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!
OK, here are some thoughts on the Pats, kind of fashioned after PatFanKen's great stuff, but don't expect me to be in his league ...
Basically, I'm sick of all the negativity about the Pats...here's a list of 10 good things or observations about the Pats!! Sometimes we need this perspective.
1. The Pats are LEADING their division with three games to go. Win the next two against the mighty powerhouses of the Bills, and at home against the Jags, and we are certain to at least be in the playoffs. (See another thread on this one for the reasoning).
2. Think back to just last year and just how much better it is to be in control of our own destiny at this late stage of the season.
3. I think the Randy Moss crap is basically that--overblown crap. It was a bad game when he was being doubled constantly and was out of synch. When it happens to a basketball player or a baseball player for 2-3 games in a row in a much longer season, they call it a shooting or hitting slump. I'm not saying Randy had a good game at all, but "he quit on the team" is totally unjustified IMO given his total production and body of work. It would not surprise me in the least the see the pendulum swing a little more back to Welker, Watson, defending the run now, and see Moss go off for 7-120-2tds!
4. Likewise, I beleive the media is also overreacting to the Adalius Thomas issue. Was there a rift with BB and the team? Sure. . His production hasn't been horrible in my view, it just hasn't lived up to the expectations given the large FA contract. Kind of like JD Drew for the Sox. AD got called out by Ty Warren yesterday and today went to a Pats charity event. And we may never see him play another down, but I wouldn't be surprised to see this slowly get better over the next few weeks, hopefully leading to big plays in the post-season. Do you remember the Brandon Marshall/Josh McD explosion pre-season? Look how that's worked itself out as they won games. We could use Adalius on D as much as Randy on O for game changing plays.
5. This is a big one for me: There is just an undeniable amount of luck and weird streaks that happen in football. I believe there is more inherent parity among teams; some are clearly better and some are worse, but not as much as their records indicate. It's not chess where the better player wins 100% of the time. There chance to it--and if you have teams that "should win" 60-70% of the time, they'll still have some crazy stuff happen. It's like if you look at a lot of coin flips or dice rolls and only look at the unusual runs that inevitable result. In football, analysts and writers look at streaks like the Pats 0-5 road record, lousy 2nd half performance and with perfect hindsight conclude: "The Pats can't win on the road and can't finish." Or they do the opposite and conclude we are practically unbeatable at home.
6. A kind of related phenomenon is how people look at the Pats dominant success against the Colts in the early part of the decade and conclude "we were so much better than them--they couldn't touch us, BB is in their head etc. " Then they observe the Colts have won 5 of 6 or whatever in the last 4 years and infer that now "the Colts have our number, that we can't beat them anymore, that Peyton is now in BB's head, etc" That is BS to me. They teams were always very close even in 2001-2004. If we keep playing, close teams are going to even out over time. We've only played what, like 10 games? The Red Sox and Yankees play 19 games EVERY YEAR, and it almost always is within 1-2 games by the end of the season. But remember earlier this season we won 8 in row against them? But they kept grinding and it evens out. What does that mean? Just like nobody really should have been that surprised when Peyton finally beat the Pats in the 2006 AFCCG, but they really were when it finally happened, likewise nobody should be that surprised, even though they will totally overreact, if and when we happen to beat this Colts in this postseason. Just like SD could beat us, and the Colts could easily beat SD even though you'll read countless stories about these irreversable trends, patterns, jinxes.
7. You'd think the Pats completely suck in 2009 to listen to some, but here are some Pats stats in the AFC: third in total points scored with 348, just a hair behind the unstoppable Chargers (362) and the undefeated Colts (359) ; 6th in total points allowed with 234, but not too far behind Jets/Bengals/Ravens/Colts/Broncos, ranging from 211 to 230; Combo of these has un 2nd in total AFC points differential, behind only the Colts.
