ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
It seems increasingly the case that the regular season has little to do with post-season success. Best record, domination during the regular season, locking up a playoff berth early, getting a bye and HFA guarantee little in terms of post-season success. Rather, it seems almost the contrary: teams that struggle to make the playoffs but who have to weather adversity to fight their way in seem to be at an advantage in the playoffs over teams that have coasted during the regular season.
We've seen it over and over again over the past decade. Pittsburgh went 15-1 in 2004 but couldn't get to the SB with HFA. In 2005 they had to win out just to make the playoffs as the #6 seed, and then won the SB having to play 3 road games.
In 2005 Indy was the #1 seed but lost to #6 Pittsburgh (see above). But in 2006 they were the #3 seed, and weathered a rough stretch at the end of the season when their run defense got shreeded. They had to go on the road to Baltimore and win a 15-12 sqeeker before surviving against NE the next week.
The Giants in 2007 and 2011 had to go on the road to win, and were no sure things for playoffs. The 2011 team had to play for their lives to win their way into the post-season. Similarly, the 2010 Packers had to play their way into the playoffs as a wild card before winning it all, whereas the 2011 team went 15-1 and got the #1 seed but got bounced by those same Giants.
This year has been no exception. Baltimore started out 9-2 with a number of wins coming with a lot of lucky breaks, and then nearly fell apart down the stretch. They lost 3 games in a row for the first time in many years, including 2 home games for the first time in a long, long time, and were blown out at home by Denver. They lost 4 out of their last 5 games. But they regrouped when they had to, winning against the Giants at home to win the AFC North, and then they regrouped and went on the road and started building confidence slowly. It almost seems better to play 3 games, starting with a wild card game against a fairly week opponent, to get a confidence builder under your belt, than to have a bye week.
Something to think about for next year. Maybe the goal shouldb't be to go 14-2 and dominate the regular season, scoring 550 points and having a 200 point differential over the rest of the league. Maybe we'd be better off scraping and fighting our way in. I don't know. But 12-4, 17-0, 14-2, 13-3 and 12-4 with 4 AFCCG appearances, 3 #1 seeds, and 2 SB appearances hasn't worked in terms of winning it all. Maybe it's just been bad breaks. Maybe not.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "OVER Loading at ANY position can create a Fatal Advantage. THAT is what interests ME. Attacking With Concentrated Force. THAT is what WINS. In the words ~ more or less ~ of General Patton: 'I'm fighting a WAR, here. Let the B*****ES worry about their FLANKS.' " - Off the Grid
"The key to any successful organization is to anticipate things, not react to them." - Michael Lombardi
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
It seems increasingly the case that the regular season has little to do with post-season success. Best record, domination during the regular season, locking up a playoff berth early, getting a bye and HFA guarantee little in terms of post-season success. Rather, it seems almost the contrary: teams that struggle to make the playoffs but who have to weather adversity to fight their way in seem to be at an advantage in the playoffs over teams that have coasted during the regular season.
We've seen it over and over again over the past decade. Pittsburgh went 15-1 in 2004 but couldn't get to the SB with HFA. In 2005 they had to win out just to make the playoffs as the #6 seed, and then won the SB having to play 3 road games.
In 2005 Indy was the #1 seed but lost to #6 Pittsburgh (see above). But in 2006 they were the #3 seed, and weathered a rough stretch at the end of the season when their run defense got shreeded. They had to go on the road to Baltimore and win a 15-12 sqeeker before surviving against NE the next week.
The Giants in 2007 and 2011 had to go on the road to win, and were no sure things for playoffs. The 2011 team had to play for their lives to win their way into the post-season. Similarly, the 2010 Packers had to play their way into the playoffs as a wild card before winning it all, whereas the 2011 team went 15-1 and got the #1 seed but got bounced by those same Giants.
