Four Points away from being 11-0

[ivanvamp]

Peter King wrote this in his latest MMQB: "1. New England (8-3). Pats have averaged 47.5 points per game the last four weeks. Tom Brady's on pace for 35 touchdowns and four interceptions. Occasionally they show signs of being defensively competent. And Thursday, they won by 30 without their two best offensive linemen, best tight end and best defensive end. How they have three losses, I have no idea."

Here's how.

L, 20-18 vs. Arizona - The Patriots dominated this game from just about every conceivable angle. Here are the numbers:

1st Downs
Ari: 16
NE: 25

Total Yards
Ari: 242
NE: 387

Time of Possession
Ari: 28:19
NE: 31:41

Turnovers
Ari: 2
NE: 1

This game came down to the following plays:

(1) The blocked punt that led to the first Arizona TD.
(2) The missed 2-point conversion after the Pats got to within 20-18.
(3) The holding penalty on Gronk that negated Woodhead's game-winning TD.
(4) The missed chip-shot field goal by Gostkowski.

That's how the Patriots lost a game they should have won.


L, 31-30 at Baltimore - The Pats built a 30-21 lead in the fourth quarter. It really should have been 34-21, as the Pats had first and goal from Baltimore's 4 yard line, but had to settle for a field goal. This game was lost on bad 4th quarter defense and some absolutely horrific officiating. There were so many bad, bad penalties in this one, and the ones that hurt the Pats were at key times. The final straw was the final field goal by Baltimore that was actually no good. We saw a video posted by a fan in the end zone who had a PERFECT angle - the camera, the upright, and the ball were in a straight line, and it was clear that the kick was wide. The Pats never should have let it get to that point, but the reality is that the officiating just killed NE in this game.


L, 24-23 at Seattle - This one was inexplicable. The Pats were up 23-10 in this game and let it get away. This game was highlighted (lowlighted?) by the horrible intentional grounding penalty on Brady to end the first half, a penalty that never ever gets called in that situation (40 years of watching football and I've never seen that called there). Cost NE 3 points, which would have won the game for NE. The Seahawks strategy was simply to let Wilson run around in the backfield and then throw the ball deep. They got a lot of completions and penalties that led to huge yardage. The Pats dominated statistically, like they did in the Arizona game:

1st Downs
NE: 26
Sea: 17

Total Yards
NE: 388
Sea: 283

Time of Possession
NE: 34:00
Sea: 26:00

And the turnovers were even. The key plays from a Pats' offensive perspective were the intentional grounding penalty and the Brady tipped pass for an INT when the Pats had 3rd and 1 from Seattle's 6 yard line.

No way the Pats lose this game if they play it again.


Long story much shorter, the Pats easily could have won all three of these games. I believe the refs cost them one (Baltimore), some really out-of-character things cost them against Seattle, and a play you never really see from NE (giving up a blocked punt) cost them against Arizona.

That, Peter King, is how they have three losses by a combined four points.

 

[chasa]

I'm so sick of peter king.

He's such an obnoxious clown.

I much prefer don banks and adam shefter

 

[dales804]

I find myself telling people who anoint the Texans as the AFC's best: if Gostowski makes that kick versus ARI and the right call is made on the final kick in BAL, does that make that Pats #1? So the outcome of two kicks (not mentioning the holding penalty on Gronk) deems HOU better than the Pats? I don't think so.

I can't wait to see the Texans come here and see how they match up.

 

[Brady_12]

(Please don't flame, this is tongue-in-cheek)

Are you a-holes TRYING to depress us?

 

[ivanvamp]

(Please don't flame, this is tongue-in-cheek)

Are you a-holes TRYING to depress us?

Heh. It actually should be cause for optimism. I mean, think about it. This team is a missed chip-shot FG, a blown FG call, and a terrible grounding penalty from being unbeaten. The Texans won on Thanksgiving because of a horrible call on a TD that shouldn't have been. The Ravens won yesterday because of a terrible, obviously wrong, spot on the 4th and 19 play, and they beat the Pats on a bad missed FG call.

The Patriots are, at this point, playing like the best team in the NFL, and it's not particularly close. Every other serious team has gotten it handed to them at least once this year, but the Pats? Nope. Three losses by the absolute thinnest of margins, all on very questionable plays.

The more I think about that, the more I am optimistic about this team moving forward.

 

[Big-T]

Arizona game - iffy holding call negates game winning TD, PI by Rhodes on the 2 point conversion not called.
Baltimore - flat out BS for the whole game.

So there's 2 losses you can put solely down to the scabs.

Seahawks game, again a lot of uncalled PI but Brady was just "off" that game and every single rainbow Wilson lobbed up just happened to find a receiver.

But on the other hand -
McGahee fumbles when the Broncos are driving late in the game.
Stephen Hill flat out drops the ball which would have got the Jets into FG range to win the game.
Fred Jackson fumbles at the end of the half which would have put the Bills up by 21(?).

"luck" works both ways - the Ravens & Texans have the bad to come.

 

[mayoclinic]

I guess I just look at it differently:

1. I couldn't care less about being 11-0, or where we are "ranked". This isn't the BCS. In fact, I don't really want to be 11-0 and have all that pressure and scrutiny. I like flying under the radar, or drafting behind the frontrunners, to use a different analogy.

