Memo to Pats fans

[jmt57]

I was going to post this as a reply to a comment elsewhere, but rather than hijack that thread I figured it would be better to start another one instead. It was specifically in response to a comment that '11-5 is mediocre', but it's not directed to that specific person; it's more in response to all the forum members that have so much to say after a loss but so little to say after a win.


---------------------------------------------------------------------


11-5 is mediocre? What's 14-2, slightly above average? Better yet, what's 9-7, epic failure? I can't imagine what label you give to those fifteen or so teams that lose more than they win.


The losses have been disappointing, but let's get real people. Half the Pats losses this year were to teams that nobody else has beaten either, in 22 games so far. They've lost one game by more than a touchdown. A grand total of six out of 32 teams have a better record, and three of those are only one game ahead. Obviously the Pats are not in the NFL's elite at this moment, but that group includes only three teams. There's still one-third of the regular season to be played, plus the playoffs.


Sorry, I don't mean to single any one person out but the over reaction on this board seems to grow exponentially after any loss by this team. Nobody seems to remember the Giants run in '07, where the Steelers were two years before that at this time of the season, and worst of all the only thing anybody seems to remember from 2001 is three games to glory - while conveniently forgetting the fact the Pats were 5-5 that year.

14-2 regular seasons followed by a bye and three straight wins are awesome but they're not a birthright; they're a whole lot of fun but they are the exception and not the rule.

Will the Pats turn things around and win another championship? Who knows, why not stick around and see what happens rather than write the season off? It's possible they will, but there's more of a probability that somebody else will instead; that's because there are a lot of other good teams trying to win too.

Not one single team - even the Saints or Colts - has a better chance of winning the Super Bowl than they do of not winning the Super Bowl right now. So if not winning it all is going to cause such despair, then why follow the game at all? Any NFL team has only about a 3% chance of winning the Super Bowl, and on average an NFL fan will see his team win three championships from the time he is born till the day he is 80 years old.

So think about it. If anything less than a championship is going to cause you such anguish, I suggest you turn in your Pats gear for a Brees, Manning or Favre jersey; after all, the Saints, Colts and Vikings have the NFL's best records right now. It sounds to me like you might be a whole lot happier.

 

[farn]

I hear you, and understand exactly what you are saying.

Here's the problem : 60 wins makes for a very good record for a bball team. You think the Bulls team that won 70+ would've been satisfied with the 60 wins ?

This team was going to be better than 11-5 by most all accounts (not just the homer fans).

I accept the fact that this team, like the one in 06, is a superior team that can beat almost all the other NFL teams... but is unlikely to beat the very, very good teams in January - like the Colts and the Saints. I thought they were a 13-3 team before the season started and I didn't expect zero points scored in the 2nd halves of DEN or NYJ.

Yes, 11-5 is better than consistently sucking like the Browns. But you don't hang banners for 11-5. I'm not looking to make friends with the Pats. I just want them to win. 11-5 is winning, but not the kind of winning that I originally expected for this particular group.

 

[duce110]

I was going to post this as a reply to a comment elsewhere, but rather than hijack that thread I figured it would be better to start another one instead. It was specifically in response to a comment that '11-5 is mediocre', but it's not directed to that specific person; it's more in response to all the forum members that have so much to say after a loss but so little to say after a win.


---------------------------------------------------------------------


11-5 is mediocre? What's 14-2, slightly above average? Better yet, what's 9-7, epic failure? I can't imagine what label you give to those fifteen or so teams that lose more than they win.


The losses have been disappointing, but let's get real people. Half the Pats losses this year were to teams that nobody else has beaten either, in 22 games so far. They've lost one game by more than a touchdown. A grand total of six out of 32 teams have a better record, and three of those are only one game ahead. Obviously the Pats are not in the NFL's elite at this moment, but that group includes only three teams. There's still one-third of the regular season to be played, plus the playoffs.


Sorry, I don't mean to single any one person out but the over reaction on this board seems to grow exponentially after any loss by this team. Nobody seems to remember the Giants run in '07, where the Steelers were two years before that at this time of the season, and worst of all the only thing anybody seems to remember from 2001 is three games to glory - while conveniently forgetting the fact the Pats were 5-5 that year.

