The Sky is Not Falling - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

***Joker*** · 12-11-2012, 11:10 AM

And to be fair, I prefer negativity to 'I told you so!'

you must be a real hoot at the tailgate party....

PATSYLICIOUS · 12-11-2012, 11:12 AM

If anything, starting out the season perfect leaves you only one place to go. We're hopefully heading towards playing our best ball when it matters right now, though it's not totally realistic to expect improvement from last night overall.

***mayoclinic*** · 12-11-2012, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

The team started off at 3-3 and was looking very suspect on defense, to put it mildly. Yes, people went over the top, but it's no different than what the homers do when the team is on a roll. Look at the posts today. You'd think this team was 13-0 and had never won a game by fewer than 50 points.

Homers only see rainbows. Chicken Littles only see storm clouds. Most people see both. It is what it is.

I don't think that's the point, Deus. Everyone, including the homers, could see that the team at 3-3 had problems, on both sides of the ball. Huge problems on defense with the pass coverage, and not enough pressure. Problems on offense leaving points on the board and not being able to close out games. Brady not quite in sync with his receivers at times. And those problems would have been evident even if the Pats had won those 3 games and been 6-0. No one believed that the Pats were the best team in the NFL week 6. If we had played the Texans at that point, I firmly believe they would have killed us, even in Foxboro. And there's no way that the week 6 team at it's level of play was capable of a Super Bowl run.

It's more a question of faith in the organization and the team being able to address the problems and "climb the mountain". They're not perfect, and they're fallible. There were holes in the talent that needed to be addressed - I called for the Talib trade in particular earlier than anyone else because I saw getting a press-man CB as the biggest single talent hole on the team - but most of the other issues had to do with youth, inexperience, injuries, and the team needing time to gel. I think it was perfectly fair to criticize the team, or to question whether they would be able to go far if they didn't adddress certain issues. But some of the comments were pretty hostile towards an organization that has shown that they are pretty capable of addressing issues over the course of a season. Not perfect - 2009 is a good example of where the issues couldn't be fixed within the course of the season, and had to be addressed afterwards - but pretty darn good. It's not like we notice things that they're oblivious to, for crissake.

As for going over the top after games like yesterday's, I personally expect that the Pats will come down to earth, even if they win out. I think this game was the Pats' "dress rehearsal" for the playoffs. It had that kind of intensity. And they passed with flying colors. But it took a huge amount of energy. They may conserve some energy the rest of the way, especially given the injuries. The SF game will be on a short week. Depending on the status of Talib and Dennard we might see more zone coverage against San Francisco, which doesn't have as potent a passing attack. And I wouldn't be surprised to see the Pats go into the Jacksonville and Miami games at 90% effort - enough to get bye, but saving a little energy for the playoffs. I don't expect any more blowouts. And maybe people will start wondering whether the team peaked week 14. BB won't want them to use up all their energy during the regular season, or be too beat up.

fnordcircle · 12-11-2012, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joker

And to be fair, I prefer negativity to 'I told you so!'

you must be a real hoot at the tailgate party....

Prefer here doesn't imply like.

For example I prefer your posts to having my nuts crushed with rocks by shrieking women. It's not that I like your posts, it just beats the alternative in this scenario.

***shmessy*** · 12-11-2012, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

If the Talib deal isn't made, we could very well be looking at 2011 redux, where it's all offense and prayers.

Don't get me started about 2011.

That was embarrassing to go 13-3 and within a Gronkle of a 4th Lombardi.

Yeah, that year SUCKED.

***shmessy*** · 12-11-2012, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fnordcircle

Prefer here doesn't imply like.

For example I prefer your posts to having my nuts crushed with rocks by shrieking women.

Don't knock 'til you try it.

***Deus Irae*** · 12-11-2012, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mayoclinic

I don't think that's the point, Deus. Everyone, including the homers, could see that the team at 3-3 had problems, on both sides of the ball. Huge problems on defense with the pass coverage, and not enough pressure. Problems on offense leaving points on the board and not being able to close out games. Brady not quite in sync with his receivers at times. And those problems would have been evident even if the Pats had won those 3 games and been 6-0. No one believed that the Pats were the best team in the NFL week 6. If we had played the Texans at that point, I firmly believe they would have killed us, even in Foxboro. And there's no way that the week 6 team at it's level of play was capable of a Super Bowl run.

You could end the post right here, and it would be a great and fair post. This is the real stuff, and it's the stuff that matters. The rest is just homers v. realists v. Chicken Littles, and it was just last week that this Patriots team underperformed and looked "exposed" against a lesser team.

The Patriots are a great second half regular season team, but they certainly don't always get things fixed, as 2009-2011 show pretty clearly. And, again, it's not about making the playoffs for the Patriots or Patriots fans. The Patriots are held to a higher standard, and they should be. They've earned that.

***Deus Irae*** · 12-11-2012, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

Yeah, that year SUCKED.

Ahhh.... gotta love the Shmessy man. Nobody else on this board deliberately misses the point quite like you do.

Dutchmaster617 · 12-11-2012, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby

Don't know about anybody else but my quote was from the first jester game which seems like eons ago now.

it was a snapshot of a moment in time. And if I went back and watched that game again I would probably say the same thing again (particularly if I had as many drinks as I did when I posted that). They played that game with completely inconsistent effort.

MAYO,
not sure if all the other posters comments are from the same or even earlier; or more recent; but taking comments like those out of context and posting immediately following a BIG STATEMENT GAME like yesterday where they played with purpose and authority is a bit contrived on your part.

Not sure what your point is in doing it.

Just because we live in an era of excellence on the part of the Pats; does that mean we cant comment or complain about when the performance falls BELOW THE SEASON AVERAGE (let alone well below the 'ERA average')

Good mention, the fans who take one win, regular season win and act like the team is perfect...idk what to say but good luck with that.

We could very well choke to a 9 win team first round, just like 2010 when we got hot and everyone wanted to give them the trophy. Bill has it correct, he doesn't get excited over one win or cry over a loss, either extreme is silly when you watch years of football play out.

PatsFanInVa · 12-11-2012, 11:37 AM

Houston game was a major turning point for me (although I wasn't among those quoted above.)

That was a statement for this year's defense. I still don't put them at an "elite defense" level, but they're a good defense with the ability to play lights out in any given game. Keep doing that kind of stuff in the playoffs, and I'll stand corrected once again.

This looks like a more balanced team than it's looked for a long time.