This year has been no exception. Baltimore started out 9-2 with a number of wins coming with a lot of lucky breaks, and then nearly fell apart down the stretch. They lost 3 games in a row for the first time in many years, including 2 home games for the first time in a long, long time, and were blown out at home by Denver. They lost 4 out of their last 5 games. But they regrouped when they had to, winning against the Giants at home to win the AFC North, and then they regrouped and went on the road and started building confidence slowly. It almost seems better to play 3 games, starting with a wild card game against a fairly week opponent, to get a confidence builder under your belt, than to have a bye week.
Something to think about for next year. Maybe the goal shouldb't be to go 14-2 and dominate the regular season, scoring 550 points and having a 200 point differential over the rest of the league. Maybe we'd be better off scraping and fighting our way in. I don't know. But 12-4, 17-0, 14-2, 13-3 and 12-4 with 4 AFCCG appearances, 3 #1 seeds, and 2 SB appearances hasn't worked in terms of winning it all. Maybe it's just been bad breaks. Maybe not.
At the start of the season, when we only about 50%, there was various degrees of dismay and some outright panic.
Jaws seemed to some it up for me when he said he (BB) doesnt care about August sept, he cares about Dec - Feb and it appeared to be right , until we fell off the cliff yesterday.
It seems increasingly the case that the regular season has little to do with post-season success. Best record, domination during the regular season, locking up a playoff berth early, getting a bye and HFA guarantee little in terms of post-season success. Rather, it seems almost the contrary: teams that struggle to make the playoffs but who have to weather adversity to fight their way in seem to be at an advantage in the playoffs over teams that have coasted during the regular season.
We've seen it over and over again over the past decade. Pittsburgh went 15-1 in 2004 but couldn't get to the SB with HFA. In 2005 they had to win out just to make the playoffs as the #6 seed, and then won the SB having to play 3 road games.
In 2005 Indy was the #1 seed but lost to #6 Pittsburgh (see above). But in 2006 they were the #3 seed, and weathered a rough stretch at the end of the season when their run defense got shreeded. They had to go on the road to Baltimore and win a 15-12 sqeeker before surviving against NE the next week.
The Giants in 2007 and 2011 had to go on the road to win, and were no sure things for playoffs. The 2011 team had to play for their lives to win their way into the post-season. Similarly, the 2010 Packers had to play their way into the playoffs as a wild card before winning it all, whereas the 2011 team went 15-1 and got the #1 seed but got bounced by those same Giants.
This year has been no exception. Baltimore started out 9-2 with a number of wins coming with a lot of lucky breaks, and then nearly fell apart down the stretch. They lost 3 games in a row for the first time in many years, including 2 home games for the first time in a long, long time, and were blown out at home by Denver. They lost 4 out of their last 5 games. But they regrouped when they had to, winning against the Giants at home to win the AFC North, and then they regrouped and went on the road and started building confidence slowly. It almost seems better to play 3 games, starting with a wild card game against a fairly week opponent, to get a confidence builder under your belt, than to have a bye week.
Something to think about for next year. Maybe the goal shouldb't be to go 14-2 and dominate the regular season, scoring 550 points and having a 200 point differential over the rest of the league. Maybe we'd be better off scraping and fighting our way in. I don't know. But 12-4, 17-0, 14-2, 13-3 and 12-4 with 4 AFCCG appearances, 3 #1 seeds, and 2 SB appearances hasn't worked in terms of winning it all. Maybe it's just been bad breaks. Maybe not.
I can't speak to the other teams, but I've felt all season that we are built to exploit the weaknesses of poor teams (and Houston) on both offense and defense but that we lack the playmaking and explosivity to cause problems for the better teams. Our roster and schemes are too safe. We need that, it's a staple of our success, but to push beyond where we are now (middle of the leaders pack), we need speed and more game breaking ability.
Agreed. It makes you wonder why I even get mad or excited during the regular season games. They honestly don't mean that much.
