This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
a ColtsDenverCinniLets see what they can do in the dome in INDY 
Thats right we done that once already this year, what was the score 
As I stated before, I would place SD over the Pats based on today's win and the way that they manhandled the Pats in Foxboro.What are you talking about above bolded as Indy kicked the Pats ### in Foxboro, not in the Dome. Beat the Pats by 20 in Foxboro, I guess that means they would beat the Pats by 40 at home.I would rank the Pats as the number four team in the AFC behind:
Da Colts
Denver
Cinni
Lets see what they can do in the dome in INDY
SSOG, if you're gonna come in here and rant like an idiot, at least do a little research before running yor mouth off. Duane Starks has been IR'ed, and the very same Hank Poteat helped bring stability to the SB champion Pats D last year.Every AFC playoff team wants the Patriots? Laughable.
You're right, I really need to do a little bit of research. Because, you know, it's not like that's what I did when I checked that the Pats are 1-4 against teams still in the AFC race. Or that the Pats have the 3rd worst pass defense in the entire NFL. Or that the Patriots are only .500 against teams outside the AFC East.I also don't see what's so laughable about the claim. Every other AFC contender has a drastically better defense than the Patriots. Indy, Denver, Cincy, San Diego, and Kansas City have better offenses, too, and Pitt and Jacksonville's offenses are both above average.SSOG, if you're gonna come in here and rant like an idiot, at least do a little research before running yor mouth off. Duane Starks has been IR'ed, and the very same Hank Poteat helped bring stability to the SB champion Pats D last year.
Every AFC playoff team wants the Patriots? Laughable.
Yeah, but they faced the worst offense in the entire NFL. If you throw out the first 13 games, then they played a team that has yet to score a point all season. No wonder New England shut them out.but....but....but....you have to throw the first 12 games out! those are irrelevent!!
They're 1-0 and haven't been scored on! Best Defense in the league!!!
above is one of the DUMBEST posts I ever read, total buffoonery. Soggy the NE Patriots are one of if not the very best NFL "****TEAM****" ever to play the game. Now they have there hearts and souls on winning another SB and have so much to prove by doing so. This is now a very hungry team who now know they can get another ring. They also knoiw exactly waht it takes to go and do it. Been there done that? Can ANYONE else say that right now? Fact is if the secondary plays well they will do it PERIOD. That the only question here. I must admit for real though that I am just not sure they can hold up back there with the guys playing right now. We could be one player away..Rodney Harrison or even Ty Law(no doubt they are wishing they paid that man now) had Harrison not been hurt this thing would be all but over and ring #4 would be being designed very soon. Now listen up soogy, all that foolisness to talking about weighted DVOA or whatever the hell it is...IS total meaningless NONSENSE. The best TEAM wins the big ones and the Pats are the BEST team around. Somehow someway Belichek wil coach up that secondary enough to get another ring..but i will also say that SD team looked very scary today.You're right, I really need to do a little bit of research. Because, you know, it's not like that's what I did when I checked that the Pats are 1-4 against teams still in the AFC race. Or that the Pats have the 3rd worst pass defense in the entire NFL. Or that the Patriots are only .500 against teams outside the AFC East.I also don't see what's so laughable about the claim. Every other AFC contender has a drastically better defense than the Patriots. Indy, Denver, Cincy, San Diego, and Kansas City have better offenses, too, and Pitt and Jacksonville's offenses are both above average.SSOG, if you're gonna come in here and rant like an idiot, at least do a little research before running yor mouth off. Duane Starks has been IR'ed, and the very same Hank Poteat helped bring stability to the SB champion Pats D last year.
Every AFC playoff team wants the Patriots? Laughable.
Here, there's an independent football site that charts EVERY SINGLE PLAY in every single game and compares them to the league averages, adjusting for time, down, distance, and opponant, and then ranks the teams based on how they perform compared to league average. It's www.footballoutsiders.com. Anyway, the football outsiders have a weighted average, that places more emphasis on recent games, and have tests that mathematically PROVE it's a better measure of a team's quality than yards, yards allowed, points, points allowed, record, strength of schedule, or any other known measure of a team. Here's how the AFC teams rank in "Weighted DVOA", as they call it.
