PatriotFan77
Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2011
- Messages
- 1,455
- Reaction score
- 8
Why would they get a "pass" for that when they'll be facing teams with winning records in the playoffs? ?
I was using your logic.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Why would they get a "pass" for that when they'll be facing teams with winning records in the playoffs? ?
I was using your logic.
Brady
Fatboy
Flacco
Dalton
Yates
Tebow
Um, yes. This is a very weak AFC field. The drop off from Brady to Ben is huge, let alone the other 4.
No Manning, Rivers, Schaub, Sanchez, Palmer? So weak this year.
Relax, you goons I was joking about Sanchez
Roethlisberger = Fatboy?
Never heard anyone claim him this nickname before
Roethlisberger = Fatboy?
Never heard anyone claim him this nickname before
As great as our 07 team was, that playoff field was stacked from top-bottom. This year's field is filled with POS teams that we should all beat at home, especially with injuries to Ben and Mendenhall, a Steelers team that is our only real threat. Flacco and that Baltimore offense is horrible and their defense isn't as good as it was two years ago. As bad as our defense looks on certain stretches, they don't turn in a full game awful performance like the Ravens offense will do.
I am confident we will make it to the SB.
I really think this is the Pats year to steal a title. The Steelers have won 2 titles by default in down years for the Patriots, defeating crappy NFC opponents in the title game. While whoever wins this year will face no such cupcake in the Super Bowl, I don't see why the Pats don't have as good a chance as anybody to at least get there.
I think it's the weakest field for the entire NFL in many years, even the best teams are seriously flawed and the weaker ones really shouldn't be play-off teams in a good year. If next season goes the same route they are going to have to make rule changes to even the playing field for defenses because they have made them almost irrelevant.
I never quite understood this logic from some Pats fans, because it seems like a "slippery slope" argument that actually denigrates the Patriots accomplishments in the 2000s.
Clearly the past decade was the AFC's, and as such there were no dynasty NFC teams being thrown into the SBs for competition. So what privileges the Jake-Delhomme led Panthers (or McNabb's Eagles) over the 13-3 Seahawks of '05? These were all basically one year wonders from the NFC--teams that had great seasons but ultimately were one-and-done in the SB. None are to be confused with the Cowboys of the early 90s or the '85 Bears.
The reality is that there have been precious few true heavyweight title bouts since the 70s, so it seems to me that if you criticize one team for not defeating "Super Bowl worthy" juggernauts in their Super Bowls, by extension you're diminishing *any* team that wasn't defeating such teams...including your Patriots.
Personally, I think a Super Bowl win is a Super Bowl win; if you make it that far and get the title, it's by definition a "worthy" act. The Pats have won 3 titles--each one, a tremendous accomplishment--and have had unparalleled success over the past decade. In that light, nitpicking at another team's accomplishments seems kind of unnecessarily peevish and small...and again, sort of critical of your own team in a roundabout way (at least, if you're holding your team to the same standards as others).
**I will agree with one thing, however -- I do think this year and this field sets up very nicely for the Pats for a return to the SB. And I think if they get there, whatever concerns they have about their defense will diminish because they'll be in a shootout with a team of a similar makeup. I actually like their chances in that scenario because I think BB with 2 weeks preparation team is a massive advantage.
2001 Rams were more than worthy, and the Patriots at the time were the ultimate Cinderella story, as you know and deliberately didn't mention. The fact is that some Super Bowl champions had more impressive/interesting runs than others. For example, the 2001 Patriots for beating the Rams, the 2004 Patriots for winning 3 of 4, the 2006 Colts for overcoming the Pats after being down big at the half and losing to them for years, and the 2007 Giants for reasons clear to everyone present (though I think the 2007 Pats are more remembered for losing than the Giants are for winning). Those are the teams that people will remember, because the stories behind them were great, and the games themselves were great. The Steelers' Super Bowl wins, on the other hand, were not that interesting. They beat an unimpressive Seahawks team in a game mostly remembered for terrible officiating, and beat the Cinderella 9-7 Cardinals team that everybody aside from Steelers fans was pulling for. None of the games leading up to the SB were particularly memorable for the average fan either. When the Steelers won, fans of the other 31 teams shrugged.
