Back to back GOOD wins

[Ring 6]

I consider the last 2 games GOOD wins for the Pats. I certainly don't expect the general opinion of this board to agree with this, but I seem to have a different critieria than the "manic-depressive crowd". (The manic depressive crowd is that group of fans who overreact positively to good days---runing the table talk was common a week ago--then overreact negatively to winning, if it isn't a dominant effort. My favorites are the post that CONCLUDE faliure in the playoffs based on a win they didn't like, and the 'if this didnt happen, we could have lost, or if we were playing someone else we would have lost)

My critieria in calling these good wins is very simple. Over the first 9 weeks of the season, we went 6-3, and lost 3 games that in past years it would have seemed we should have won. The #1 characteristic of the Champion Pats teams was making plays in the clutch, and KNOWING HOW TO WIN. After the 6-3 start the primary thing I felt this team lacked was that it hadn't learned how to win. Every team, every season needs to learn that. Some start closer than others because of returning core players who do know how to win, but every year has turnover to every team.
Lost on the media is that a TEAM is the sum of its parts. I bristle every time I hear "professional analysts" rate a team by naming their 3 best players, and conclude that is why they will win. Nothing could be further from the truth. The 20th-22nd best player (worst 3 starters) ultimatley has more to do with determining championships than the 3 best. (And by that I mean the gap between how good your 20-22nd is vs the other team) "Knowing how to win" isn't a function of your best players, it is a function of your 53 man roster.

These last 2 weeks, the Patriots have shown me that this version now seems to have learned how to win. When it comes down to Championships, the ability to win close games, regardless of the quality of the opponent correlates much more to success than blowing people out.

We see it every year. When the Pats are in the playoffs, we look at the opponent and one of the first analyses is have they beaten anyone good. i never remember ANYONE critiquing an opponent for ONLY beating team X by 7 points.

Other random thoughts.
Amazing that we criticize play calling when we score 28 points. That same criticism comes along with criticism of how plays are set up by the previous calls. To me, if you add up all of the play calls in the game, and they total 28 points, you did a good job. I could care less about the plays that didnt work so well if they set up others that got us 28 points. (and it would have been more without the turnovers)

I have read doom and gloom posts about how the D played this week. We allowed ONE TOUCHDOWN. That makes 14 in 12 games.
Somehow those doom and gloom posters point to our own turnovers as a reason for our imminent failure, yet give our defense no credit for forcing 5. Personally, I am fine with allowing less than 3 ypc to the other RB, having the other QB pass for 300 yards, but getting 3 picks, a fumble on a sack and allowing ONE TOUCHDOWN.

A curious question: It was mentioned many times during the game how the Lions have spent all season losing close games. If a team loses a lot of close games, why is it expected that you blow them out? Why wasnt a close win pretty much what was expected? There are very few blowouts in the NFL. If you wish to judge your team by their blowouts, go ahead, but you probably should root for the Colts from September to December, then shift over to the Pats in January.

 

[DarrylS]

Nice post consider Grossman with a QB rating of 1.5 and the total offense for the Bears 103 yards. The whole talk about quality wins, ugly wins are hollow. Bottom line when #12 had the ball in the 4th quarter, I was extremely comfortable and felt we could win. When the ball is not, I turn more skeptical.

Despite all the injuries and other stuff, our team is the deepest, they need to become more intense and less mistake prone though and that will be the equalizer. Some of the guys in the background need to step up right now and be ready to leave it on the field...

 

[PonyExpress]

The players themselves feel they came out with "no energy" and "no emotion" at home against the worst team in the NFL, played "terribly" in an "embarrassing" performance, but escaped with a win. The fan is not only a cheerleader, but must analyze what he sees and react honestly. This attempt to pigeon-hole fans who offer legitimate criticism as "mentally unstable" is irresponsible. The sky IS NOT falling. The mistakes are correctable. All the more reason to discuss them.

 

[BelichickFan]

I am certainly not happy with the overall game but I do agree that it was good for the first time since opening day, I think, that they've been behind in the second half and come back to win. Despite an overall shoddy performance, that is certainly a good thing.

On the playcalling, it's the mark of a fool who lambasts it every week :

First, we're 8th in the league in points scored on the season. And, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think we've had a single kick or turnover return for a TD. If we have, it's been about one. At least one of the 7 teams with more PPG, Chicago, is ahead of us solely based on return and defensive points. That's pretty good production considering the WR turnover and the crappy field we played on at home for the first half. BTW, we are SECOND in the league in PPG on the road, less than a point behind first place SD. If you look up the road points, be careful disputing that because we've only played 5 road games.

Second, like Brady said, he is comfortable with every play call because it's been discussed during the week. McDaniels' playcalling isn't just some whim he's got. I don't know what NEM thinks the coaches do from 6am to 10PM or later every night but they're not eating pizza and BSing. Belichick and Brady know exactly the plays McDaniels has at his disposal for any situation, down and distance. The idea that they just show up on Sunday and are stuck with whatever McaDaniels thinks would be cool is so bizarre that all I can do is shake my head.