Indy- #1.
Denver- #2
Cincy- #3
KC- #6
SD- #7
Jacksonville- #8
Pittsburgh- #12 (although this includes how they did with Maddox under center)
New England- #18
Oakland- #19
Miami- #20
If you look at how they've done over the whole season, rather than giving more weight to more recent games, New England actually falls BEHIND Miami.
Now, this doesn't include this week's performance, but Tampa Bay was ranked #13, so New England isn't going to get a huge boost from this week's game. So yes, I think every single AFC Team would like to face New England, and no, I don't think it's the least bit laughable. As I've already said, Indy, KC, SD, and Denver have already ROUTED New England. Cincy would rather face NE than Jax or Pitt (both of whom Cincy has lost to). Yes, I think New England would be the opponant of choice for the majority of the playoff-bound AFC squads.
You want some more standard comparisons? Fine. Denver is 6-2 against teams with winning records. Cincy's 3-3. Indy's 5-1. Jacksonville, 3-3. Kansas City, 3-4. NE, 3-5. San Diego, 5-3. So as you can see, nobody in the AFC Race has a worse record against quality teams than New England.
Here's another one. Lots of people know that nothing has a greater impact on who will win the game than winning the turnover battle. Cincy, Denver, and Indy are #1, 2, and 3 in the NFL in turnover margin. Jax is +8, Pitt and KC are +5, SD is -3, New England is -7, again the worst among teams still in the AFC race. New England's 15 takeaways are the SECOND WORST IN THE ENTIRE NFL- better only than Houston.
Whee, this is fun.
New England is +33 in scoring differential. Cincy, +115. Pitt, +76. Indy, +203. Jax, +47. Denver, +102. SD, +135. KC, +31. Okay, for once, you didn't finish dead last- you finished second to last, 2 points ahead of KC. Of course, KC has had a tougher schedule, but that's another matter.
Only Pitt has more losses in conference (and Pitt doesn't get to face Miami, Buffalo, and NYJ twice each).
Are these enough statistics for you? Or should I keep doing my research?
Let's face reality, here. The two teams that miss out on the wildcard will both be better teams than New England, and they won't even make the playoffs.
Want me to do some more research, still? Or should I just keep ranting like an idiot? Give me one objective statistic *FROM THIS SEASON* that says that the Pats are anything but the worst team of the 8 still standing in the AFC. Yes, they have 3 SB rings from the past 4 years. Newsflash: They do not start the game with 14 extra points on the scoreboard because they have SB rings. Those rings mean absolutely NOTHING in the context of this season. So don't even bother trying to pull those out. I want a STATISTIC, a MEASUREMENT, some sort of objective means of measuring teams, that tells me that the Patriots are anything but the worst team still standing in the AFC.
Where has THAT San Diego defense been all season? Holy cow.ya think i might be taking a bit from your avatar?I don't think you're helping Pats fans look rational, but thanks for your enthusiastic support.
Where has THAT San Diego defense been all season? Holy cow.
I can only hope. Only none of the non Pats fans will see it that way. Still, that guy must have spent all day coming up with that research. You've got to at least give him some credit there.ya think i might be taking a bit from your avatar?I don't think you're helping Pats fans look rational, but thanks for your enthusiastic support.
Where has THAT San Diego defense been all season? Holy cow.
:ignorelist:Anyways, I think the Pats have looked much better the last two weeks. Granted, one of those games was against the Bills, but the Buccaneers are a pretty solid football team with Carnell healthy.. the Pats just totally dominated them yesterday. NE is a pretty damn scary team right now.
Oh, shoot, you're right, I forgot to post the Patriots' ranks in *OTHER* objective statistical categories.Heart-
I'll throw out most of the season if all those defensive backs have come back off of IR. Have they? No? Then maybe the Patriots aren't getting healthy after all. Their biggest weakness is their secondary. Now, their secondary has looked pretty good the last two weeks when playing J.P. Losman and Chris Simms. Some might speculate that it's because the secondary is playing better. I would speculate that it's because the secondary was playing J.P. Losman and Chris Simms.Even if we say they're getting healthy, that's fine, let's say they're returning to their early-season form. What, exactly, was their early season form? Let's look at the schedule and see...