14-2 regular seasons followed by a bye and three straight wins are awesome but they're not a birthright; they're a whole lot of fun but they are the exception and not the rule.

Will the Pats turn things around and win another championship? Who knows, why not stick around and see what happens rather than write the season off? It's possible they will, but there's more of a probability that somebody else will instead; that's because there are a lot of other good teams trying to win too.

Not one single team - even the Saints or Colts - has a better chance of winning the Super Bowl than they do of not winning the Super Bowl right now. So if not winning it all is going to cause such despair, then why follow the game at all? Any NFL team has only about a 3% chance of winning the Super Bowl, and on average an NFL fan will see his team win three championships from the time he is born till the day he is 80 years old.

So think about it. If anything less than a championship is going to cause you such anguish, I suggest you turn in your Pats gear for a Brees, Manning or Favre jersey; after all, the Saints, Colts and Vikings have the NFL's best records right now. It sounds to me like you might be a whole lot happier.

:youtheman:

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

After what happened last season, Matt Cassel led the team to 11 wins with a terrible defense. That's why only 11 wins this season would be a disappointment.

 

[jmt57]

Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of room for improvement. Plenty of things that need to be fixed this year. Some other things that need to be addressed in the offseason. And many people have brought up some very good points about the coordinators, lack of creativity/predictability in play calling, lack of pass rush, etc. I agree with the vast majority of those assessments.

It's the 'this team stinks', 'the season is over', these are the biggest under achievers ever', etc., that leaves me shaking my head. I live outside New England and one of the biggest things thrown in my face is 'bandwagon fans', 'cokcy and arrogant fans', etc. Even though all that is easily refuted, when I see Pats fans talking that way, it makes me wonder if the fanbase as a whole may indeed be spoiled and delusional.

Coming into this year I figured 12-4 and I still think the same thing. I felt like 16-0 is something that happens once every thirty years, and that may have raised a certain portion of fans expectations so high that they feel shortchanged with anything more than one or two losses in a season. On top of that they honestly expect that every single year.

Those are excellent aspirations, but they're also unrealistic expectations in my opinion. Of course I aspire for this team to be more than 11-5, but to freak out over any and every loss seems absurd to me.

Maybe the preseason hype by the media left some with such high expectations that there was no place to go but down.

 

[jmt57]

After what happened last season, Matt Cassel led the team to 11 wins with a terrible defense. That's why only 11 wins this season would be a disappointment.

If the '08 team played the NFC South and AFC South rather than the NFC West and AFC West, they'd have been fortunate to be 8-8. Conversely, if this year's team faced those opponents on last year's schedule, they'd probably be at least 9-2 or 10-1.

 

[muzz]

Everyone keeps bringing up the Steelers and the Giants teams that were struggling and came back to win it all, but they ALL keep forgetting to mention that those teams had a KICKASS DEFENSE.

I'm not saying that the current guys don't even have a chance, but this team just doesn't seem to have "IT" , I'm not 100% sure what "IT" is, but I know there were big plays involved when needed, big stops, great tackles and deflections, etc.....
I'm just not seeing those kind of plays happening, I see more of the other team marching down the field(especially in the 2nd half) like they were the greatest team on turf, the Broncos led by The Hortons Fisherman looked like they had nothing but All-Pros that have been there a hundred times, The Colts, the Jets, the Ravens......
We didn't lose all of these games, but just about everyone here saw disaster 1 play away.

Do they have a "chance"?
Not unless they play better than they have up till now.

 

[BradysBunch12]

Yes, 11-5 is better than consistently sucking like the Browns. But you don't hang banners for 11-5. I'm not looking to make friends with the Pats. I just want them to win. 11-5 is winning, but not the kind of winning that I originally expected for this particular group.

Exactly. When you have the best QB in the league (Sorry Peyton, I still don't trust you in January) and one of the best coaches of all-time, even though that doesn't guarantee a SB win every year or any year, it's an advantage over most teams and should be good enough for a deep playoff run. I'll save the mediocrity for when Brady and Belichick hang it up.

Call me greedy, but in 2005 after they lost to the Broncos, I said "That's ok, but they'll win one or two more before Brady hangs it up." Now I wouldn't put any substantial amount of money on the Patriots winning another SB in the next 5 years the way they've been playing the last half of the decade in big games.