2. I view those 3 losses as badges of honor that the team will proudly wear all season in remembrance of how easily a win can become a loss. I want the team to be pisses off about those 3 losses all year long, and take nothing for granted. Assume the whole extended NFL is against us (including many of our own media), and don't let it get close enough for the refs to steal the game from you with bad calls. And I'll gladly take those 3 losses in September/October - and 3 more before the end of the season, if need be - over 1 loss in January/February.

 

[upstater1]

But on the other hand -
McGahee fumbles when the Broncos are driving late in the game.
Stephen Hill flat out drops the ball which would have got the Jets into FG range to win the game.
Fred Jackson fumbles at the end of the half which would have put the Bills up by 21(?).

"luck" works both ways - the Ravens & Texans have the bad to come.

I tend to agree that Pats got lucky against the Bills and Jets, but the Patriots fumbled the ball right back to the Broncos around that McGahee fumble, so I wouldn't call that luck. Unless the Patriots fumble was lucky for the Broncos. It cancelled things out.

 

[resdubwhite]

We're a drop away from losing the Jets home game and an INT from losing the home bills game.

Its not quite evening it out, but its nearly there.

 

[ivanvamp]

I guess I just look at it differently:

1. I couldn't care less about being 11-0, or where we are "ranked". This isn't the BCS. In fact, I don't really want to be 11-0 and have all that pressure and scrutiny. I like flying under the radar, or drafting behind the frontrunners, to use a different analogy.

I hear you on this. It does matter, though, because it seriously impacts seeding and HFA.

 

[PatsFan2]

The Seatlle Game is the one that sticks in my crow...VERY BAD Clock Managemnet...may have been the worst one i have seen in the BB tenure. Getting nothing off that turn over in enemy territory just before the half came back the bite us in the @ss. We are in a position now that we CANNOT afford to drop one more game with likes of the Ravens and Texans having a game on us. It's looking more and more like we have to Win out to secure something.

 

[SVN]

just 2 weeks ago after the bills game , there were questions about the D ..more questions. suddenly we are #1 ? I wish this were the case but we aren't there yet. This the colts of the 2000 effect. Highest scoring team gets a lot of press attention. Still think texans have some won some tough road games and pulled out close games at chicago etc even outside their dome. Their pass rush is much better than the pats and helps their secondary.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

who cares..we aren't 11-0

 

[mayoclinic]

I hear you on this. It does matter, though, because it seriously impacts seeding and HFA.

Who gives a shyte? The Pats had to go on the road in the AFCCG in 2001 and 2004 and won it all. We went on the road to San Diego in 2006 and beat the Chargers, everyone's favorite at the time, and we would have beaten Indy if we hadn't run out of steam. The Steelers in 2005, Packers in 2010 and Giants in 2007 and 2011 had to go on extended road trips to win it all. We lost at home in the playoffs to the Jets in 2010 and the Ravens in 2009, so home field doesn't always mean a win.

Give me a hungry team playing at the top of its game and let the seeding fall where it may. I bet BB doesn't really care all that much.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Patriots have fielded a 16-0 offense and a 1-15 defense for much of this season. They were destined to lose games, and it's good that they did. Without the losses, there would have been less incentive to go get Talib.

 

[patsinthesnow]

If Dowling doesn't bust (He starts and forces Arrington to nickle, Moore never starts) the Pats are 10-1.

Talib is essentially Dowling insurance, a tall physical CB who can play man coverage and be a #1 CB. So far, the insurance is paying off.

 

[PatsFan2]

If Dowling doesn't bust (He starts and forces Arrington to nickle, Moore never starts) the Pats are 10-1.

Talib is essentially Dowling insurance, a tall physical CB who can play man coverage and be a #1 CB. So far, the insurance is paying off.

What has Dowling actually done for him to merit any considerations in your post???

 

[patsinthesnow]

What has Dowling actually done for him to merit any considerations in your post???

Who's him?...

 

[ivanvamp]

Who gives a shyte? The Pats had to go on the road in the AFCCG in 2001 and 2004 and won it all. We went on the road to San Diego in 2006 and beat the Chargers, everyone's favorite at the time, and we would have beaten Indy if we hadn't run out of steam. The Steelers in 2005, Packers in 2010 and Giants in 2007 and 2011 had to go on extended road trips to win it all. We lost at home in the playoffs to the Jets in 2010 and the Ravens in 2009, so home field doesn't always mean a win.

Give me a hungry team playing at the top of its game and let the seeding fall where it may. I bet BB doesn't really care all that much.

All other things being equal, you wouldn't prefer have a bye and then two home games to get to the Super Bowl, rather than have to play three games, at least one of which would be on the road? Of those two options, isn't one a heck of a lot easier than the other?

 

[CheeseMonkeys]

I guess I just look at it differently:

1. I couldn't care less about being 11-0, or where we are "ranked". This isn't the BCS. In fact, I don't really want to be 11-0 and have all that pressure and scrutiny. I like flying under the radar, or drafting behind the frontrunners, to use a different analogy.

2. I view those 3 losses as badges of honor that the team will proudly wear all season in remembrance of how easily a win can become a loss. I want the team to be pisses off about those 3 losses all year long, and take nothing for granted. Assume the whole extended NFL is against us (including many of our own media), and don't let it get close enough for the refs to steal the game from you with bad calls. And I'll gladly take those 3 losses in September/October - and 3 more before the end of the season, if need be - over 1 loss in January/February.

Very well said. I think it would be so cool to be 11-0 right now but I don't feel like we have any less of a chance to win it at 8-3. The Patriots are a team that could be undefeated but now they have a small chip on their shoulder.