Last year the Pats had guys picked off the waiver wire that were starting in the secondary over the last half of last year--even Troy Brown was playing in the secondary. How did that work out for them?The reasons NE is doing better on defense now are:
Because they won their last game, you should know better!You're right, I really need to do a little bit of research. Because, you know, it's not like that's what I did when I checked that the Pats are 1-4 against teams still in the AFC race. Or that the Pats have the 3rd worst pass defense in the entire NFL. Or that the Patriots are only .500 against teams outside the AFC East.I also don't see what's so laughable about the claim. Every other AFC contender has a drastically better defense than the Patriots. Indy, Denver, Cincy, San Diego, and Kansas City have better offenses, too, and Pitt and Jacksonville's offenses are both above average.SSOG, if you're gonna come in here and rant like an idiot, at least do a little research before running yor mouth off. Duane Starks has been IR'ed, and the very same Hank Poteat helped bring stability to the SB champion Pats D last year.
Every AFC playoff team wants the Patriots? Laughable.
Here, there's an independent football site that charts EVERY SINGLE PLAY in every single game and compares them to the league averages, adjusting for time, down, distance, and opponant, and then ranks the teams based on how they perform compared to league average. It's www.footballoutsiders.com. Anyway, the football outsiders have a weighted average, that places more emphasis on recent games, and have tests that mathematically PROVE it's a better measure of a team's quality than yards, yards allowed, points, points allowed, record, strength of schedule, or any other known measure of a team. Here's how the AFC teams rank in "Weighted DVOA", as they call it.
Indy- #1.
Denver- #2
Cincy- #3
KC- #6
SD- #7
Jacksonville- #8
Pittsburgh- #12 (although this includes how they did with Maddox under center)
New England- #18
Oakland- #19
Miami- #20
If you look at how they've done over the whole season, rather than giving more weight to more recent games, New England actually falls BEHIND Miami.
Now, this doesn't include this week's performance, but Tampa Bay was ranked #13, so New England isn't going to get a huge boost from this week's game. So yes, I think every single AFC Team would like to face New England, and no, I don't think it's the least bit laughable. As I've already said, Indy, KC, SD, and Denver have already ROUTED New England. Cincy would rather face NE than Jax or Pitt (both of whom Cincy has lost to). Yes, I think New England would be the opponant of choice for the majority of the playoff-bound AFC squads.
You want some more standard comparisons? Fine. Denver is 6-2 against teams with winning records. Cincy's 3-3. Indy's 5-1. Jacksonville, 3-3. Kansas City, 3-4. NE, 3-5. San Diego, 5-3. So as you can see, nobody in the AFC Race has a worse record against quality teams than New England.
Here's another one. Lots of people know that nothing has a greater impact on who will win the game than winning the turnover battle. Cincy, Denver, and Indy are #1, 2, and 3 in the NFL in turnover margin. Jax is +8, Pitt and KC are +5, SD is -3, New England is -7, again the worst among teams still in the AFC race. New England's 15 takeaways are the SECOND WORST IN THE ENTIRE NFL- better only than Houston.
Whee, this is fun.
New England is +33 in scoring differential. Cincy, +115. Pitt, +76. Indy, +203. Jax, +47. Denver, +102. SD, +135. KC, +31. Okay, for once, you didn't finish dead last- you finished second to last, 2 points ahead of KC. Of course, KC has had a tougher schedule, but that's another matter.
Only Pitt has more losses in conference (and Pitt doesn't get to face Miami, Buffalo, and NYJ twice each).
Are these enough statistics for you? Or should I keep doing my research?
Let's face reality, here. The two teams that miss out on the wildcard will both be better teams than New England, and they won't even make the playoffs.
