Patriots, what's so impressive? (1 Viewer)

[ChromeWeasel]

NOTE TO ALL: I'm a Cowboys fan.

The point was that I can understand how some Patriots fans felt slighted about not getting enough respect, but the way that a few of them handled it may have actually made the situation worse. A number of respected posters were a bit turned off by this in both 2001 and 2003 (not so much in 2004). It was sort of a snowball effect thing.

Depends how you look at it. Pats fans had to deal with a whole season of crap after Pats beat the Rams. "if it was a 10 games series the Rams win 9 times" "Pats are the worst SB champ in history" etc... That went on all year. To this day we still have idiots saying that the tuck rule won the Pats the superbowl.People see things as they want to see them. I see the most Pats fans replying to comments like those, and a few yahoos that trumpet things on their own. Other people don't care and just want to hate fans of the champs. At this point its not worth worrying about what people on a message board think.

 

[PMENFAN]

NE Got rolled by the AFC West (1-3, beat only the Raiders at home). Luckily for the Pats they played in the easiest division in the AFC, otherwise there would be no playoffs at all. Heck they were 4 bad goal line play calls in Miami from losing that bad division.

Easiest division in football? Didn't indy have J'ville (9 of 12 wins against losing clubs), Tenn, and Houston to beat up on? Seattle had AZ, St. Louis and SF. How about that Mighty Bears division? Cinci had Balt and Cleve. The NFC east is riddled with mediocrity, as evidenced by their early exit from the playoffs. While the Chiefs and Chargers played great ball in spurts, they couldn't even make the playoffs. In fact, if it weren't for Miami rolling over the Chargers, IN SD, the Chargers are likely in the playoffs and Pittsburgh is watching. There are no 'super' divisions in football. And being the champs, everybody gets up for their day against the Pats, and you get their best game. The Pats would have made the playoffs in any division in football, and I think they proved that by rollilng the 12-4 Jags last week. Wouldn't that have put them at better than 12-4 in that same schedule? I mean they killed the team that got to 12-4. Your last line here is particularly ignorant. Miami lost the first game, and won the second. They won the second for one reason, NE didn't play their starters for even a half, and still only lost by 2, with a chance to tie it on a 2 point conversion at the end, with their 3rd string rookie QB leading the way. But, what may have been wasn't, and the Pats are in. Deal with it. Now, it's somebodies job to knock them out. Go for it!!!!

 

[Ghost Rider]

Easiest division in football? Didn't indy have J'ville (9 of 12 wins against losing clubs), Tenn, and Houston to beat up on? Seattle had AZ, St. Louis and SF. How about that Mighty Bears division? Cinci had Balt and Cleve. The NFC east is riddled with mediocrity, as evidenced by their early exit from the playoffs. While the Chiefs and Chargers played great ball in spurts, they couldn't even make the playoffs. In fact, if it weren't for Miami rolling over the Chargers, IN SD, the Chargers are likely in the playoffs and Pittsburgh is watching. There are no 'super' divisions in football. And being the champs, everybody gets up for their day against the Pats, and you get their best game. The Pats would have made the playoffs in any division in football, and I think they proved that by rollilng the 12-4 Jags last week. Wouldn't that have put them at better than 12-4 in that same schedule? I mean they killed the team that got to 12-4.

Kansas City and San Diego didn't make the playoffs because they played in the AFC West, which had a difficult schedule. The AFC West played the NFC East. Considering those were the two best divisions in football, I would say they had it a little more rough than the average AFC East team. The Jags were probably the worst 12-4 team ever. I mean, look at who they played the last two months of the season. They were eeking out win after win over terrible teams. I was particulary impressed by their 10-9 win over the 49ers. Jacksonville would have gotten killed by any of the 11 playoff teams in the first round. And if the Jags had had the schedule the teams in the AFC West had, I submit they would have been lucky to go 8-8.

 

[Broncoholic]

To the Saragin ratings...

