All the idiotic banter about how we have not beaten a winning team

[DarrylS]

A big reason why is because we beat them, we beat NY Jets and Denver twice...

We beat Denver twice, if we lost those games the Bronco's would have been 10 & 7

If we lost to Chargers they would have been 9 & 7

If we lost to the Raiders they would have been 9 & 7

If we lost to the Cowboys they would have been 9 & 7

If we lost to the Jets twice they would have been 10 & 7

These teams would have all had a winning record if it was not for us.. don't tell Felger and the rest of the mediots..

 

[PatsSox363804]

How many teams in the AFC had winning records?

6

How many teams in the NFC had winning records?

6

How many teams were 8-8?

8

How many teams had losing records?

12

It's a top heavy league. While true we did not beat a team with a winning record we're responsible for 6 of those 8-8 teams not having a winning record. Baltimore can say they beat Cincinnati twice which makes their record look better but Cincinnati didnt really beat anyone to get to 9-7. So they're telling us if the Jets beat the Giants in week 15 we now are 2-1 against teams with winning records and it changes everything? That's just stupid.

 

[Dutchmaster617]

Rob Parker is going on his Pats hate rant now, spread is too high waa waaa.

I don't know what is worse, the we haven't beaten a 500 team talk, or the just like 09 talk (Watson and Aiken really?)

 

[PatsFanSince74]

What difference does it make if we beat an 8--8 team that would have been 9--7, yada yada yada?

The bottom line is that the morons who are talking that garbage will shut up if we beat the Ravens and they will continue talking it if we lose to them. The only thing the Pats control is how they play on Sunday. Otherwise, "Morons do as morons are."

 

[Koma]

I wonder if the people making a big deal about the record of the Patriots opponents realize that NE could have gone 16-0 this season and only beaten 1 team with a winning record (Pittsburgh. The Giants would have been 8-8 with a loss to the Patriots.)

 

[Uncle Rico]

Rob Parker is going on his Pats hate rant now, spread is too high waa waaa.

I don't know what is worse, the we haven't beaten a 500 team talk, or the just like 09 talk (Watson and Aiken really?)

Sounds like I'm better off having no idea who the heck Rob Parker is.

 

[PATSNUTme]

These people seem to be reaching deep into their bowels to find something negative to rant about.

I had D&C on this morning and they were playing the "what if" game. "What if" they don't have this player or that player this Sunday. And after that, they went to the BB good coach, bad GM routine.

Before I reached for the stattion button I said, "What if your pants were on fire and your ass burned up, would you be able to talk?"

I then switched it over to Mike & Mike where atleast you get some football talk, besides this total crap.

And yes, I'm way ahead of game not knowing who this Rob Parker is, don't ruin it by telling me.

 

[Ron Sellers]

Don't forget to add Philadelphia to that list as well. Just as it appeared they were going to claw their way back to the NFCE lead the Pats squashed their playoff hopes.

Another way of looking at it is to ask what all those opponent's records were in the rest of their games, i.e., in all games excluding those against the Pats (or any other team you're trying to figure out beat how many 'quality' teams). Granted other teams records would also improve but because all of a sudden 0-2 becomes 7-2, but that's not brought up because it makes for a far less scintillating story.

Also I have yet to see anybody come up with any historical correlation between records versus winning teams and playoff success. Why could that be? Because gossip and innuendo sells.

It's not unlike the number of times you will hear the phrase "31st ranked defense" about the Pats, or "NFL's worst defense" about the Packers. While those comments as well as "0-2 versus" may technically be true, in reality they are meaningless statements that imply a very inaccurate portrait of the team.

Judging a team's defense (or offense) solely on the number of yards they allow (or gain) will lead to erroneous conclusions; same is true on predicting a team's probability of winning in the playoffs based on their record against team's that finished the season with a winning record.

However there's no reason for letting facts stand in the way of a good story; both of those stats will be repeated on an hourly basis all week long as if they were the most meaningful pieces of information that one could possibly uncover in regards to the next game.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The whole thing is stupid. Tom Brady is one of the best quarterbacks of all-time against quality opponents. That's why he has the best winning pct of all-time by a mile. You really think because the '11 squad hasn't beaten a "winning team" (since their only opportunity was at Pittsburgh), that means they can't do it?

Likewise, Baltimore lost to some garbage teams. The teams played about the same SOS and had nearly the same record. This stuff means less than zero. All it tells you is the Pats need to be ready for a more difficult opponent than they've faced, although the Ravens may come out and play like a 4-12 team. Likewise, the Pats may play like a 4-12 team. Who knows.

 

[IllegalContact]

since you're into repeating yourself, I will do the same

the pats played who they played.....the schedule was made exactly a year ago, so what ifs are irrelevant.

look at the ravens on the road outside their division:

L titans 13-26
W rams 37-7
L jags 7-12
L seahawks 17-22
L chargers 14-34

the went 1-4 against NON PLAYOFF TEAMS

they lost to blaine gabbert and tarvaris jackson. on the road, their defense is not scary and their offense is relatively inept.

this all boils down to whether the pats can execute their game. this game will not be up to the ravens

 

[DarrylS]

These people seem to be reaching deep into their bowels to find something negative to rant about.

I had D&C on this morning and they were playing the "what if" game. "What if" they don't have this player or that player this Sunday. And after that, they went to the BB good coach, bad GM routine.

Before I reached for the stattion button I said, "What if your pants were on fire and your ass burned up, would you be able to talk?"

I then switched it over to Mike & Mike where atleast you get some football talk, besides this total crap.

