76-7

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

No that's not the score of Green Bay against the Colts.....that's the points scored by New England and allowed, after waking up in a game after a quarter and a half and after the half in consecutive games.

I can't quite remember 2 games ever in Patriot history that were so one sided one minute and totally gone the other way .... 76-7 after being beaten 38-0 is an incredible turnaround.

This team has been Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde and hopefully will put in a full 60 minute game in the playoffs,you won't win playing 45 minutes in mid January.

I am still wondering why this is occurring,is it a mental lack of focus upon kickoff?,a bad original game plan?,or simply the wrong set of players on the field at the time?.....whatever it is early has been horribly wrong and later it's almost perfection.

This is going to be one fine, but head scratching game ahead of us in 2 weeks.....sit back and enjoy the trip.

 

[sevengables_2207]

One can possibly include the slow start of the NE-Den game where they fell behind early and looked like they were on their way to allowing the most rushing yards in a single regular season game. I think, though am not certain, that they were down 10-0 before outscoring the Broncos the rest of the way.

 

[jmt57]

linky

Since the Pats lost to the Giants:

Time for an update.

Pats vs opponent: start / middle / end

Wk 17 vs Buf: 0-21 / 35-0 / 14-0
Wk 16 vs Mia: 0-17 / 27-0 / 0-7
Wk 15 at Den: 7-16 / 27-0 / 7-7
Wk 14 at Was: 14-17 / 20-10 / 0-0
Wk 13 vs Ind: 3-3 / 28-0 / 0-21
Wk 12 at Phi: 0-10 / 38-3 / 0-7
Wk 11 vs KC: 0-3 / 27-0 / 7-0
Wk 10 at NYJ: 6-9 / 17-0 / 14-7

Total: 30-96 / 219-13 / 42-49

​

 

[PatsFanSince74]

linky




Time for an update.

Pats vs opponent: start / middle / end

Wk 17 vs Buf: 0-21 / 35-0 / 14-0
Wk 16 vs Mia: 0-17 / 27-0 / 0-7
Wk 15 at Den: 7-16 / 27-0 / 7-7
Wk 14 at Was: 14-17 / 20-10 / 0-0
Wk 13 vs Ind: 3-3 / 28-0 / 0-21
Wk 12 at Phi: 0-10 / 38-3 / 0-7
Wk 11 vs KC: 0-3 / 27-0 / 7-0
Wk 10 at NYJ: 6-9 / 17-0 / 14-7

Total: 30-96 / 219-13 / 42-49

​

Answer: "One and 8--8"

Question: "How many of those teams made the playoffs and what was their Regular Season Record."

 

[nabwong]

Does anyone think these 2 observations are accurate for our slow start?

1. The opponent QBs we've faced had lights out 1st quarters. They've just been putting the ball on the money.

2. We've tried winning by just playing vanilla defense OR experimental defense, opting to try players in different situations and save our best plays for the playoffs.

For example, we brought a "special" play out cos of necessity to swing the momentum, that play at the start of the 2nd half today, I forgot how they actually lined up. But it was Benny motioning towards Brady and there was AH lined up to the left. It was Man D. I told my wife, look for the quick out going to AH. Brady snapped it and faked the throw to AH and played a Rb screen.

 

[lamafist]

Answer: "One and 8--8"

Question: "How many of those teams made the playoffs and what was their Regular Season Record."

Answer: All but one.

Question: How many of those teams beat some other playoff team in the preceding or following few weeks.

 

[Patriots Nation NY]

holy phuck .. how does curly haired boyfriend have a job? .. Random ..

 

[jmt57]

Answer: "One and 8--8"

Question: "How many of those teams made the playoffs and what was their Regular Season Record."

If you want to play the strength of schedule game, the Pats are basically in the middle of the pack amongst all the NFL teams that are in the playoffs.


Want to know what teams had the 'toughest' schedule this year?

Answer: the teams drafting in the first hour of next April's draft: the Rams, Vikings, Colts and Bucs.

Why? Because every time they lost their opponent won, improving that other team's record.


The same phenomenon happens the other way around. Every time a playoff team beats someone, that other team's record fell. Beating the Jets now counts for nothing because they were 8-8 - but the whole reason they were 8-8 is because they were 0-5 against playoff teams - and 0-2 against the Pats.

Why does doing what a team is supposed to do (in this example, beat a team that was 8-3 versus non-playoff teams twice) now not count for anything?


Should the Steelers (or any other team) be written off because of their record against teams that are in the playoffs? Of course not; small sample size, and past results do not guarantee future results.

So why are we so quick to dismiss the Pats based on the same stat?

 

[ahmed]

The problem with this is it's a lot harder to get back in the game against good teams if we fall that much behind. All teams mentioned above are more or less crap.... especially on offense.

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

While our recent starts to games have been somewhat concerning, I'm far more concerned about how we are ending games, and we've being doing that pretty well lately.
As for the "non playoff team" bs, last I checked, last year a 7-9 team beat the defending Super Bowl champions in the playoffs. Look at this year. The Rams have 2 wins... 50% of those wins came against the world beating NO Saints. The world beating Packers? One loss. To the Chiefs! Records don't matter. Winning matters. We've been winning. We need to win 3 more games and it doesn't matter who they are against.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

If you want to play the strength of schedule game, the Pats are basically in the middle of the pack amongst all the NFL teams that are in the playoffs.


Want to know what teams had the 'toughest' schedule this year?

Answer: the teams drafting in the first hour of next April's draft: the Rams, Vikings, Colts and Bucs.

Why? Because every time they lost their opponent won, improving that other team's record.


The same phenomenon happens the other way around. Every time a playoff team beats someone, that other team's record fell. Beating the Jets now counts for nothing because they were 8-8 - but the whole reason they were 8-8 is because they were 0-5 against playoff teams - and 0-2 against the Pats.

Why does doing what a team is supposed to do (in this example, beat a team that was 8-3 versus non-playoff teams twice) now not count for anything?


Should the Steelers (or any other team) be written off because of their record against teams that are in the playoffs? Of course not; small sample size, and past results do not guarantee future results.

So why are we so quick to dismiss the Pats based on the same stat?

I'm not "dismissing" anyone. I'm just suggesting that we probably won't get away with that against stronger teams.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Answer: All but one.

Question: How many of those teams beat some other playoff team in the preceding or following few weeks.

I'll take your word on the stat, but my point remains that we won't get away with that against the Steelers or Ravens, to name two teams we might face in the next three weeks.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

While our recent starts to games have been somewhat concerning, I'm far more concerned about how we are ending games, and we've being doing that pretty well lately.
As for the "non playoff team" bs, last I checked, last year a 7-9 team beat the defending Super Bowl champions in the playoffs. Look at this year. The Rams have 2 wins... 50% of those wins came against the world beating NO Saints. The world beating Packers? One loss. To the Chiefs! Records don't matter. Winning matters. We've been winning. We need to win 3 more games and it doesn't matter who they are against.

Sure. Any given Sunday, etc., etc.

My point was and remains that we're not likely to get away with spotting the Ravens or Steelers 17 to 21 points in the next three weeks. I'll stand by that.

 

[Sfpat]

The problem with this is it's a lot harder to get back in the game against good teams if we fall that much behind. All teams mentioned above are more or less crap.... especially on offense.

I present the Pittsburgh game as evidence. Slow start, and unable to make the comeback resulting in a loss. Trust it doesn't repeat itself in the playoffs.