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl05.htm

HOME ADVANTAGE= 3.52

Denver Broncos = 30.95

New England Patriots = 26.16

Spread should be Broncos -8

 

[jwvdcw]

I don't get what is so impressive about the Pats this year. Don't give me the superbowl talk cause I'm factoring that in and again, I'm talking about THIS YEAR. Specifically the past 6 weeks where everybody has been drinking the Patriot koolaid again. Their current resurgence has more to do with their schedule. Look who they played.

Jets, Bills, Bucs, Jets, Dolphins to finish off the season. Take the Dolphins game out since they rested starters. That's not so overly impressive other than the Bucs but Belichek should be able to beat a QB like Simms without blinking.

And playing Jax in the first round, as impressive as that was, did you see Jax's schedule after their bye week:

Rams-6, Texans-2, Ravens-6, Titans-4, Cards-5, Browns-6, Indy-14, 49ers-4, Texans-2, Titans-4

That's a combined 53-107, take out Indy and that's 39-105 for 8/9 wins. Jax was the biggest fraud this year, add to that Leftwich coming back early off injury..........doesn't make the Pats look as tough as they are.

The only thing that I find scary about the Pats is that they may have gained back the swaggar of a champion, which I still think talent trumps.

Jacksonville played Seattle, Indy twice, Cincy, Denver, and PIttsburgh this year. Just because they played a lot of their tougher games earlier in the year doesn't discount their schedule.

 

[jwvdcw]

One word - Belicheck. I think he's the #1 coach of all time for coming up with a one-off game plan to beat a team in the playoffs. I forget who said it, but the quote goes something like: "he can beat your'n with his'n and he can beat his'n with your'n" - thats belicheck to a T. Whatever the gameplan is to stop Denver's zone blocking scheme, my guess is that it'll be something that Denver hasn't seen before. Just like with Ben and Manning last year, Im sure Belicheck will have some disguised coverages and blitzes to induce Plummer into bad decisions. Im sure the Pats will have picked up on some of the telltale signs of whether Denver is faking the blitz or coming with 6 or 7 when they crowd the line.

Perhaps most importantly, Belicheck seems to have the complete attention of his team - they trust the game plan always execute it flawlessly in the playoffs. As long as Belicheck and co are right about the game plan, the players will make it work.

Just a friendly reminder:Bellicheck has a losing career record without Tom Brady. Bellicheck's Pats were 0-2 in 2001 before Brady took over in week 3.

 

[Kit Fisto]

All these statistics and trends go out the window when the whistle blows for the opening kickoff. What teams did in Week 6, or against this opponent or that one is irrelevant. We should all know that by now. Playoff football is different... it just is. Intensity gets turned up, and chemistry and experience play big parts.

Here's how I break it down...

OL: Denver's run game is nasty as everyone knows, but the Pats do an outstanding job giving Brady the time he needs to find the open receiver, despite the fact that a backup and two rookies are in there. Edge: Denver.

DL: Richard Seymour is the difference here. Denver fans like to display the 3-1 record they hold over these Pats. One thing that'll be different Saturday: Seymour will be playing. He has never played in Denver. He elevates the play of those around him. Edge: New England.

LBs: McGinest, Vrabel, Bruschi and Colvin are the best 4-some in the game. Individually, maybe not so much, but as a unit... wow! Denver has Ian Gold, Al Wilson and DJ Williams but they don't have 4, and they don't play to the level of the Pats. Edge: New England.

DB's: While the New England secondary has gelled and is playing the best ball they have all season, the edge goes to the Broncos here, with Champ and Lynch patrolling. If Harrison were back there, it might be different, but he's not. Edge: Denver.

Ks: While Elam is great and can hit the long ones, there's no better kicker in the game right now than Vinatieri. Edge: New England.

P: Todd Sauerbrun is a monster, but Josh Miller's no slouch. Still... Edge: Denver.

