye weeks.

The Pats have two players on defense that would remotely (IMO) be considered old . . . Bruschi and Harrison. Backing them up are Pierre Woods and Brandon Meriweather (first round pick last year). They are both competent and Meriweather would be a starter on other teams. Same thing with several of their other defensive backups.The team being old is mostly a myth, but that's the only thing (pre Brady injury) people had to hang their hat on in terms of potential deficiencies. The team certainly is not perfect, but they don't have a lot of glaring issues. At some point, some teams may be able to throw on them and others may run on them, but overall I don't see them being a turnstile defensively.Through 2 games last year the defense had to play 108 plays. Through 2 games this year, they've had to play 110.

Well last season they Played the Jets and SD so replacing One of the best teams in the league SD with maybe the worst in the league KC I can see why the plays on defense would be about the same. If they played SD in the first 2 weeks this year along side the Jets I bet SD would have had atleast 10-15 more plays added to the defense over what a terrible offense that KC has.. This shows the defense will be on the field a lot more this year and the defense will get tired over the coarse of the ear. We shall see. I know the Pats dl is great but the secondary is the problem and being on the field an extra 5-15 plays will show the weakness and to a degree the age.

 

[Kit Fisto]

I got to give it to them they are just winners. Yeah sure without Brady they are not a very scary team overall ...

Not really much of a drop off between Cassel and Brady.

Yeah right. they beat KC 42-10 and Jets 35-10 with Brady. Lets see when they play Indy and SD

You mean the 1-1 Colts and the 0-2 Chargers?How about we give credit where credit is due and say "Let's see when they play Buffalo and Denver."

Yeah I do mean them teams, if you think Buffalo and Denver will be better then SD and Indy this year you are reading way to much into the first 2 weeks.

And I think you're living in the past. Last year's success means nothing this year. Denver just hung 39 on that vaunted Charger team you speak of. They look like an offense that will be hard for anyone to hang with.I think you're not showing Buffalo and Denver enough respect. They will challenge NE, SD, Indy, Pitt, Tenn, Cle, Jax... for both division titles and wild card spots. I guarantee you last year's 6 playoff teams aren't this year's 6 playoff teams. Never are.

 

[parrot]

People forget that pre-2007, the Pats played a winning ugly type of a game to perfection. They didn't win 52-7. They could win 12-7 and be happy, no matter how good or bad the opponent was. They didn't care then, and I doubt they care now.I concur that they have not really been tested so far this year and that they won't win too many games like the DEN/SD game yesterday, but their goal is to avoid playing games like that.We'll have to wait and see if the offense can score enough when the defense is tested and whether Cassel can lead the 2:00 minute offense to win onthe final drive.They are not going to march the offense up and down the field. That was last year. But that doesn't mean they won't be in position to win a lot of games.

Here is where the Pats lose being the top end team that will contend for a title. No fear going into the 4th facing Cassel. When Brady had the ball and needed to score you almost new that he would lead them to victory. Cassel is not going to be able to bring that fear into an opposing defense. That counts for a lot in the playoffs.Also before the playoffs this defense should wear down I would think they will be on the field a lot more this year and be in mostly low scoring tough games. This will wear on the aging defensive players they have. I have doubt the defense will hold up during the regular season. Maybe a Pat's fan can educate me on the depth they might have. I am really not sure but I do know they have some older players and last season it really did not matter cause they blew out most teams and the defense had a lot of bye weeks.

The Pats have two players on defense that would remotely (IMO) be considered old . . . Bruschi and Harrison. Backing them up are Pierre Woods and Brandon Meriweather (first round pick last year). They are both competent and Meriweather would be a starter on other teams. Same thing with several of their other defensive backups.The team being old is mostly a myth, but that's the only thing (pre Brady injury) people had to hang their hat on in terms of potential deficiencies. The team certainly is not perfect, but they don't have a lot of glaring issues. At some point, some teams may be able to throw on them and others may run on them, but overall I don't see them being a turnstile defensively.Through 2 games last year the defense had to play 108 plays. Through 2 games this year, they've had to play 110.

The parallel has already been made between Cassel and 2001 Brady. Here's another maybe interesting parallel; the cumulative age of the defensive starters for the Patriots yesterday was the same as the cumulative age of the Patriots' defensive starters in the Superbowl against the Rams.

 

[jaybebo]

I got to give it to them they are just winners. Yeah sure without Brady they are not a very scary team overall ...

Not really much of a drop off between Cassel and Brady.

Have to agree with ya brady2moss...Cassel did not make mistakes, but he did not throw one TD...sucks for the receivers on this team.