8. I really like BB's style and approach for times like these: Keep on keeping on. Grind and work harder, coach each player to improve 2% every week. Maintain focus. Never too high or too low. Keep players accountable. Communicate what is expected. It's all prosaic, almost trite, but it succeeds much better than gyrating around where the players don't know where you stand from week to week.
9. None of us know how 2009 ends for the Pats, but I am very optimistic and see no reason to think that they don't have a very decent chance to go all the way. Do we have just as good a chance as the Colts, Chargers, Vikings, and Saints, all of whom are playing somewhat better right now? No. But it's a lot closer than it looks, I can tell you that much.
10. Finally, remember that the Pats of 2004 were really the last super bowl winner that weren't severely tested and toughened through a lot of adversity during the season, especially at the end. The Steelers in 2005 had to run table just to make the playoffs and win 4 road games. Colts 2006 couldn't stop the run until the playoffs and had to beat their nemesis the Pats. Giants 2007. In 2008 Arizona should have been that team but even Pittsburgh did not have an easy time of it with Ben getting knocked down and not running the ball well, yet they figured out a way to win close games. How sweet it would be to write a new unique story like that for the Pats over the next 7 weeks--e.g. we had to develop a running game late in the season, and Maroney really shined; BB's "heavy-handed" punishment woke the team up to the urgency, and finally started a winning streak
Last edited by Poker; 12-15-2009 at 10:33 PM..
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
These 9 guys comprise the future. They are the ones that the team will need to develop that winning-never-say-die attitude. they are still a bit too young.
Then there are the vets that need to become the guys who man up and become the cogs: Bodden, Banta-Cain, Sanders, Maroney, Wright, Watson.
We already have the grizzly-vet leaders:
Faulk, the entire OL, Warren, Wilfork.
And finally the stars: Brady, Welker and Moss.
The Patriots have all the ingredients. They need the young guys to grow up a little. That's not a criticism. We tend to forget how many years Bruschi, McGinest, vrabel, Phifer, Ty Law wandered through the wilderness. Those guys had a lot of years under their belts already by the 2002 Super Bowl.
Maybe Brady told Belichick he intends to play for another 7 years, and BB said, "In that case, I better prepare for 3 or 4 more Super Bowl wins instead of the 1 or 2 we were going to try to eke out over the next 4 years."
1. I agree about the youngin's needing more seasoning. There's been a lot of improvement in spots by those folks throughout the season. There's going to need to be a bit more to become truly battle hardened - especially for the playoffs. Patience is called for.
2. I'd much rather see the team always playing for (and getting) an opportunity to get into the 'tourney', all bets are off once you get in. Last year was a major bummer, in spite of the record. I think we fans have gotten majorly spoiled over the last few years (I started to become spoiled, but then I reminded myself of what it was like when the Pats stunk up the joint for YEARS prior to this run - and when I was happy just to get to .500 on any season). A little realistic appreciation is in order here.
3. I also agree, Brady is rounding more and more into form. Yeah - he's made some bad throws, that's normal - even for the best of qb's. His receivers have had their moments too. The point is, the team is built for the long haul. They get stronger and stronger as the season goes along, Brady is no exception. No reason to expect them to be 'one and done' this year. Lets enjoy the ride-!...
OK, here are some thoughts on the Pats, kind of fashioned after PatFanKen's great stuff, but don't expect me to be in his league ...
Basically, I'm sick of all the negativity about the Pats...here's a list of 10 good things or observations about the Pats!! Sometimes we need this perspective.
1. The Pats are LEADING their division with three games to go. Win the next two against the mighty powerhouses of the Bills, and at home against the Jags, and we are certain to at least be in the playoffs. (See another thread on this one for the reasoning).
2. Think back to just last year and just how much better it is to be in control of our own destiny at this late stage of the season.