Want me to do some more research, still? Or should I just keep ranting like an idiot? Give me one objective statistic *FROM THIS SEASON* that says that the Pats are anything but the worst team of the 8 still standing in the AFC. Yes, they have 3 SB rings from the past 4 years. Newsflash: They do not start the game with 14 extra points on the scoreboard because they have SB rings. Those rings mean absolutely NOTHING in the context of this season. So don't even bother trying to pull those out. I want a STATISTIC, a MEASUREMENT, some sort of objective means of measuring teams, that tells me that the Patriots are anything but the worst team still standing in the AFC.
I told you that sarcasm thing would be lost on them.ya think i might be taking a bit from your avatar?I don't think you're helping Pats fans look rational, but thanks for your enthusiastic support.
Where has THAT San Diego defense been all season? Holy cow.
Hmmm Hmmm Hmmmmm Bwwahahhaahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!!It's happening again, and even The Chin is powerless to stop it!
The Raiders had Moss still, and got their best. But, the reality is the game was never in doubt. Raiders went up 7-0 on first drive, and then the pats dominated the rest of the way. Put it this way, the Colts were dominated by the chargers yesterday, and only lost by 9. That's football, where the score is not always an indication of the whole game. It is the only indicator that matters. Also, NE was dominant last year, and if memory serves correct, they won 3 games by more than 14 points. Yes, they lost to Carolina, at Carolina. A shame? It's nice to win them all, but after loosing both coordinators, 2 new middle linebackers, and having one new cornerA good win in Pittsburgh, with Rodney Harrison going down. In the SD game, NE was reeling, with 3 of the starting 4 fromt he secondary gone. The most optomistic people had NE starting 4-2, with a brutal stretch to start the season. Even with the injuries they came out 3-3, and are 6-2 since, losing to KC and Indy. IN the KC game, NE was horrible at the outset, and that is really the last half of bad football. Are the IR players back? Can IR players come back? Is that your extent of football knowledge? OF course they're not. But, instead of losing 6 d-backs, and on your 4th string and second string safeties, you have stability. You're not bringing a guy into practice on Tuesday and starting him against the Colts on Sunday, where he blows coverage every time. You don't have Duane Starks on a bum leg trying to gut it out. Now, you have healthy starters that know the system. Are the Jets great? Didn't they play a good game against Miami yesterday? The same MIami that beat the Chargers last week? Can't suck all that bad. Bills also beat the Chiefs. But, they are what they are. You're right there. They're 9-5. But, they're healthy, and getting used to the system, so they know where to be to make the plays. That's why turnovers and sacks are up. They're more aggressive. They'll likely hit the playoffs on a 5 game winning streak, and there's nobody that WANTS to play a 2 time defending SB champ with a nine game winning streak in the playoffs. It's foolish to think otherwise. I'd compare them to the 11-5 Pats of 2001. Both were 6-5. Actually the 01 team was 5-5. But, both hit their stride in the last 1/4 of the season. Will they win the SB? I can't say, but my point is that this is not the team that lost bad to SD (the same team that beat a healthy Colts team yesterday in the DOME). Same unies, but different team. Say what you want about them, and they are open to criticism. but the bottom line remains they have the most clutch QB in the league, one of the great coaches of all time, the most clutch kicker of all time, and a defense that is beginning to look dominant.
You might want to do some research on THIS point. In terms of YPG on offense, the Pats rank right up there with Indy, Denver, SD and KC - They are all in the uper tier. Jax and Pitt are MUCH further back.Points per game is a little closer, but I don't think thats indicative of offense strength for the Patriots, especially when you consider the fact that their defense has created so few turnovers most of the year.You're right, I really need to do a little bit of research. Indy, Denver, Cincy, San Diego, and Kansas City have better offenses, too, and Pitt and Jacksonville's offenses are both above average.SSOG, if you're gonna come in here and rant like an idiot, at least do a little research before running yor mouth off. Duane Starks has been IR'ed, and the very same Hank Poteat helped bring stability to the SB champion Pats D last year.
Every AFC playoff team wants the Patriots? Laughable.