 

[mgcolby]

The players themselves feel they came out with "no energy" and "no emotion" at home against the worst team in the NFL, played "terribly" in an "embarrassing" performance, but escaped with a win. The fan is not only a cheerleader, but must analyze what he sees and react honestly. This attempt to pigeon-hole fans who offer legitimate criticism as "mentally unstable" is irresponsible. The sky IS NOT falling. The mistakes are correctable. All the more reason to discuss them.

Bob Papa (SP) was talking about that yesterday and he basically felt that it is impossible for a team like the Pats and Colts to get up every week or get up for a game such as the Lions when they play in so many big games. I tend to agree with that, especially coming off a marquee game against the Bears. The Lions had a few more days to prepare and every team especially bad ones get up for the Pats, put it all together and you get a 28-21 win over the Lions.

That 3rd quarter was some of the worst football they have played all season, it was if they forgot where they were and then woke up in the 4th quarter and took care of business. If they come out flat like that against the Dolphins then I will start to worry.

 

[patsox23]

I agree with aj. I don't think his "manic-depressive" comment is directed at ANYONE who criticizes, NEM. I think it's directed at those folks who tend to swing wildly with a pendulum off its rocker - good or bad. There have been more of those types the last 18 months or so, and they provide nothing but traffic and hysterical congestion on this site.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I tend to be more critical following a sloppy win than I am even following a loss - when I prefer to look below the score to see what we might have done well.

I think I've probably adopted that from BB's coaching attitude that we seem to see quite often.

Comparisons to 2001 I think are relevent when we recognized we had a very imperfect team that simply refused to give up. But I just can't bring myself to accept the Bears or the Lions as "good wins"

"sloppy wins" is more like it - and we were lucky in both cases that the other team played worse than we did.

It's pretty tough to find a game where the team played perfect on both sides of the ball - but the number of mistakes this team has been making - even going back to our playoff loss in Denver last year with 5 turnovers - are of great concern.

If I saw progress being made to prevent such mistakes, that would be one thing, but we've not seen a positive trend in that respect yet.

 

[tombonneau]

Bottom line when #12 had the ball in the 4th quarter, I was extremely comfortable and felt we could win. When the ball is not, I turn more skeptical.

To me this was the biggest positive to come out of the Lions game. This was the first time I think in a long time (maybe all season) that the Pats were down in the 4th yet I had no doubt they would win the game. And of course Brady was then perfect in the 4th quarter.

End of the day, Andy is spot on, you are not going to blow every team (even the doormats) out of the water every week, and you need to learn how to win close games, regardless of the opponent. The last two weeks the Pats learned how to win a close game vs. the cream of the NFL and also vs. the crap of the NFL.

I'm happy with both wins. Can the team improve? Of course it can, every team can this time of year. In fact, the key to the entire rest of the season is simply ball security. If they stop turning the ball over, they will start blowing teams out. Hopefully they can get this sorted by January.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I just love how NEM has become the defender of opinion while insulting and dismissing all whose opinion differs from his or those of his perceived enemies, and pandering to those who haven't been here long enough to survey the landscape and develop some rational perspective.

 

[spacecrime]

You are not quite as correct as you seem to think you are

Perhaps he isn't, but he's close in his assessment that when a team does what it takes to win, it is a good win, and he is light years smarter than those who go off the deep end with a loss aren't being realistic.

We scored 28 points and won the game. Say what you will but the play calling won the game, because the players themselves admitted they were flat so it sure wasn't teh execution.

I also disagree with you and agree with AJ that saying we would have lost to a better team on Sunday is silly, especially guys like Felger who said yesterday that if the Pats turned the ball over four times against a good team like they did against teh Lions, they would lose. Guess he forgot about the Bears already

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I agree with aj. I don't think his "manic-depressive" comment is directed at ANYONE who criticizes, NEM. I think it's directed at those folks who tend to swing wildly with a pendulum off its rocker - good or bad. There have been more of those types the last 18 months or so, and they provide nothing but traffic and hysterical congestion on this site.

That may be, but to some they also represent perhaps the only remaining viable base of potential Fan of the Year voters.

 

[RayClay]

That may be, but to some they also represent perhaps the only remaining viable base of potential Fan of the Year voters.

Hey, a voting bloc is a voting bloc.