3. I think the Randy Moss crap is basically that--overblown crap. It was a bad game when he was being doubled constantly and was out of synch. When it happens to a basketball player or a baseball player for 2-3 games in a row in a much longer season, they call it a shooting or hitting slump. I'm not saying Randy had a good game at all, but "he quit on the team" is totally unjustified IMO given his total production and body of work. It would not surprise me in the least the see the pendulum swing a little more back to Welker, Watson, defending the run now, and see Moss go off for 7-120-2tds!
4. Likewise, I beleive the media is also overreacting to the Adalius Thomas issue. Was there a rift with BB and the team? Sure. . His production hasn't been horrible in my view, it just hasn't lived up to the expectations given the large FA contract. Kind of like JD Drew for the Sox. AD got called out by Ty Warren yesterday and today went to a Pats charity event. And we may never see him play another down, but I wouldn't be surprised to see this slowly get better over the next few weeks, hopefully leading to big plays in the post-season. Do you remember the Brandon Marshall/Josh McD explosion pre-season? Look how that's worked itself out as they won games. We could use Adalius on D as much as Randy on O for game changing plays.
5. This is a big one for me: There is just an undeniable amount of luck and weird streaks that happen in football. I believe there is more inherent parity among teams; some are clearly better and some are worse, but not as much as their records indicate. It's not chess where the better player wins 100% of the time. There chance to it--and if you have teams that "should win" 60-70% of the time, they'll still have some crazy stuff happen. It's like if you look at a lot of coin flips or dice rolls and only look at the unusual runs that inevitable result. In football, analysts and writers look at streaks like the Pats 0-5 road record, lousy 2nd half performance and with perfect hindsight conclude: "The Pats can't win on the road and can't finish." Or they do the opposite and conclude we are practically unbeatable at home.
6. A kind of related phenomenon is how people look at the Pats dominant success against the Colts in the early part of the decade and conclude "we were so much better than them--they couldn't touch us, BB is in their head etc. " Then they observe the Colts have won 5 of 6 or whatever in the last 4 years and infer that now "the Colts have our number, that we can't beat them anymore, that Peyton is now in BB's head, etc" That is BS to me. They teams were always very close even in 2001-2004. If we keep playing, close teams are going to even out over time. We've only played what, like 10 games? The Red Sox and Yankees play 19 games EVERY YEAR, and it almost always is within 1-2 games by the end of the season. But remember earlier this season we won 8 in row against them? But they kept grinding and it evens out. What does that mean? Just like nobody really should have been that surprised when Peyton finally beat the Pats in the 2006 AFCCG, but they really were when it finally happened, likewise nobody should be that surprised, even though they will totally overreact, if and when we happen to beat this Colts in this postseason. Just like SD could beat us, and the Colts could easily beat SD even though you'll read countless stories about these irreversable trends, patterns, jinxes.
7. You'd think the Pats completely suck in 2009 to listen to some, but here are some Pats stats in the AFC: third in total points scored with 348, just a hair behind the unstoppable Chargers (362) and the undefeated Colts (359) ; 6th in total points allowed with 234, but not too far behind Jets/Bengals/Ravens/Colts/Broncos, ranging from 211 to 230; Combo of these has un 2nd in total AFC points differential, behind only the Colts.
8. I really like BB's style and approach for times like these: Keep on keeping on. Grind and work harder, coach each player to improve 2% every week. Maintain focus. Never too high or too low. Keep players accountable. Communicate what is expected. It's all prosaic, almost trite, but it succeeds much better than gyrating around where the players don't know where you stand from week to week.
9. None of us know how 2009 ends for the Pats, but I am very optimistic and see no reason to think that they don't have a very decent chance to go all the way. Do we have just as good a chance as the Colts, Chargers, Vikings, and Saints, all of whom are playing somewhat better right now? No. But it's a lot closer than it looks, I can tell you that much.