RBs: Dillon is slowing down, but Faulk is very dangerous coming out of the backfield. Anderson is a load and Bell can house it at any time. Edge: Denver.

WRs: Rod Smith is a Pro Bowler but Lelie is one-dimensional. Charlie Adams, Devoe and Watts scare no one. Branch/Smith is a wash. Givens is more consistent than Lelie. TDs in 6 straight playoff games. Lelie scored once all year. New England's 3rd WR: Troy Brown, Tim Dwight, Andre Davis... all capable of making the big play if Branch and Givens get shut down. Denver can't say the same about Devoe, Watts and Adams. Edge: New England.

TE's: Ben Watson is a beast. Daniel Graham can get downfeild as well. Alexander and Putzier are solid, move-the-chains TEs. They're big contributors, sure, but Watson and Graham are weapons. Don't discount Vrabel or Ashworth here either! Edge: New England.

QBs: Tom Brady is a future HOFer with ice water in his veins. Jake Plummer, while having a respectable year, hasn't won a game this big, ever. Brady has done it time and time again. Slam dunk. Edge: New England.

C: Shanahan has 2 rings, Belichick has 3. Shanahan's came with John Elway and Terrell Davis; Belichick's have come with this current core. Wasn't it only a year or two ago that people were saying Shanahan was all smoke and mirrors, how he couldn't win without Elway? Broncos fans were ready to run him out of town. Bill always finds a way to shut down what each opponent does best. Edge: New England.

12th man: Obviously, Denver has had 2 weeks to rest, and will be playing in front of a rabid, home-game starved fan base, ready to knock off the champs. But Bill planned for the possiblity of this game in July, bank on it. Still... Edge: Denver

That's Patriots 7, Broncos 5. Crazy close. A Broncos fan could break it down and come away Broncos 7, Patriots 5. Not that any of this means one team will win or not, it's just the opinion of Kit Fisto.

So, in my final analysis, I can honestly say that this will be a close game of two very talented teams, but I believe the outcome will be determined by whatever team plays the most disciplined, mistake-free football. My money's on New England until they prove otherwise.

 

[SSOG]

DL: Richard Seymour is the difference here. Denver fans like to display the 3-1 record they hold over these Pats. One thing that'll be different Saturday: Seymour will be playing. He has never played in Denver. He elevates the play of those around him. Edge: New England.

LBs: McGinest, Vrabel, Bruschi and Colvin are the best 4-some in the game. Individually, maybe not so much, but as a unit... wow! Denver has Ian Gold, Al Wilson and DJ Williams but they don't have 4, and they don't play to the level of the Pats. Edge: New England.

I don't get it. Denver is penalized for only having 3 LBs to New England's 4? But New England isn't penalized for having 3 DLs to Denver's 4? Do you think that Seymour and whoever else plays on NE's line can get a better passrush with just the 3 of them than Denver's foursome? Because I sure don't. Do you think that they are better against the run than Denver's foursome? Because I don't think so. Do you think if you replaced Denver's 4 guys with NE's 3, and Denver only played with 10 defensive players, that their defense would get better or worse?Either you give Denver the edge on the DL, because they have more bodies, or you look at each position on a per-person basis. And I honestly believe that Denver's LBs are, player for player, ahead of New England's. Al Wilson is an ALL-PRO, second behind only Brian Urlacher this season. Who on New England can match that? Bruschi has ONE career pro bowl appearance, while Wilson has 3 in the last 4 years. McGinest, Vrabel, and Colvin are all very good linebackers, but D.J. Williams finished second in defensive rookie of the year voting and has the looks of a perennial pro-bowler... and Ian Gold is even better!

FWIW, I do agree that New England's line is better on a per-player basis. Richard Seymour is better than Denver's equivalent (big guy, great against the run but still dominant rushing the passer)- Trevor Pryce. Likewise, Wilfork is a better space eater than Denver's equivalent, Gerard Warren (who is very underrated). Michael Meyers is solid but unspectacular, and Courtney Brown is a little bit overrated. Edge: New England.