Oh yes, let's talk about the offensive line, which gave up one sack to the leagues #2 defense yesterday. Lost 3 starters for most of the season, and was playing 2 rookies. Now, the only player missing is Dan Koppen. Check the Bills game to see how one dimensional they are. Check wha that same Bills D did to LJ and Holmes a few weeks ago at home. They can play run D. Also look at the FACT that Faulk has been out, Pass has been out, and Dillon has been out or banged up. We've had a dude named Heath Evans toting the rock, behind a line with 3 starters out. Think they'll improve getting all the Runners back, and 2 of the linemen? I think so. Put another team in the same injury situation. Think we're talking about them going 11-5? I think not. Have they been one dimensional on O? Yes, but it was by design, and they won with it. Now they're coming to playoff football with RB's without the wear of a season on their legs. They got through the adversity, and now it's actually something that may work out in their favor. We'll see how it all plays out, but when analyzing football, you've got to look how they got there. Look at the Chargers, with a similar record. No major injuries, just inconsistent play has put them where they are, and an inability to win close games. ANd they beat the Colts. I know, I know. colts had nothing to play for. Just a perfect season, and a shot at immortality (in sports terms). Tell you what. If that wont motivate you week in and out, you have a motivational problem. What about the Chiefs? They LOST in Buffalo, to that same crappy team nobody wants to give the Pats credit for beating. Why? They couldn't run the ball, where NE did. Denver? They lost to the Chiefs, but they do look good. I just believe the Snake will fold in the playoffs, just as he did the last 2 years. Did I cover most of the teams w/ similar records? See why the Pats are better?<---------------------- Shark Attack.
The Patriots are the team that everyone else on that side of the bracket wants to catch in the AFC playoffs. They're one-dimensional on offense and their D is mediocre.
As many people have tried explaining to me, regular season stats have no bearing on the post-season. To a certain extent this is true. The current Patriots team taking the field is not the same one that struggled the first two months of the season. They may not be the same team that won 3 Super Bowls either, for that matter.However, they have a ton of experience, great game planning, great coaching, and the wonder child at QB. No one will be doing cartwheels when they learn they have to play the Patriots in the playoffs.
If averages were all that mattered, the Chiefs and Chargers would be odds on favorites to win the Superbowl instead of on the outside looking in. Again, for the injuries NE has absorbed and the style of play they choose to play, I have no doubt they are able to run the ball better than than their regular season average.
Gee, why does Ponyboy want us to use these season stats again? And where's his mention of passing offense?Patriots: #1
Yeah, and you and other Patriots fans are so objective yourself.
When it comes to passing offense, those rankings can be easily explained. Denver has had a lead in most of their games, so they are usually running the ball in the 4th quarter. New England has been trailing in many games and playing catch-up, so they have had to throw the ball more than they would like, resulting in being first in passing offense. Does New England have the best passing offense in the NFL? I would say no and so would most. It is not as simple as saying, "they are first in that category, so that automatically makes them the best." You have to look at other factors.
As soon as stats win Super Bowls, give me a call. You'd think our last 3 titles would have proven to you that they mean nothing by now.You're right, I really need to do a little bit of research. Because, you know, it's not like that's what I did when I checked that the Pats are 1-4 against teams still in the AFC race. Or that the Pats have the 3rd worst pass defense in the entire NFL. Or that the Patriots are only .500 against teams outside the AFC East.I also don't see what's so laughable about the claim. Every other AFC contender has a drastically better defense than the Patriots. Indy, Denver, Cincy, San Diego, and Kansas City have better offenses, too, and Pitt and Jacksonville's offenses are both above average.SSOG, if you're gonna come in here and rant like an idiot, at least do a little research before running yor mouth off. Duane Starks has been IR'ed, and the very same Hank Poteat helped bring stability to the SB champion Pats D last year.
Every AFC playoff team wants the Patriots? Laughable.