10. Finally, remember that the Pats of 2004 were really the last super bowl winner that weren't severely tested and toughened through a lot of adversity during the season, especially at the end. The Steelers in 2005 had to run table just to make the playoffs and win 4 road games. Colts 2006 couldn't stop the run until the playoffs and had to beat their nemesis the Pats. Giants 2007. In 2008 Arizona should have been that team but even Pittsburgh did not have an easy time of it with Ben getting knocked down and not running the ball well, yet they figured out a way to win close games. How sweet it would be to write a new unique story like that for the Pats over the next 7 weeks--e.g. we had to develop a running game late in the season, and Maroney really shined; BB's "heavy-handed" punishment woke the team up to the urgency, and finally started a winning streak
Amen, lets get behind our team and let the league know what where here to do!
Here's hoping that last week providrd some galvanizing moments for this team, and they can turn the corner ,so to speak, and get rolling for the post-season.
Ground game should steadily improve.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Hey Favre, YOU SUCK!!!
The Boston Herald - It ain't toilet paper, but it'll do the job.
5. This is a big one for me: There is just an undeniable amount of luck and weird streaks that happen in football. I believe there is more inherent parity among teams; some are clearly better and some are worse, but not as much as their records indicate. It's not chess where the better player wins 100% of the time. There chance to it--and if you have teams that "should win" 60-70% of the time, they'll still have some crazy stuff happen. It's like if you look at a lot of coin flips or dice rolls and only look at the unusual runs that inevitable result. In football, analysts and writers look at streaks like the Pats 0-5 road record, lousy 2nd half performance and with perfect hindsight conclude: "The Pats can't win on the road and can't finish." Or they do the opposite and conclude we are practically unbeatable at home.
6. A kind of related phenomenon is how people look at the Pats dominant success against the Colts in the early part of the decade and conclude "we were so much better than them--they couldn't touch us, BB is in their head etc. " Then they observe the Colts have won 5 of 6 or whatever in the last 4 years and infer that now "the Colts have our number, that we can't beat them anymore, that Peyton is now in BB's head, etc" That is BS to me. They teams were always very close even in 2001-2004. If we keep playing, close teams are going to even out over time. We've only played what, like 10 games? The Red Sox and Yankees play 19 games EVERY YEAR, and it almost always is within 1-2 games by the end of the season. But remember earlier this season we won 8 in row against them? But they kept grinding and it evens out. What does that mean? Just like nobody really should have been that surprised when Peyton finally beat the Pats in the 2006 AFCCG, but they really were when it finally happened, likewise nobody should be that surprised, even though they will totally overreact, if and when we happen to beat this Colts in this postseason. Just like SD could beat us, and the Colts could easily beat SD even though you'll read countless stories about these irreversable trends, patterns, jinxes.
The whole post is terrific, but the two points I quoted above are among the best thinking I've seen out here in a long time.
On 5, I usually put it that there are an enormous number of intangibles that shape any one season, which is why an undefeated season is so rare. When I posted in Andy's "One Post a Week Thread" before our Opening Game this season, I said that too many "extra" intangibles were in play for the Pats this season with the revamped D and the tiny matter of Brady's returning from a season away. I said that the team on paper was a 13 or 14 win team, but that I thought the intangibles would come into play and produce 11 wins. It's still the same team, same coaches, same players. There's no dire or mystical explanation like BB's lost his mojo or a team of proven winners has suddenly forgotten how to win. Stuff happened. Maybe some personalities came into play because of frustration, but the last time I checked this was 53 guys and not a video game, so that can occur. We still have a chance to surprise a lot of people.
On 6, you're right and I have nothing I can add to what you've said.
__________________
It is what it is. It wasn't what it wasn't.
Last edited by PatsFanSince74; 12-16-2009 at 06:50 AM..
When the Pats beat ARIZONA 55-7 last year, no one had the Cardinals in the superbowl. They were left for dead. So if there is one thing I know for sure about this league, it's that I know nothing......
Losing AT could be the biggest positive of all........Your either part of the solution or the problem, guess which he is?
Mid-week POSITIVE thoughts
Linear Mode