And yes, I'm way ahead of game not knowing who this Rob Parker is, don't ruin it by telling me.

I lasted longer than you did, made it to the point of where they were discussing the Free Agent misses, and some bs about how poor a talent evaluator he is.. Haynesworth, Ocho CInco and someone else whose name escapes me..then I switched to Toucher and Rich. Then someone called and spoke of Brian Waters, which they minimized.

 

[THELAWFIRM226]

Rob Parker is going on his Pats hate rant now, spread is too high waa waaa.

I don't know what is worse, the we haven't beaten a 500 team talk, or the just like 09 talk (Watson and Aiken really?)

haha I'm glad to see someone else hates Rob Parker as much as I do, I CAN"T STAND THAT GUY

 

[Fball]

At the end of the season, winning teams are gauged as teams that are over .500.

The Pats haven't beaten a winning team, by that measure, which is the only measure people use.

It was a soft schedule, any way you slice it. Even many of the teams they faced had backup QB's. They can't do anything about that, but you can be sure that if the Colts or Jets were at this stage of the playoffs w/ that schedule, the board would be talking about it.

 

[Deus Irae]

Nothing idiotic about that "banter".

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

At the end of the season, winning teams are gauged as teams that are over .500.

The Pats haven't beaten a winning team, by that measure, which is the only measure people use.

It was a soft schedule, any way you slice it. Even many of the teams they faced had backup QB's. They can't do anything about that, but you can be sure that if the Colts or Jets were at this stage of the playoffs w/ that schedule, the board would be talking about it.

What about the "how the team was playing at the time" argument? Philadelphia was getting hot. The Jets had reeled off three in a row. Oakland was 2-1 and the Pats had to go out west to play them. Dallas was over 500 at the time and looked to have the inside track to their division. Denver had won what, four straight going into week 15? To me, that is more relevant than anything else.

 

[Fball]

What about the "how the team was playing at the time" argument? Philadelphia was getting hot. The Jets had reeled off three in a row. Oakland was 2-1 and the Pats had to go out west to play them. Dallas was over 500 at the time and looked to have the inside track to their division. Denver had won what, four straight going into week 15? To me, that is more relevant than anything else.

It's a good argument, but not as fun a story for the media.

Still, in that group you mentioned, I'd say that only Oakland was a really impressive win. That team was hot, and good. Dallas was a spotty, poorly coached team all season, and probably would have won if Garrett didn't go all cautious at the end. The Jets were a bad team all season, that needed a great deal of luck just to finish w/ the record they did. Denver was hot against mostly depleted & mediocre teams, and pulled out some of the craziest wins I've ever seen. And Philly would have been a completely different team w/ Vick.

 

[mcsully]

I believe off the top of my head when the pats played a lot of these teams, they had winning records. You can look at two ways, the end product or break it down (this is why stats are sometimes misleading and a joke) into segments.. Someone who has time to review this.

But I'm fairly confident the Jets, Chargers, Dallas had winning records.. And KC started 1-4 but was on a win streak to get back to .500 and we beat them down.. Again off the top of my head but when we played a lot of these teams, they were in the hunt for the playoffs or division.. Can't leave that off the table when you talk about the 2011-2012 Pats..

 

[The Scrizz]

You play your schedule but ours wasn't overly taxing. Even those W's by the teams you mentioned would have put them at 9-7 not exactly world-beating.

If the NYG win on Sunday they will get a shot at playing 6 13-win teams. SF will be their 5th. GB twice, SF twice, and perhaps a 2nd shot at the Pats.

I don't really care, the Pats have had plenty of years where they had to beat lots of good teams, but I wouldn't say that it is a completely idiotic criticism.

On the other hand, the Pats had very few absolute cake-walks either. The Dolphins and Bills both had stretches where they played very good football and Washington was the only team they played that had fewer than 6 wins.

Meanwhile Baltimore got the pathetic Browns twice, the Colts, Jacksonville (who they lost to!), and St. Louis. Seattle was 2-6 when they beat the Ravens and propelled them on their winning stretch.

So yes the Pats didn't play a lot of top teams but they played competitive teams at least who you could say "Any given Sunday" about while the Ravens feasted on some real bottom dwellers (and got beaten by a few of them).

This is the part of the argument that you won't hear because it takes actual analysis as opposed to 2nd grade math.

Edit - some of this was already pointed out because it took me 45 minutes to write and post this thanks to my damn job. Do they not realize that it's the playoffs?

 

[Deus Irae]

What about the "how the team was playing at the time" argument? Philadelphia was getting hot. The Jets had reeled off three in a row. Oakland was 2-1 and the Pats had to go out west to play them. Dallas was over 500 at the time and looked to have the inside track to their division. Denver had won what, four straight going into week 15? To me, that is more relevant than anything else.

Philly was using their backup and were in the middle of losing 4 out of 5, and Romo was giving games away as if they were free samples. 2-1 is nothing you can base anything on, and The Jet wins came against teams that were collapsing (SD's loss to the Jets was the first of 6 in a row, Miami was in the middle of losing 7 in a row and the Bills were in the middle of losing 10 of 12). Denver is the only "yeah, but" team with anything approaching a legit argument.

The Patriots haven't yet beaten a team that finished the regular season with a winning record. That's just the reality of the situation. Instead of trying to play the "But... the Patriots!" kind of games, let's just acknowledge the fact and hope it changes this weekend.

 

[Bostonian1962]

I don't know about the banter, but I do know that it's been some time since I've seen the Patriots this focused, with this much edge, and this much hunger. I love it! In the last decade when the Patriots are this hungry, LOOK OUT!