 

[jaybebo]

Here's my thing.They barely squeaked by a KC team @ home that just got pounded by the ####### Oakland Raiders. If not for having Miami and NYJ in their division, I'm not sure how they'd get 10 wins.

I know you don't mean the favre led superjets.the same team everybody's scooping up in their fantasy drafts?and buffalo twice??omgtoughest schedule in football.

I believe the Pats will have trouble against the Bills...that team is pretty good.

 

[Kit Fisto]

Here's my thing.They barely squeaked by a KC team @ home that just got pounded by the ####### Oakland Raiders. If not for having Miami and NYJ in their division, I'm not sure how they'd get 10 wins.

I know you don't mean the favre led superjets.the same team everybody's scooping up in their fantasy drafts?and buffalo twice??omgtoughest schedule in football.

I believe the Pats will have trouble against the Bills...that team is pretty good.

Definitley not a team to look past.

 

[Ned]

Here's my thing.They barely squeaked by a KC team @ home that just got pounded by the ####### Oakland Raiders. If not for having Miami and NYJ in their division, I'm not sure how they'd get 10 wins.

I know you don't mean the favre led superjets.the same team everybody's scooping up in their fantasy drafts?and buffalo twice??omgtoughest schedule in football.

I believe the Pats will have trouble against the Bills...that team is pretty good.

they worry me the most.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Here's my thing.They barely squeaked by a KC team @ home that just got pounded by the ####### Oakland Raiders. If not for having Miami and NYJ in their division, I'm not sure how they'd get 10 wins.

I know you don't mean the favre led superjets.the same team everybody's scooping up in their fantasy drafts?and buffalo twice??omgtoughest schedule in football.

I believe the Pats will have trouble against the Bills...that team is pretty good.

they worry me the most.

I was more worried until I watched the Jags game and realized the Bills don't have a deep passing game, and not much of an intermediate passing game either. Dont know if this is a coordinator issue or a QB issue, but its there, like a pimple.They appear, however, to be better than the Jets.

 

[David Yudkin]

People forget that pre-2007, the Pats played a winning ugly type of a game to perfection. They didn't win 52-7. They could win 12-7 and be happy, no matter how good or bad the opponent was. They didn't care then, and I doubt they care now.

I concur that they have not really been tested so far this year and that they won't win too many games like the DEN/SD game yesterday, but their goal is to avoid playing games like that.

We'll have to wait and see if the offense can score enough when the defense is tested and whether Cassel can lead the 2:00 minute offense to win onthe final drive.

They are not going to march the offense up and down the field. That was last year. But that doesn't mean they won't be in position to win a lot of games.

Here is where the Pats lose being the top end team that will contend for a title. No fear going into the 4th facing Cassel. When Brady had the ball and needed to score you almost new that he would lead them to victory. Cassel is not going to be able to bring that fear into an opposing defense. That counts for a lot in the playoffs.Also before the playoffs this defense should wear down I would think they will be on the field a lot more this year and be in mostly low scoring tough games. This will wear on the aging defensive players they have. I have doubt the defense will hold up during the regular season. Maybe a Pat's fan can educate me on the depth they might have. I am really not sure but I do know they have some older players and last season it really did not matter cause they blew out most teams and the defense had a lot of bye weeks.

The Pats have two players on defense that would remotely (IMO) be considered old . . . Bruschi and Harrison. Backing them up are Pierre Woods and Brandon Meriweather (first round pick last year). They are both competent and Meriweather would be a starter on other teams. Same thing with several of their other defensive backups.The team being old is mostly a myth, but that's the only thing (pre Brady injury) people had to hang their hat on in terms of potential deficiencies. The team certainly is not perfect, but they don't have a lot of glaring issues. At some point, some teams may be able to throw on them and others may run on them, but overall I don't see them being a turnstile defensively.

Through 2 games last year the defense had to play 108 plays. Through 2 games this year, they've had to play 110.

Adalius Thomas is 31.Mike Vrabel is 33.

By real life standards Vrabel and Thomas are pretty young but for NFL linebackers, I'd say that would be considered old as well.

I don't know how that compares to the NFL as a whole and you can argue that there are good young backups ready to replace them, but having over 1/3 of your defensive starters over 30 seems old to me.