 

[SSOG]

There are a lot of Patriots who don't understand what "lose and go home" means. Not so with the Denver Broncos. Al Wilson, Champ Bailey, Mike Anderson, Ashley Lelie, the entire DL except for Pryce... none of these guys have ever won a playoff game, but they've certainly LOST their fair share. One would think that that would only make them hungrier. Meanwhile, New England has very few players left on their roster who know what it's like to lose a playoff game. If you want to talk about intangibles, then you've got to talk about "hunger", and Denver's all over it there.

I think that the Broncos are the better team this year and will most likely win, but this "logic" is baffling.

The Broncos have an advantage because they've FAILED in the postseason multiple times? By this logic, the Bills should have dominated in that 4th try in the Super Bowl, no?

Now I've heard everything.

Ask a 1972 Dolphin why they went undefeated that season, and they will all universally say it was because they lost the superbowl in 1971. Every single one of them.Ask the Philadelphia Eagles what one of their biggest motivators was to enable them to make 4 straight NFCCs, and they will say that it was LOSING those games that motivated them, not winning the games that preceded them.

Would Denver have played with such passion against Green Bay if Elway had won a superbowl before? In fact, Elway was 0-3 in the SB, and Favre was 1-0. Favre was the better QB, coming off multiple league MVPs and a superbowl MVP, yet who played with more passion in that game?

I think there are a lot of instances of LOSING just making a team want it that much more. I don't think there are many instances of WINNING making a team want it that much more.

 

[Kit Fisto]

I don't think there are many instances of WINNING making a team want it that much more.

You're playing one Saturday night.

 

[Kit Fisto]

DL: Richard Seymour is the difference here. Denver fans like to display the 3-1 record they hold over these Pats. One thing that'll be different Saturday: Seymour will be playing. He has never played in Denver. He elevates the play of those around him. Edge: New England.

LBs: McGinest, Vrabel, Bruschi and Colvin are the best 4-some in the game. Individually, maybe not so much, but as a unit... wow! Denver has Ian Gold, Al Wilson and DJ Williams but they don't have 4, and they don't play to the level of the Pats. Edge: New England.

I don't get it. Denver is penalized for only having 3 LBs to New England's 4? But New England isn't penalized for having 3 DLs to Denver's 4? Do you think that Seymour and whoever else plays on NE's line can get a better passrush with just the 3 of them than Denver's foursome? Because I sure don't. Do you think that they are better against the run than Denver's foursome? Because I don't think so. Do you think if you replaced Denver's 4 guys with NE's 3, and Denver only played with 10 defensive players, that their defense would get better or worse?Either you give Denver the edge on the DL, because they have more bodies, or you look at each position on a per-person basis. And I honestly believe that Denver's LBs are, player for player, ahead of New England's. Al Wilson is an ALL-PRO, second behind only Brian Urlacher this season. Who on New England can match that? Bruschi has ONE career pro bowl appearance, while Wilson has 3 in the last 4 years. McGinest, Vrabel, and Colvin are all very good linebackers, but D.J. Williams finished second in defensive rookie of the year voting and has the looks of a perennial pro-bowler... and Ian Gold is even better!

FWIW, I do agree that New England's line is better on a per-player basis. Richard Seymour is better than Denver's equivalent (big guy, great against the run but still dominant rushing the passer)- Trevor Pryce. Likewise, Wilfork is a better space eater than Denver's equivalent, Gerard Warren (who is very underrated). Michael Meyers is solid but unspectacular, and Courtney Brown is a little bit overrated. Edge: New England.

McGinest, Colvin and Vrabel's ability to play end tipped the LB scales here, in my opinion. Their versatility to play LB or DE is what makes New England's defensive schemes so confusing. You just don't know what their in, a 4-3 or 3-4. I'm not discounting Wilson, Gold and Williams' ability at all. They are great LBs, even Pro Bowlers. Player for player, individual awards to individual awards, yes Denver's LBs are ahead. It's the unit I considered.