Even though, in theory, the Saints probably would destroy us the way they did last year,
The 2001 Patriots *were* a tremendous story (although the term "ultimate Cinderella story" would probably best be ascribed to the Rams of 2000 and Kurt Warner, who was bagging groceries a couple years earlier LOL), and of course the 2001 Rams were a very worthy opponent. I didn't "deliberately" not mention anything. I think you've missed my point; *I* think all three of the Patriots SB opponents were "worthy" and was merely pointing out that I don't think you can argue the Steelers victories were against "crappy" NFC clubs (another, previous poster's term) without denigrating Patriots victories against similar clubs...something I don't think is particularly logical, or fair.
Your post just underscores how what we define as "memorable" vs. "shrug-worthy" vs. "nauseating" depends largely one's rooting interest. The '05 Steelers were the first team in history to win from the #6 slot, all road games against double-digit win teams. The Colts game that playoffs was memorable for the degree (and nature) of the upset, with Bettis fumbling at the goal line. And the '08 SB had one of the most memorable finishes, and some of the more spectacular plays, in SB history. (There aren't that many game-winning TDs in the final seconds of Super Bowls...surely you're not "deliberately not mentioning" that? ) I'm guessing that, as a Pats fan, you may have found the above "not that interesting", but would likely find similar stories forged by the Pats to be compelling. But I guess that's the nature of fanhood; by definition, it's not something that's particularly objective.
I do agree that there are great potential storylines to come out of this year's SB. A GB or NO vs Pats SB would make for great theater for sure.
lillloyd
Yes, because it at least shows that they've proven capable of beating good teams.
I do love the hypocrisy of fans, though. Last year, it was all about how the Patriots had beaten such a hard schedule. This year, that same argument is now supposed to be meaningless.
Agree 100%, that was the angle I was going to take when responding to this post (QB talent). This year is by far the worst in recent memory especially if you consider Ben at less than 100%.Brady
Fatboy
Flacco
Dalton
Yates
Tebow
Um, yes. This is a very weak AFC field. The drop off from Brady to Ben is huge, let alone the other 4.
No Manning, Rivers, Schaub, Sanchez, Palmer? So weak this year.
Ah, ok. So, since the Colts have two wins over teams with winning records this season, they've proven themselves more capable of beating good teams than the Pats? Same with the Jaguars, then... they beat the Ravens, so clearly, they've demonstrated a better ability to beat good teams than the Pats, right? And the Chiefs convincingly took out the then-undefeated Packers, so they've proven themselves clearly more likely to beat good teams than the Pats, by your reasoning.
And again, by your reasoning, if the Pats had lost the first game to the Jets, they'd be more proven to be capable of beating good teams, because then their Sunday night victory in the Meadowlands would be against a team with a winning record.
Who's arguing that the difficulty of one's schedule is meaningless? Certainly not me. I absolutely think that the quality of the opponents needs to be factored into assessing a team's effectiveness.
The meaningfulness is lost, however, when you arbitrarily and unnecessarily throw out all of the information you have about the relative difficulty of schedules, and sort teams into two categories, "winning record" or "not winning record."
Even when you just add in a little information, like considering a team's w/l record instead of just "winning"/"not winning," you see things like that teams beaten by the Steelers, 49ers, Falcons, Lions, Texans and Bengals, respectively, all have an overall worse winning percentage than the teams beaten by the Pats.
Despite having no wins against teams with winning records, the Patriots actually have the third highest Strength of Victory in the AFC. Baltimore's got the highest. #2? Denver.
Turns out, before you start being able to get anything truly meaningful -- anything that, historically, has correlated with post-season success -- you need to add a lot more information back into the equation than just their w/l records.
By my reasoning, the Patriots failed to show that they could beat a team with a better than .500 record. It's really as simple as that. All the "What if?" hypotheticals you, and others, are trying to push forward aren't going to change that. All the "But this team...." isn't going to change it either.
It's a simple thing, and it's not arbitrary, as you're smart enough to know. The Patriots did not beat a team that finished with a better than .500 record. The Patriots lost to boths team they played that finished with a better than .500 record.
The meaningfulness is only lost on the willfully obtuse, because the meaning is obvious and about a very focused portion of the Patriots' schedule.