Let's Put to Rest the "They Haven't beaten a Team with a Winning Record" Canard

[PatsFanSince74]

Who gives a rat's ass even if that "Canard" is true?

Last year not only had the Pats beaten the Bears and Packers, who would go to the NFCCG, but they had also beaten four of the other five AFC Playoff teams (Colts, Jets, Ravens and Steelers) and just hadn't played the fifth (Chiefs).

We all know how much good that did them when the Playoffs started.

Maybe going in the opposite way will prove to be the charm this year! :singing:

As of late last night, 12 teams are 0--0 and one of them is going to be hoisting the Lombardi in February. Might as well be us at 13--3. Also might be an 8--8 team. That's "why they play the games" and why none of this other stuff matters.

 

[Fixit]

So, to sum up:

Smessy gets his argument wrong

I point it out via a question which begs the answer

You jump in with a contrarian, argumentative comment asking me not to be contrarian or argumentative

I respond, noting the problems in your post

You begin misleading and argumentative responses





Brilliant!

No, that's what you think you see because you need people to notice you. It's what you do. You are the most miserable person I've ever seen on this board. It's amazing.

 

[Fixit]

Unrelated question: How do you block users?

 

[Patriots Nation NY]

No, that's what you think you see because you need people to notice you. It's what you do. You are the most miserable person I've ever seen on this board. It's amazing.

he is the worst .. just try to ignore him, miserable puppet ..

 

[Fixit]

he is the worst .. just try to ignore him, miserable puppet ..

Trying to ignore him (I can't put up with the idiocy anymore); just can't figure out how to do it.

 

[Haley]

Hmm ... I dunno, this sounds like a lot of should've/would've/could've to me.

Facts are facts. We haven't beaten a team with a winning record as it is measured every year for everyone. Close I'll give you but the facts are the ugly facts.

Regarding our defense, they can't factually state that the NEP have the worst defense anymore. They have been backing that up with YPGA each time anyone has tried to make that case. You can't trade horses now just because you found a new one. However they will tell us that we're the second worst defense!

The real point is NONE of this means we can't win the Super Bowl. They can say what they like, and trash us for weeks if it makes them feel better, but in the end we still play the games because no one knows the outcome until the games are played.

 

[Metaphors]

The Pats only had one opportunity this season to beat a winning team. If they had won against the Giants, it would have made them a non-winning team. Drawing a conclusion from a sample size of one is usually not a good idea.

The underlying point of this statement is to reinforce the idea that the Pats can't win in the playoffs. Obviously that isn't true. Doesn't mean they will win...but they are certainly capable.

The Pats have only had one troublesome game. The reason for the Steeler loss was that the Pats offensive and defensive gameplans were exactly wrong for what the Steelers threw against them. Not a surprise since the Steelers are known for sticking to their approach but went completely different in that game.

While that one game doesn't indicate a trend, it does highlight a vulnerability. The Pats will lean heavily on having a superior gameplan to get to the SB. If an opposing coach is willing to be bold and try something schematically they haven't done before, that worries me. While that strategy can lead to an upset, it can also backfire and result in a bad elimination loss.

 

[Deus Irae]

Trying to ignore him (I can't put up with the idiocy anymore); just can't figure out how to do it.

By all means, let me help. Go to the User CP link. Then go to the edit ignore list link. Follow the directions from there.

 

[ATippett56]

They beat SIX (6) teams (one of them twice!) who WOULD HAVE had winning records were it not for losing to the Pats.

The "they haven't beaten a winning record team this year" thing will be repeated over and over and over again for the next two weeks.

"It is what it is."

 

[JJDChE]

We didn't beat any teams with a winning record in '01, either. Last year we whupped up on a bunch of teams with winning records.


So, in summary, we actually DID NOT beat a team with a winning record. Also, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference in two weeks.

 

[Doctor DDS]

While it is true that we did not beat a team that ended up with a winning record we did beat a couple non playoff teams that would be heavy favorites over Denver, Cincy or Houston this weekend. Philly and SD are both good teams and we handled both of them with relative ease. SD just pounded Baltimore (a team that seems to be getting the most love) and scored the first 5 times they had the ball. There is no way anyone paying attention this year could say they will be surprised if the Pats win any of the games in the AFC playoffs. We would deservedly be underdogs to NO or GB in the Superbowl but besides that we'll at least be slight favorites every other game.