 

[SSOG]

I don't think there are many instances of WINNING making a team want it that much more.

You're playing one Saturday night.

Again, I think hunger has had very little to do with the Patriots current winning streak. I think it's simply a function of being the best team in the NFL.To be honest, New England won their first SB, and then they did nothing next season. 9-7, and a good view of the playoffs on their plasma TVs. And *THEN* they won two in a row. If winning that first made them hungrier, then why didn't they win the second, too? Especially since Belichick says himself that the 2002 Pats team was better than the 2001 version.

I think sitting at home might have been more of a motivator than winning that first SB, at least as far as this current streak is concerned.

Also, someone else has made the point that the 10-game win streak is ENTIRELY overblown, since the Patriots sat out of the playoffs one season. During the Cowboys 3-in-4 span, they won the SB 3 times, and in the fourth year they made the NFCC game. Is that a LESS impressive accomplishment than winning 3 out of 4 and sitting at home that last year? Dallas's win streak never topped 7, but it was still the more impressive accomplishment.

Count me in the camp that SITTING OUT OF THE PLAYOFFS is even worse than a loss in the playoffs.

Their current streak of 7 straight wins is pretty darn impressive, though.

 

[djcolts]

Count me in the camp that SITTING OUT OF THE PLAYOFFS is even worse than a loss in the playoffs.

Most people don't see it that way - people remember bad playoff losses - they don't remember teams or QBs missing the playoffs in a given year.

 

[SSOG]

Count me in the camp that SITTING OUT OF THE PLAYOFFS is even worse than a loss in the playoffs.

Most people don't see it that way - people remember bad playoff losses - they don't remember teams or QBs missing the playoffs in a given year.

Well, then I disagree with most people. I would have much rather rooted for the Denver Broncos over the last 2 seasons than the Detroit Lions. And to be honest, I drastically preferred the last two seasons over the one before, where Denver was 9-7 and sat at home on a tiebreaker.Winning Playoff Teams > Losing Playoff Teams > Non-Playoff teams.

Edit: I'm assuming you're a Colts fan, so tell me... which do you prefer, the recent seasons where Indy got blown out by New England, or the previous seasons where Indy never made the playoffs in the first place?

 

[Kit Fisto]

And to be honest, I drastically preferred the last two seasons over the one before, where Denver was 9-7 and sat at home on a tiebreaker.

Funny you should mention this...The year that the Patriots missed the playoffs (the earlier post about how their 10-game streak isn't all that impressive), they sat home after finishing 9-7 and losing out on the tie-breaker (Jets).

So New England's run isn't as impressive as Dallas' run? Does that make it any less impressive? 10 wins in a row is 10 wins in a row, period. That means you've won 3 Super Bowls, which is impressive in and of itself.

Not directly intended for you SSOG, but please-please-please stop trying to justify a win for the Broncos because of this or that meaningless stat or trend... it will be decided on the field by the team that displays the most grace under pressure and discipline.

 

[djcolts]

Count me in the camp that SITTING OUT OF THE PLAYOFFS is even worse than a loss in the playoffs.

Most people don't see it that way - people remember bad playoff losses - they don't remember teams or QBs missing the playoffs in a given year.

Well, then I disagree with most people. I would have much rather rooted for the Denver Broncos over the last 2 seasons than the Detroit Lions. And to be honest, I drastically preferred the last two seasons over the one before, where Denver was 9-7 and sat at home on a tiebreaker.Winning Playoff Teams > Losing Playoff Teams > Non-Playoff teams.

Edit: I'm assuming you're a Colts fan, so tell me... which do you prefer, the recent seasons where Indy got blown out by New England, or the previous seasons where Indy never made the playoffs in the first place?