There are 25+ other starting LBers that are already 30 (and several others that will be by the time the season is over but I didn't list):Ray Lewis 33

Dhani Jones 30

Willie McGinest 36

Nate Webster 30

Morlon Greenwood 30

Mike Peterson 32

Donnie Edwards 35

Joey Porter 31

Eric Barton 31

James Farrior 33

James Harrison 30

Derek Smith 33

Keith Bulluck 31

Chike Okeafor 32

Keith Brooking 32

Nail Diggs 30

Brian Urlacher 30

Zach Thomas 35

Paris Lenon 31

Mark Simoneau 31

Danny Clark 31

Jeff Ulbrich 31

Julian Peterson 30

Derrick Brooks 35

London Fletcher 33

Marcus Washington 30

 

[Avery]

The Pats have two players on defense that would remotely (IMO) be considered old . . . Bruschi and Harrison. Backing them up are Pierre Woods and Brandon Meriweather (first round pick last year). They are both competent and Meriweather would be a starter on other teams. Same thing with several of their other defensive backups.

The team being old is mostly a myth, but that's the only thing (pre Brady injury) people had to hang their hat on in terms of potential deficiencies. The team certainly is not perfect, but they don't have a lot of glaring issues. At some point, some teams may be able to throw on them and others may run on them, but overall I don't see them being a turnstile defensively.

Through 2 games last year the defense had to play 108 plays. Through 2 games this year, they've had to play 110.

Adalius Thomas is 31.Mike Vrabel is 33.

By real life standards Vrabel and Thomas are pretty young but for NFL linebackers, I'd say that would be considered old as well.

I don't know how that compares to the NFL as a whole and you can argue that there are good young backups ready to replace them, but having over 1/3 of your defensive starters over 30 seems old to me.

There are 25+ other starting LBers that are already 30 (and several others that will be by the time the season is over but I didn't list):Ray Lewis 33

Dhani Jones 30

Willie McGinest 36

Nate Webster 30

Morlon Greenwood 30

Mike Peterson 32

Donnie Edwards 35

Joey Porter 31

Eric Barton 31

James Farrior 33

James Harrison 30

Derek Smith 33

Keith Bulluck 31

Chike Okeafor 32

Keith Brooking 32

Nail Diggs 30

Brian Urlacher 30

Zach Thomas 35

Paris Lenon 31

Mark Simoneau 31

Danny Clark 31

Jeff Ulbrich 31

Julian Peterson 30

Derrick Brooks 35

London Fletcher 33

Marcus Washington 30

Great.Would you consider them remotely NFL old?

 

[David Yudkin]

The Pats have two players on defense that would remotely (IMO) be considered old . . . Bruschi and Harrison. Backing them up are Pierre Woods and Brandon Meriweather (first round pick last year). They are both competent and Meriweather would be a starter on other teams. Same thing with several of their other defensive backups.

The team being old is mostly a myth, but that's the only thing (pre Brady injury) people had to hang their hat on in terms of potential deficiencies. The team certainly is not perfect, but they don't have a lot of glaring issues. At some point, some teams may be able to throw on them and others may run on them, but overall I don't see them being a turnstile defensively.

Through 2 games last year the defense had to play 108 plays. Through 2 games this year, they've had to play 110.

Adalius Thomas is 31.Mike Vrabel is 33.

By real life standards Vrabel and Thomas are pretty young but for NFL linebackers, I'd say that would be considered old as well.

I don't know how that compares to the NFL as a whole and you can argue that there are good young backups ready to replace them, but having over 1/3 of your defensive starters over 30 seems old to me.

There are 25+ other starting LBers that are already 30 (and several others that will be by the time the season is over but I didn't list):Ray Lewis 33

Dhani Jones 30

Willie McGinest 36

Nate Webster 30

Morlon Greenwood 30

Mike Peterson 32

Donnie Edwards 35

Joey Porter 31

Eric Barton 31

James Farrior 33

James Harrison 30

Derek Smith 33

Keith Bulluck 31

Chike Okeafor 32

Keith Brooking 32

Nail Diggs 30

Brian Urlacher 30

Zach Thomas 35

Paris Lenon 31

Mark Simoneau 31

Danny Clark 31

Jeff Ulbrich 31

Julian Peterson 30

Derrick Brooks 35

London Fletcher 33

Marcus Washington 30

Great.Would you consider them remotely NFL old?

I suppose you can call them old, but IMO they have not shown signs of being unproductive and that to me is the barometer for being old. I'm sure there where years where Jerry Rice did petther than 75 other receivers that were 10 years younger than he was. Yes, he was old but he was still productive.Vrabel was an ALl-Pro last year. He certainly has not shown any signs of being over the hill. If you saw the Pats game yesterday, then you would have seen Thomas sack Favre and Leon Washington TOGETHER, dragging them backwards 20 yards.