 

[Sicilian]

No, it's not significant at all. He called something a canard. Unfortunately for him, it's not a canard, at all.

"Hermes Conrad, you are TECHNICALLY correct... the best kind of correct!"

 

[Tippecanoe]

Don't mean to be all negative nancy about this, but as I looked through the Patriots season earlier, I couldn't help but notice that...

we've only played 3 games against playoff teams - Pittsburgh, New York Giants, and Denver - and out of those three, the only team we beat were the LOLTimTebow Broncos. However, we did only lose by one possession in each of the two losses.

I have full trust in Brady and Belichick, but it is somewhat troubling that we haven't really won a game against a playoff team (besides LOLTimTebow)

 

[Fencer]

By Great Blue North Draft Report, Patriots' opponents had the worst aggregate record in the league, and I think that's true even if you back out the games opponents played against the Patriots.

More to the point, the Patriots only played one team anybody would in retrospect view as very good, and they happened to lose that game. Hence, the Patriots have not PROVED they can beat very good teams this year.

By way of contrast, Baltimore beat Pitt twice, and Pitt beat us once.

 

[patfanken]

WTF does it matter. Last year just about EVERY team we beat had a winning record. How did that work out for us? Do they give us points for difficulty. The 72 Dolphins beat 2 teams who had winning records, does that mean it wasn't REALLY an undefeated season. In 2003 the Pats won 10 games against teams that won at least 10 games that season. I think it is one of the more impressive stats in football that no one else but me cares about.

If the mediots want to shove this "canard" in our faces. Then I say FINE. It just gives me another chance to whip my "Lack of Respect Card" out and shove it back in their faces. Get used to it, its all they are going to be talking about until Pittsburgh shows up in 2 weeks

LOVE THE "CARD"

 

[Seanzayyy]

Way I see it, we're 0-0 right now. Just like every other playoff team.

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

By way of contrast, Baltimore beat Pitt twice, and Pitt beat us once.

And Baltimore lost to: San Diego, Jacksonville, Seattle and Tennessee, all on the road. Not one of those teams made the playoffs and only one finished with a positive record. So that Ratbirds beat the Squelers twice, and lost to these four teams. Which point is more valid? The Pats three losses, two were to playoff teams, or all the Ratbirds losses were to non playoff teams?

 

[Metaphors]

By way of contrast ... Pitt beat us once.

But if the Pats didn't beat anyone good, then they aren't good. And if the Steelers beat a not-good Pats team, they must not be good either. So the Ravens beating a not-good Steelers team twice must mean they aren't any good x2.

Being a good team is a point in time observation. Looking at the Pats schedule, several teams were considered above average (meaning an expected winning record) when the Pats played them:

@Fins - Average team but a division roadie
SD - Expected division winner wanting a strong start
@Buf - Seems a lifetime ago, but they were considered a top team at that point
@Oak - Looking to challenge SD for division
Jets - Rated ahead of Pats by many until Mangold went down
Dal - Expected to challenge Eagles for division
@Pit - Expected to challenge Ravens for division
NYG - Kind of an unknown at that point but huge game for them
@Jets - Their Super Bowl...expected to clinch division for them
KC - Bad team
@Phi - Good team but injured, needing a win to save playoffs

So 11 games (6 roadies) into the season with only one game that a reasonable person would consider a bad team at that point in the season. The final five opponents were sad and Belichick used that stretch to get players healthy and experiment on defense.

I really despise analysis that could be done without ever watching a game. For every statement that could be used to cast aspersions on the Pats, you could make equally stupid statements in support of them (The Pats are undefeated against AFC division winners this year). It is better to gather all information and draw conclusions than to form conclusions and seek out the evidence that supports them.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Well they haven't beaten a winning team. And the only playoff team they've beaten is Denver, who should likely be eliminated immediately. We've proven we can be very good against mediocre teams and the rest we can prove in January.

That said it's not a major concern to me. In 2007 and 2010 we walked through schedules that included most of the elite teams in those respective years and that really didn't help us out much. Playoffs are a crapshoot and anything can happen. Let's hope BB has something up his sleeve defensively.

 

[JoeSixPat]

The bottom line is that the Patriots are an excellent yet flawed team.

They could conceivably lose any game to any team in the playoffs

And they could conceivable win 3 straight no matter who they play.