Here, there's an independent football site that charts EVERY SINGLE PLAY in every single game and compares them to the league averages, adjusting for time, down, distance, and opponant, and then ranks the teams based on how they perform compared to league average. It's www.footballoutsiders.com. Anyway, the football outsiders have a weighted average, that places more emphasis on recent games, and have tests that mathematically PROVE it's a better measure of a team's quality than yards, yards allowed, points, points allowed, record, strength of schedule, or any other known measure of a team. Here's how the AFC teams rank in "Weighted DVOA", as they call it.
Indy- #1.
Denver- #2
Cincy- #3
KC- #6
SD- #7
Jacksonville- #8
Pittsburgh- #12 (although this includes how they did with Maddox under center)
New England- #18
Oakland- #19
Miami- #20
If you look at how they've done over the whole season, rather than giving more weight to more recent games, New England actually falls BEHIND Miami.
Now, this doesn't include this week's performance, but Tampa Bay was ranked #13, so New England isn't going to get a huge boost from this week's game. So yes, I think every single AFC Team would like to face New England, and no, I don't think it's the least bit laughable. As I've already said, Indy, KC, SD, and Denver have already ROUTED New England. Cincy would rather face NE than Jax or Pitt (both of whom Cincy has lost to). Yes, I think New England would be the opponant of choice for the majority of the playoff-bound AFC squads.
You want some more standard comparisons? Fine. Denver is 6-2 against teams with winning records. Cincy's 3-3. Indy's 5-1. Jacksonville, 3-3. Kansas City, 3-4. NE, 3-5. San Diego, 5-3. So as you can see, nobody in the AFC Race has a worse record against quality teams than New England.
Here's another one. Lots of people know that nothing has a greater impact on who will win the game than winning the turnover battle. Cincy, Denver, and Indy are #1, 2, and 3 in the NFL in turnover margin. Jax is +8, Pitt and KC are +5, SD is -3, New England is -7, again the worst among teams still in the AFC race. New England's 15 takeaways are the SECOND WORST IN THE ENTIRE NFL- better only than Houston.
Whee, this is fun.
New England is +33 in scoring differential. Cincy, +115. Pitt, +76. Indy, +203. Jax, +47. Denver, +102. SD, +135. KC, +31. Okay, for once, you didn't finish dead last- you finished second to last, 2 points ahead of KC. Of course, KC has had a tougher schedule, but that's another matter.
Only Pitt has more losses in conference (and Pitt doesn't get to face Miami, Buffalo, and NYJ twice each).
Are these enough statistics for you? Or should I keep doing my research?
Let's face reality, here. The two teams that miss out on the wildcard will both be better teams than New England, and they won't even make the playoffs.
Want me to do some more research, still? Or should I just keep ranting like an idiot? Give me one objective statistic *FROM THIS SEASON* that says that the Pats are anything but the worst team of the 8 still standing in the AFC. Yes, they have 3 SB rings from the past 4 years. Newsflash: They do not start the game with 14 extra points on the scoreboard because they have SB rings. Those rings mean absolutely NOTHING in the context of this season. So don't even bother trying to pull those out. I want a STATISTIC, a MEASUREMENT, some sort of objective means of measuring teams, that tells me that the Patriots are anything but the worst team still standing in the AFC.
The '97 Broncos did it.
1985AFC Wild Card RoundI think the lack of the first round bye will be their undoing. It's so hard to win two postseason games on the road to get to the Super Bowl. Damned near impossible.
Even though I'm a Broncos fan, I'm generally on your side of the debate here -- I think the Patriots are dangerous and have the best player in the game, and I don't want the Broncos to face them in the playoffs (even though Tom Brady is 1-3 against the Broncos, who always seem to give him trouble).That said, the two most recent Patriots Super Bowls don't support your claim. Statistically, the Patriots in 2003 and 2004 were the best (or among the best) team in the league both of those years. They were great in 2003 and truly dominant in 2004, and the numbers backed this up.As soon as stats win Super Bowls, give me a call. You'd think our last 3 titles would have proven to you that they mean nothing by now.
Note to Patriots' fans -- SSOG isn't just bring up random numbers to make the Patriots look bad.In fact, in both 2003 and 2004, this same website (FootballOutsiders.com) had the Patriots as a top team in the league! (In fact, the creator of these new stats is from New England and is a Patriots fan.)