To me, I'd rather have a 30 something Pro Bowler than a 25 year old that isn't very good.

 

[Mustang Man]

I got to give it to them they are just winners. Yeah sure without Brady they are not a very scary team overall ...

Not really much of a drop off between Cassel and Brady.

Yeah right. they beat KC 42-10 and Jets 35-10 with Brady. Lets see when they play Indy and SD

You mean the 1-1 Colts and the 0-2 Chargers?How about we give credit where credit is due and say "Let's see when they play Buffalo and Denver."

Yeah I do mean them teams, if you think Buffalo and Denver will be better then SD and Indy this year you are reading way to much into the first 2 weeks.

And I think you're living in the past. Last year's success means nothing this year. Denver just hung 39 on that vaunted Charger team you speak of. They look like an offense that will be hard for anyone to hang with.I think you're not showing Buffalo and Denver enough respect. They will challenge NE, SD, Indy, Pitt, Tenn, Cle, Jax... for both division titles and wild card spots. I guarantee you last year's 6 playoff teams aren't this year's 6 playoff teams. Never are.

The Colts and SD are the best two teams in the AFC and I can tell you that Buffalo and Denver are closer to pretenders then they are to Indy and SD. I am not just going on last seasons success how bout them teams have been strong for a long time and this year will not be any different. While I can see Buffalo making the playoffs and maybe even winning the AFC east that offense of theirs (T.Edwards) is just not going to be a enough to get deep in the playoffs. Denver's defense to me is the down fall for them. Denver however could beat NE cause that offense will just beat down the Pats defense. They are better then the Pat'S at this point Their is a great chance that the 1 team that does not make the playoffs from last season will be the Patriots.

 

[-baller]

I'll take thomas and vrabel --- you haters can keep the 20 year olds.

 

[Avery]

The Pats have two players on defense that would remotely (IMO) be considered old . . . Bruschi and Harrison. Backing them up are Pierre Woods and Brandon Meriweather (first round pick last year). They are both competent and Meriweather would be a starter on other teams. Same thing with several of their other defensive backups.

The team being old is mostly a myth, but that's the only thing (pre Brady injury) people had to hang their hat on in terms of potential deficiencies. The team certainly is not perfect, but they don't have a lot of glaring issues. At some point, some teams may be able to throw on them and others may run on them, but overall I don't see them being a turnstile defensively.

Through 2 games last year the defense had to play 108 plays. Through 2 games this year, they've had to play 110.

Adalius Thomas is 31.Mike Vrabel is 33.

By real life standards Vrabel and Thomas are pretty young but for NFL linebackers, I'd say that would be considered old as well.

I don't know how that compares to the NFL as a whole and you can argue that there are good young backups ready to replace them, but having over 1/3 of your defensive starters over 30 seems old to me.

There are 25+ other starting LBers that are already 30 (and several others that will be by the time the season is over but I didn't list):Ray Lewis 33

Dhani Jones 30

Willie McGinest 36

Nate Webster 30

Morlon Greenwood 30

Mike Peterson 32

Donnie Edwards 35

Joey Porter 31

Eric Barton 31

James Farrior 33

James Harrison 30

Derek Smith 33

Keith Bulluck 31

Chike Okeafor 32

Keith Brooking 32

Nail Diggs 30

Brian Urlacher 30

Zach Thomas 35

Paris Lenon 31

Mark Simoneau 31

Danny Clark 31

Jeff Ulbrich 31

Julian Peterson 30

Derrick Brooks 35

London Fletcher 33

Marcus Washington 30

Great.Would you consider them remotely NFL old?

I suppose you can call them old, but IMO they have not shown signs of being unproductive and that to me is the barometer for being old. I'm sure there where years where Jerry Rice did petther than 75 other receivers that were 10 years younger than he was. Yes, he was old but he was still productive.Vrabel was an ALl-Pro last year. He certainly has not shown any signs of being over the hill. If you saw the Pats game yesterday, then you would have seen Thomas sack Favre and Leon Washington TOGETHER, dragging them backwards 20 yards.

To me, I'd rather have a 30 something Pro Bowler than a 25 year old that isn't very good.

I concur.I'm not sure where the "old defense" discussion started, but age is only an issue for how long a top unit can stay on top and if you believe that older guys are more likely to either get hurt or recover slower from injury. I only brought up that over 1/3 of the Pats defensive starters are over 30 because you said if was a myth that the Pats were old. I'm still not sure, age wise, how they stack up against the rest of the league.