If 11-5 and a first or second round exit is a good season to you, maybe you should be a Chargers or Colts fan instead.

 

[jmt57]

Everyone keeps bringing up the Steelers and the Giants teams that were struggling and came back to win it all, but they ALL keep forgetting to mention that those teams had a KICKASS DEFENSE.

Colts were absolutley getting run over on defense all year long the season they won the Super Bowl.

Do they have a "chance"?
Not unless they play better than they have up till now.

Absolutely true.

But on the other hand, if they play as well as I believe they are capable of playing, I think they have a pretty good shot.

 

[Bill B.]

If the '08 team played the NFC South and AFC South rather than the NFC West and AFC West, they'd have been fortunate to be 8-8. Conversely, if this year's team faced those opponents on last year's schedule, they'd probably be at least 9-2 or 10-1.

Yeah, and if the Colts didn't get to play the Texans and Jaguars twice a year, they wouldn't have had the success they enjoyed. I agree that there seems to be too much doom and gloom. Face it, a lot of current Patriot fans are spoiled by the 3 Championships in 4 years. I have seen a lot of bad seasons, and all I really wanted was a team that would compete every year. Now it seems even that isn't enough. I still like our chances. Take away the Saints game, and our defense has played pretty well all year. One bad outing, against the best offense in the league, and people want to scrap the whole defense. We will be fine. Let's win the division and see how the chips fall in the playoffs.

 

[muzz]

Colts were absolutley getting run over on defense all year long the season they won the Super Bowl.



Absolutely true.

But on the other hand, if they play as well as I believe they are capable of playing, I think they have a pretty good shot.

The Colts defense was outstanding at the end of the year they won it, they did blow for a large part of the year though.
They also had Freeney and Mathis.....guess what, they still do and they STILL make plays every week.

 

[supafly]

I hear you, and understand exactly what you are saying.

Here's the problem : 60 wins makes for a very good record for a bball team. You think the Bulls team that won 70+ would've been satisfied with the 60 wins ?

This team was going to be better than 11-5 by most all accounts (not just the homer fans).

I accept the fact that this team, like the one in 06, is a superior team that can beat almost all the other NFL teams... but is unlikely to beat the very, very good teams in January - like the Colts and the Saints. I thought they were a 13-3 team before the season started and I didn't expect zero points scored in the 2nd halves of DEN or NYJ.

Yes, 11-5 is better than consistently sucking like the Browns. But you don't hang banners for 11-5. I'm not looking to make friends with the Pats. I just want them to win. 11-5 is winning, but not the kind of winning that I originally expected for this particular group.

Nice post, Farn. This pretty much sums it up for me too, although I am extremely grateful for the ability to compete every yr, and have said so many times.

There are indeed some here who are wine and cheesers, some who "didn't see any competition" for our team from early in September, and I think those are the ones who jmt is talking to. You simply cannot "assume" a great yr based on past performances. When you win 11 or 12 games in a season, it is still quite an achievement--of course. I think we all are somewhat disappointed that our defense got smoked in 2 out of the last 3 games, and that we don't seem to be putting fear into many teams anymore.

I will always be happy with a playoff appearance, I am however disappointed with the lack of halftime adjustments, repeated mistakes, poor pass rush, and to a certain extent--being out coached. Those attributes do not represent Bill Belichick coached teams as far as I am concerned. I am probably very much in the minority here, but I actually felt last yr's team had more heart, to a certain extent. They seemed to overcome the challenges set forth by TB's injury/other injuries. However, it is very true that last yr's schedule was much easier too--so it could very well be a poor comparison. I think I am somewhat frusterated that this yr's team has yet to 'outsmart' the other guys as often as I had hoped. It seemed that we were used to always being better prepared, make better adjustments/schemes, etc. That's what's disappointing me the most, to be honest.

I am looking forward to trying to secure the #2 seed, get a first rd bye, and see Gillette stadium rocking for the first game. First, we need to play a desperate MIA team on a shortened week, and if they win, appreciate what an incredible challenge that was for them.

At any rate, great points by farn and jmt.

 

[Nikolai]

Everyone keeps bringing up the Steelers and the Giants teams that were struggling and came back to win it all, but they ALL keep forgetting to mention that those teams had a KICKASS DEFENSE.