I'm not talking about what I prefer. But - (for example) Manning took a ton of heat for the 41-0 loss to the Jets in the playoffs (and that was awful - don't get me wrong) - but they got into the playoffs with a mediocre D, Edge at 50%, and one receiving threat. But, Mannning's rep took a bigger hit by making the playoffs and then having a horrible game (which the whole team stunk - no one played well that day) than if they had missed the playoffs as a 9-7 team.Edit: This would be an interesting poll. Steve Young (before the 41-0 debacle) called the 2002 Colts the worst playoff team in NFL history. Would you rather be a fan of the worst playoff team in history or the best non-playoff team in history? I think based on what I've described in the previous paragraph - I'm thinking best non-playoff team would win here.

 

[SSOG]

And to be honest, I drastically preferred the last two seasons over the one before, where Denver was 9-7 and sat at home on a tiebreaker.

Funny you should mention this...The year that the Patriots missed the playoffs (the earlier post about how their 10-game streak isn't all that impressive), they sat home after finishing 9-7 and losing out on the tie-breaker (Jets).

So New England's run isn't as impressive as Dallas' run? Does that make it any less impressive? 10 wins in a row is 10 wins in a row, period. That means you've won 3 Super Bowls, which is impressive in and of itself.

Not directly intended for you SSOG, but please-please-please stop trying to justify a win for the Broncos because of this or that meaningless stat or trend... it will be decided on the field by the team that displays the most grace under pressure and discipline.

I know that the Pats also sat at home after finishing 9-7. I still remember all the AFC Wildcard tiebreaker scenarios from that season. Denver was in if Miami beat New England, Green Bay beat NYJ, and Atlanta beat Cleveland... *OR* Denver was in if New England beat Miami, NYJ beat Green Bay, and Atlanta beat Cleveland. We had good tiebreakers over NE and Miami, but bad tiebreakers over the Jets and Browns, so we wanted NE and Mia in the wildcard hunt, but not NYJ or Cle.As an aside, that was a CRAZY season. 5 teams (nearly a third of the conference!) wound up tied at 9-7 in the AFC. Three of those teams were in the AFC East. So there was a three-way tie for the AFC East championship, and then after that was broken, we were left with a 4-way tie for the final wildcard. Crazy.

Anyway, no, New England's run is EXTREMELY impressive. One of the most impressive in football history. That's just it, I can appreciate an event without making it out to be the best ever. Mainstream media lowers everyone's IQ by insisting that everything must be the most superlative ever. They don't trust us to appreciate an accomplishment solely on its own merits.

Trust me, I appreciate New England's run. It is an historic run, just like all of the runs that preceded it. It will still be remembered and referred to 30 years from now. I just don't buy that it's the greatest playoff accomplishment ever- or even of the past decade or so.

 

[thesurfshop19]

And to be honest, I drastically preferred the last two seasons over the one before, where Denver was 9-7 and sat at home on a tiebreaker.

10 wins in a row is 10 wins in a row, period.meaningless stat or trend...

I think SSOG's point is that the 10-game winning streak isn't in and of itself impressive. It's simply a byproduct of the truly amazing accomplishment, which is winning 3 Super Bowls in 4 years.

Would you rather have your team go to the AFC/NFC championship game in the one non-title year, or would you prefer to keep a streak intact and miss the playoffs? Not really a tough call IMO.

 

[SSOG]

And to be honest, I drastically preferred the last two seasons over the one before, where Denver was 9-7 and sat at home on a tiebreaker.

10 wins in a row is 10 wins in a row, period.meaningless stat or trend...

I think SSOG's point is that the 10-game winning streak isn't in and of itself impressive. It's simply a byproduct of the truly amazing accomplishment, which is winning 3 Super Bowls in 4 years.

Would you rather have your team go to the AFC/NFC championship game in the one non-title year, or would you prefer to keep a streak intact and miss the playoffs? Not really a tough call IMO.

Bingo. 11-1 or 12-1 would have been far more impressive than this 10-0 stuff. Heck, even 10-1 would have been more impressive, since at least they MADE the playoffs.