 

[David Yudkin]

The Pats have two players on defense that would remotely (IMO) be considered old . . . Bruschi and Harrison. Backing them up are Pierre Woods and Brandon Meriweather (first round pick last year). They are both competent and Meriweather would be a starter on other teams. Same thing with several of their other defensive backups.

The team being old is mostly a myth, but that's the only thing (pre Brady injury) people had to hang their hat on in terms of potential deficiencies. The team certainly is not perfect, but they don't have a lot of glaring issues. At some point, some teams may be able to throw on them and others may run on them, but overall I don't see them being a turnstile defensively.

Through 2 games last year the defense had to play 108 plays. Through 2 games this year, they've had to play 110.

Adalius Thomas is 31.Mike Vrabel is 33.

By real life standards Vrabel and Thomas are pretty young but for NFL linebackers, I'd say that would be considered old as well.

I don't know how that compares to the NFL as a whole and you can argue that there are good young backups ready to replace them, but having over 1/3 of your defensive starters over 30 seems old to me.

There are 25+ other starting LBers that are already 30 (and several others that will be by the time the season is over but I didn't list):Ray Lewis 33

Dhani Jones 30

Willie McGinest 36

Nate Webster 30

Morlon Greenwood 30

Mike Peterson 32

Donnie Edwards 35

Joey Porter 31

Eric Barton 31

James Farrior 33

James Harrison 30

Derek Smith 33

Keith Bulluck 31

Chike Okeafor 32

Keith Brooking 32

Nail Diggs 30

Brian Urlacher 30

Zach Thomas 35

Paris Lenon 31

Mark Simoneau 31

Danny Clark 31

Jeff Ulbrich 31

Julian Peterson 30

Derrick Brooks 35

London Fletcher 33

Marcus Washington 30

Great.Would you consider them remotely NFL old?

I suppose you can call them old, but IMO they have not shown signs of being unproductive and that to me is the barometer for being old. I'm sure there where years where Jerry Rice did petther than 75 other receivers that were 10 years younger than he was. Yes, he was old but he was still productive.Vrabel was an ALl-Pro last year. He certainly has not shown any signs of being over the hill. If you saw the Pats game yesterday, then you would have seen Thomas sack Favre and Leon Washington TOGETHER, dragging them backwards 20 yards.

To me, I'd rather have a 30 something Pro Bowler than a 25 year old that isn't very good.

I concur.I'm not sure where the "old defense" discussion started, but age is only an issue for how long a top unit can stay on top and if you believe that older guys are more likely to either get hurt or recover slower from injury. I only brought up that over 1/3 of the Pats defensive starters are over 30 because you said if was a myth that the Pats were old. I'm still not sure, age wise, how they stack up against the rest of the league.

I did a random comparison of the Pats, Bears, and Ravens. Pats combined age was just a year or two younger than the Ravens and a few years older than the Bears. But there was very little difference.

 

[jurb26]

Strength of schedule is the most useless thing in the NFL prior to the season. NE's schedule is going to turn out to be far from the easiest in the NFL IMO:

3 Sep 21 MIA @ NE 1:00 PM Tickets CBS 707 707 107 127

4 Bye

5 Oct 05 NE @ SF 4:15 PM Tickets CBS 714 714

6 Oct 12 NE @ SD 8:15 PM Tickets NBC

7 Oct 20 DEN @ NE 8:30 PM Tickets ESPN 206 73

8 Oct 26 STL @ NE 1:00 PM Tickets FOX 711 711

9 Nov 02 NE @ IND 8:15 PM Tickets NBC

10 Nov 09 BUF @ NE 1:00 PM Tickets CBS 707 707

11 Nov 13 NYJ @ NE 8:15 PM Tickets NFL NETWORK 212 212

12 Nov 23 NE @ MIA 1:00 PM Tickets CBS 706 706

13 Nov 30 PIT @ NE 4:15 PM Tickets CBS 713 713

14 Dec 07 NE @ SEA 8:15 PM Tickets NBC

15 Dec 14 NE @ OAK 4:15 PM Tickets CBS 716 716

16 Dec 21 ARI @ NE 1:00 PM Tickets FOX 708 708

17 Dec 28 NE @ BUF 1:00 PM Tickets CBS 706 706

I'm not seeing nearly as many "easy" games as the rest of you. Oak should be an easy game, but traveling west on back to back weeks is anything but easy. Actually, NE has to travel all the way to the west coast 3 times this year. That seems a bit odd. Buf is clearly a much better team this year and likely playoff bound. Den and Arz as well.

Still, NE will win their division and push deep into the playoffs. This is a very good and talented team with or w/o Brady.