 

[RayClay]

I consider the last 2 games GOOD wins for the Pats. I certainly don't expect the general opinion of this board to agree with this, but I seem to have a different critieria than the "manic-depressive crowd". (The manic depressive crowd is that group of fans who overreact positively to good days---runing the table talk was common a week ago--then overreact negatively to winning, if it isn't a dominant effort. My favorites are the post that CONCLUDE faliure in the playoffs based on a win they didn't like, and the 'if this didnt happen, we could have lost, or if we were playing someone else we would have lost)

My critieria in calling these good wins is very simple. Over the first 9 weeks of the season, we went 6-3, and lost 3 games that in past years it would have seemed we should have won. The #1 characteristic of the Champion Pats teams was making plays in the clutch, and KNOWING HOW TO WIN. After the 6-3 start the primary thing I felt this team lacked was that it hadn't learned how to win. Every team, every season needs to learn that. Some start closer than others because of returning core players who do know how to win, but every year has turnover to every team.
Lost on the media is that a TEAM is the sum of its parts. I bristle every time I hear "professional analysts" rate a team by naming their 3 best players, and conclude that is why they will win. Nothing could be further from the truth. The 20th-22nd best player (worst 3 starters) ultimatley has more to do with determining championships than the 3 best. (And by that I mean the gap between how good your 20-22nd is vs the other team) "Knowing how to win" isn't a function of your best players, it is a function of your 53 man roster.

These last 2 weeks, the Patriots have shown me that this version now seems to have learned how to win. When it comes down to Championships, the ability to win close games, regardless of the quality of the opponent correlates much more to success than blowing people out.

We see it every year. When the Pats are in the playoffs, we look at the opponent and one of the first analyses is have they beaten anyone good. i never remember ANYONE critiquing an opponent for ONLY beating team X by 7 points.

Other random thoughts.
Amazing that we criticize play calling when we score 28 points. That same criticism comes along with criticism of how plays are set up by the previous calls. To me, if you add up all of the play calls in the game, and they total 28 points, you did a good job. I could care less about the plays that didnt work so well if they set up others that got us 28 points. (and it would have been more without the turnovers)

I have read doom and gloom posts about how the D played this week. We allowed ONE TOUCHDOWN. That makes 14 in 12 games.
Somehow those doom and gloom posters point to our own turnovers as a reason for our imminent failure, yet give our defense no credit for forcing 5. Personally, I am fine with allowing less than 3 ypc to the other RB, having the other QB pass for 300 yards, but getting 3 picks, a fumble on a sack and allowing ONE TOUCHDOWN.

A curious question: It was mentioned many times during the game how the Lions have spent all season losing close games. If a team loses a lot of close games, why is it expected that you blow them out? Why wasnt a close win pretty much what was expected? There are very few blowouts in the NFL. If you wish to judge your team by their blowouts, go ahead, but you probably should root for the Colts from September to December, then shift over to the Pats in January.

You make a great point about knowing how to win. That Colts game was quite winnable and we didn't do it.

Bears/Lions by contrast we made the plays when it counted.

I have no doubt we have the talent and if we have the killer instinct we'll be fine. Running like a well oiled machine in mid season doesn't mean much.

I certainly was frustrated by the manic-depressive fans particularly after the Vikings, (we'll never lose again) and the Jets,(why bother even showing up for the playoffs we stink).

Actually, I started to get a laugh out of it after a while.

The teams play has certainly fueled that reaction.

Cinci-greatest running game ever. Minnie-passing game solved, offensive machine.

Jets, Bears, Lions slopfest/fumble mania.

The defense has been consistent and solid. Really no room for criticism IMO.

 

[BelichickFan]

So, that being the case, it seems to me that you are calling a lot of people in this forum, "fools." Right?

The ones who blindly blame McDaniels for everything, like you, yes.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Well said. we scored 28 points; 5 points over our season average.

They scored 21 points. We beat them by a 7 point margin.

It goes down in the record book as a Win. End of Story.

 

[alamo]

On the playcalling, it's the mark of a fool who lambasts it every week

So, that being the case, it seems to me that you are calling a lot of people in this forum, "fools." Right?

There is only one person here who criticizes the playcalling EVERY week, like a broken record, without looking at it objectively.

 

[BelichickFan]

There is only one person here who criticizes the playcalling EVERY week, like a broken record, without looking at it objectively.

On rare occasions someone else jumps on the bandwagon but, yeah, NEM is the only consistent one.

On occasion they're a little off what I would do - sometimes I would prefer them to work the clock more in the 4th quarter but it's rare that Tommy proves them to be wrong

 

[BelichickFan]

I believe that if Josh McDaniels got a true grade as to his performance this season it would be between a C minus and a D plus.

What would you have given him last year (we all know he was the defacto OC) ?

And do you think Belichick keeps D+ to C- coaches around ?

 

[BelichickFan]

Don't bet your cookies that Josh wil be back next season.

- Do you think McDaniels was the defacto OC last year ?

On the other hand, BB rarely fires anyone.

That's because he doesn't blindly hire people. Which is where I have the huge problem with your obsession over every OC. Belichick didn't fire Weis when you wanted him to nor will he fire McDaniels - because he didn't hire them without complete confidence.

 

[alamo]

I look at it very objectively

You are, to put it simply, delusional. Your signature even emphasizes it.