Would that be the same 07 Giants defense that gave up 80 points in the first two games of the year?

The point in conjuring the spirit of the 07 Giants was that they didn't turn on until Week 18. So this hyperbole about the Pats being out of it after a Week 12 loss is asinine.

 

[muzz]

If you are gonna sit there and even intimate that the Giants D line wasn't worlds ahead of this one you need serious help, and your talking the first 2 weeks of the entire year, NOT in week 11.

What Hyperbole do you speak of?

 

[Sivy]

I have a feeling the patriots will win the super bowl this year.

 

[supafly]

Yeah, I too, fail to see the 07 Giants comparison as they played very well down the stretch, won 10-11 road games in a row, and held an 11 pt lead over us with 1/2 a quarter to play in the last regular season game.

What they did in the first 2 games is irrelevant, IMHO.

 

[Nikolai]

If you are gonna sit there and even intimate that the Giants D line wasn't worlds ahead of this one you need serious help, and your talking the first 2 weeks of the entire year, NOT in week 11.

Perhaps some people need a history lesson. Week 12 of the 07 Giants season was a 41-17 loss against Minnesota AT HOME at the hands of Tavaris fugging Jackson.

The Giants got hot AFTER the regular season and that's all there is to it. By your logic, after Week 12, the Giants should have packed up the D-line and O-line and gone home for the year.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2007112506/2007/REG12/vikings@giants

Granted, Eli played a large part, but 41-17 is 41-17.

What Hyperbole do you speak of?

All the crap that comes spewing out whenever the Pats lose about how bad the team is blah blah blah. Surely, you know all about that.

 

[supafly]

Colts were absolutley getting run over on defense all year long the season they won the Super Bowl.



Absolutely true.

But on the other hand, if they play as well as I believe they are capable of playing, I think they have a pretty good shot.

You make a good point jmt, as all of the defensive rushing stats pointed to a sure-fire exit for the Colts that yr (06). No one else had ever won a SB when allowing a rushing game per average of what they did.

As much as I hate to go against the grain and respectfully point something else out, that Colt passing defense was lights out, as they set records for passing TD's allowed (IIRC). I believe that helped them mask their poor rush defense somewhat because their pass defense allowed single digit numbers.

In any case, your point is well noted and correct, I was just pointing out that they still held up in an important area of an otherwise poor defense.

 

[MassPats38]

Yeah, I too, fail to see the 07 Giants comparison as they played very well down the stretch, won 10-11 road games in a row, and held an 11 pt lead over us with 1/2 a quarter to play in the last regular season game.

What they did in the first 2 games is irrelevant, IMHO.

You must have watched a different Giants team than I saw in 2007. They had a 6 game win streak that ended in October, and were pretty much one win, one loss through November and December. They also lost 41-17 to the Vikings on November 25th.

As for the game against the Pats, the Giants had a 12-point lead at the beginning of the 3rd and were up by 5 at the end of the third before losing the lead.

In short, the Giants were actually highly inconsistent down the stretch before figuring out how to win in the playoffs. Feel free to follow the link and update your history accordingly.

 

[muzz]

Perhaps some people need a history lesson. Week 12 of the 07 Giants season was a 41-17 loss against Minnesota AT HOME at the hands of Tavaris fugging Jackson. Do you still believe that the Giants' D was worlds ahead of the Pats at the same time in the season?

The Giants got hot AFTER the regular season and that's all there is to it. By your logic, after Week 12, the Giants should have packed up the D-line and O-line and gone home for the year.

NFL Game Center: Minnesota Vikings at New York Giants - 2007 Week 12



All the crap that comes spewing out whenever the Pats lose about how bad the team is blah blah blah. Surely, you know all about that.

You can do better than that can't you?
Eli threw FOUR picks that game, and THREE of them were Pick Six INTS

Jackson threw ONE TD and had 129 yds passing, 60 of those yards were on the TD to Sidney on the 2nd play of the game, the Vikes ran 39 times for 127 yds and a 3.26 Avg.

I guess you missed Mondays game huh?
How about week 2 against the VAUNTED Jets?
How about that Denver game?
Miss the Clayton drop?
See the 2nd 1/2 of the Colts game?

Next time your looking to give lessons, get the right lesson lined up.

Bah.......