If the Ravens win the SB this year, that's 3 of the last 6 superbowl winners that we're mediocre teams. (Giants x2, Ravens) and another mediocre team was close to being the fourth. (Cardinals)
I can't speak to the other teams, but I've felt all season that we are built to exploit the weaknesses of poor teams (and Houston) on both offense and defense but that we lack the playmaking and explosivity to cause problems for the better teams. Our roster and schemes are too safe. We need that, it's a staple of our success, but to push beyond where we are now (middle of the leaders pack), we need speed and more game breaking ability.
I think you make a valid point - that playoff football is different from regular season football. This could be the result of several factors, among them being 1) better competition 2) higher stakes and different approaches to preparation 3) a larger body of practice work and reps.
For an example of an offense who's passing game can cause problems for better teams, look no further than Atlanta. Hung 30 on Seattle and despite blowing it against San Francisco in the end, they scored 3 TDs and a field goal. So they scored 27 ppg against the #1 and #2 scoring defenses in the NFL this year. What was their "formula"?
I think you make a valid point - that playoff football is different from regular season football. This could be the result of several factors, among them being 1) better competition 2) higher stakes and different approaches to preparation 3) a larger body of practice work and reps.
For an example of an offense who's passing game can cause problems for better teams, look no further than Atlanta. Hung 30 on Seattle and despite blowing it against San Francisco in the end, they scored 3 TDs and a field goal. So they scored 27 ppg against the #1 and #2 scoring defenses in the NFL this year. What was their "formula"?
Stud receivers. No tricks, gadgets, or no huddle BS that can expose you when taken away.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The Patriots have been overachievers the past two years. It doesn't have the talent to compensate for injuries, and it wins so much because it puts in 99% effort in the regular season and plays with terrific schemes to mask its deficiencies.
But in the playoffs a good team at 99% will not beat emotional, talented teams that play at 100%. It's what happened against the Giants in 2011 and the Ravens in 2012.
Agreed. It makes you wonder why I even get mad or excited during the regular season games. They honestly don't mean that much.
If the Ravens win the SB this year, that's 3 of the last 6 superbowl winners that we're mediocre teams. (Giants x2, Ravens) and another mediocre team was close to being the fourth. (Cardinals)
I think you are too quick to associate a bad regular season with mediocrity. 16 games is too few to form a very strong opinion of "what a team's made of", especially when some of those opponents are bottom-dwellers who so loosely resemble a playoff opponent.
I agree that the Ravens and Cardinals are mediocre. But the Giants last year were playing very good ball at the end of the season, and so were the 2007 Giants. That is not mediocrity, that is things coming together later rather than sooner.
I think you are too quick to associate a bad regular season with mediocrity. 16 games is too few to form a very strong opinion of "what a team's made of", especially when some of those opponents are bottom-dwellers who so loosely resemble a playoff opponent.
I agree that the Ravens and Cardinals are mediocre. But the Giants last year were playing very good ball at the end of the season, and so were the 2007 Giants. That is not mediocrity, that is things coming together later rather than sooner.
And to further that distinction, the Ravens are going to lose just like the Cardinals did, and unlike the Giants.
I think you are too quick to associate a bad regular season with mediocrity. 16 games is too few to form a very strong opinion of "what a team's made of", especially when some of those opponents are bottom-dwellers who so loosely resemble a playoff opponent.
I agree that the Ravens and Cardinals are mediocre. But the Giants last year were playing very good ball at the end of the season, and so were the 2007 Giants. That is not mediocrity, that is things coming together later rather than sooner.
Fair points. The 2011 Gmen were the most inconsistent team I've ever seen I guess rather than "mediocre." They either played like a 6-10 team (losing to Redskins 2x) or a 13-3 team.
We lost 4 times in the regular season including.
Ravens
49's
Seattle.
It might be that our regular season is a good guide to the post season.
Most Patsfans expected us to win all those games and when we didn't there was a multitude of excuses made. Substitute refs, travel, early season. When we lost to SF all I heard was how good Brady was to get us back into it.
Maybe things are not quite as good as we would like to believe.
5Likes
The Two NFL Seasons
Linear Mode