This may be the best post I've ever read on these boards.They don't hand out out Lombardi's to statistcal leaders in Week 14. It's earned in the playoffs, and as we all know, anything can happen. The best statistical team doesn't always win; it's decided on the field.
The best team in the league? It's usually the one holding the trophy.
I know you're probably not responding to my particular posts (just a few posts above), but if you are ...The point is that one of the best statistically teams usually wins. In fact, in both 2003 and 2004 the Patriots were either #1 or #2 statistically. Those teams weren't plucky underdogs, and shouldn't be treated as such.This may be the best post I've ever read on these boards.They don't hand out out Lombardi's to statistcal leaders in Week 14. It's earned in the playoffs, and as we all know, anything can happen. The best statistical team doesn't always win; it's decided on the field.
SSOG reminds me of Kordell Stewart the year the Pats handed him his ####.
No, I'm not responding to your posts in particular. You seem to have a good head on your shoulders and can discuss football rationally.You're right, while those Patriot teams weren't the "plucky underdogs" you describe, they weren't expected to beat the Colts in the '03 AFCC, nor the Steelers in the '04 AFCC either. Alot of "experts" said the Panthers front 4 would tear Russ Hochstein and our "no-name" OL apart, and that Troy Brown and Hank Poteat couldn't possibly contain Donovan McNabb.I know you're probably not responding to my particular posts (just a few posts above), but if you are ...The point is that one of the best statistically teams usually wins. In fact, in both 2003 and 2004 the Patriots were either #1 or #2 statistically. Those teams weren't plucky underdogs, and shouldn't be treated as such.This may be the best post I've ever read on these boards.They don't hand out out Lombardi's to statistcal leaders in Week 14. It's earned in the playoffs, and as we all know, anything can happen. The best statistical team doesn't always win; it's decided on the field.
SSOG reminds me of Kordell Stewart the year the Pats handed him his ####.
I personally put the Patriots #2 right now based on what I see, but I don't think it's a good idea to dismiss the numbers side of things entirely (which you may not be doing anyway).
I completely agree ... the Patriots are heating up at the right time and look great. I could dismiss the Jets and Bills wins based on quarterback play and all that, but not the Tampa win.I guess it depends who you talk to, but I fully expected the Patriots to beat both the Colts and Steelers the last 2 years.No, I'm not responding to your posts in particular. You seem to have a good head on your shoulders and can discuss football rationally.You're right, while those Patriot teams weren't the "plucky underdogs" you describe, they weren't expected to beat the Colts in the '03 AFCC, nor the Steelers in the '04 AFCC either. Alot of "experts" said the Panthers front 4 would tear Russ Hochstein and our "no-name" OL apart, and that Troy Brown and Hank Poteat couldn't possibly contain Donovan McNabb.I know you're probably not responding to my particular posts (just a few posts above), but if you are ...The point is that one of the best statistically teams usually wins. In fact, in both 2003 and 2004 the Patriots were either #1 or #2 statistically. Those teams weren't plucky underdogs, and shouldn't be treated as such.This may be the best post I've ever read on these boards.They don't hand out out Lombardi's to statistcal leaders in Week 14. It's earned in the playoffs, and as we all know, anything can happen. The best statistical team doesn't always win; it's decided on the field.
SSOG reminds me of Kordell Stewart the year the Pats handed him his ####.
I personally put the Patriots #2 right now based on what I see, but I don't think it's a good idea to dismiss the numbers side of things entirely (which you may not be doing anyway).
As while I'm not dismissing numbers, I'm not being completely ignorant to real football and trying to eliminate teams based on stats and records, like someone in particular. Ask the '01 Rams what stats'll get ya. What did 15-1 get the Steelers last year?
Anyone with a rational bone in their body knows that trends and stats go out the window come playoff time. And while some ignorant posters in here might make light of heart and determination, you can bet NFL players don't.
(I don't think you can fault me too much for not seeing the 2001 Super Bowl run coming! )
