The offense could be better than 2007

DisgruntledTunaFan said:

Here's my prediction for the Pats this year...

5-1 in the AFCE

3-1 in the AFCS

1-1 against Baltimore/Denver

3-1 against NFCS

12-4

Click to expand...

Yes, but does that get us in the playoffs?!?

tanked_as_usual said:

with the addition of baker, it gives the pats the best 2 TE set they have had since graham left, so the need to replace evans is less........not to mention the fact that both taylor and maroney excel as lone setbacks.........maroney's worst success is running behind a fullback

Click to expand...

Did we not have Kyle Brady in 2007?

I think the offense will be really great this coming year. With Brady having all that rest to his arm/shoulder he will be nice and fresh.

I didn't compare stats before I wrote this, but maybe Moss took it a little bit easy last season to kind of rest up for this year since he and Brady will be hooking up for the long ball frequently.

Having Lewis will definately switch things up on offense as well as some one else calling the shots/plays. It could look totally different.

If we get Springs to work with Hobbs the sencondary will improve. I also think the rest of the defense will be addressed in the draft.

Scott37 said:

Did we not have Kyle Brady in 2007?

Click to expand...

yep........in name only.......he turned out to be a dud

nashvillepatsfan said:

Unlike some of the fans here, I would be very happy with 12-4.

Click to expand...

I dont know how we could be happy with winning 1 more game with Brady than we won with Matt Cassel.
Everything I see says 14-2 should be where the bar is set.

AndyJohnson said:

I dont know how we could be happy with winning 1 more game with Brady than we won with Matt Cassel.
Everything I see says 14-2 should be where the bar is set.

Click to expand...

:nono: Beware the comparisons to '08. Much, much tougher schedule this year. No more beating up on the AFC and NFC West divisions.

mayoclinic said:

That may be true, but the 2007 Pats were unbalanced between the passing and running game, and it came back to hurt them towards the end of the season and especially in the SB.

The 2009 Pats offense probably won't put up as many points as 2007 or set passing and receiving TD records, but I think it will be more balanced and therefore ultimately better.

Click to expand...

Where do people get such notions as this? How the hell did the unbalanced attack hurt a 16-0 team?

It's been over a year, people. It's time to stop with the silliness about that team. Despite Brady not being 100% and the injuries to Faulk and Neal, the Patriots fell less than 3 minutes short of becoming the first NFL team in history to go unbeaten in a 19 game season. The unbalanced passing can hurt the team like that every year as far as I'm concerned, although I'd like that 3 minutes to work out differently.

AndyJohnson said:

I dont know how we could be happy with winning 1 more game with Brady than we won with Matt Cassel.
Everything I see says 14-2 should be where the bar is set.

Click to expand...

Well, The schedule is going to be a WHOLE lot tougher this year, so you can't really say that 12-4 vs the group of teams we are playing this year is a disappointing result with Brady as the QB.

I'd say that if we had to play this schedule with Cassel fresh of the back-up position, he would not have does as well as he did vs. that relatively weak 2008 schedule.

Dig it?

Scott37 said:

Did we not have Kyle Brady in 2007?

Click to expand...

Kyle Brady was abysmal.

Deus Irae said:

Where do people get such notions as this? How the hell did the unbalanced attack hurt a 16-0 team?

It's been over a year, people. It's time to stop with the silliness about that team. Despite Brady not being 100% and the injuries to Faulk and Neal, the Patriots fell less than 3 minutes short of becoming the first NFL team in history to go unbeaten in a 19 game season. The unbalanced passing can hurt the team like that every year as far as I'm concerned, although I'd like that 3 minutes to work out differently.

Click to expand...

Seriously, this argument is - to be dialectically correct - "retahded."

In the 2007, we out-rushed our opponents by 277 yards.
Of our 75 TD's that year, 25 came in the run game. That seems on par with a league that has largely become pass-oriented and considering our QB ranks slightly above other-worldly with dope receivers.

It's also worth mentioning, for all the hate he gets, Watson caught 6 TD passes in 2007. By comparison Welker caught 8. We all know what Randy did. There is no doubt that as Brady returns to form, this team gets a LOT better offensively with no moves made. If the new guy (Greg VonSpeediefeets) turns up as a replacement for Gaffney, but with afterburners Jabar doesn't have, he could very well best Gaff's 5 TD's in 07.

I feel confident that this offense will be every bit as potent as 2007 and with an improved Run Game thanks to the discovery of how potent the RB committee can be, It wouldn't surprise me to see us eclipse the TD total of 2007. Even though the schedule is tougher than 2008, the team is going to be as deadly, if not more-so, as 2007.

As long as the D improves to mid-decade form (which I think is very possible), this team is almost assured of ripping the league a new one after a possibly shaky start.

Let's all just agree not to slit our wrists if things don't look pristine by game #2.

MetalBleachers said:

:nono: Beware the comparisons to '08. Much, much tougher schedule this year. No more beating up on the AFC and NFC West divisions.

Click to expand...

I dont pay attention to that schedule argument. First, teams change so much from year to year that strength of schedule isnt accurate. We also kept hearing all last off-season how brutal our 2008 schedule was going to be. Now all of a sudden it was easy?
I dont see much of a difference in this years sched vs next years.

ScottieC said:

Well, The schedule is going to be a WHOLE lot tougher this year, so you can't really say that 12-4 vs the group of teams we are playing this year is a disappointing result with Brady as the QB.

I'd say that if we had to play this schedule with Cassel fresh of the back-up position, he would not have does as well as he did vs. that relatively weak 2008 schedule.

Dig it?

Click to expand...

How do you feel the schedule is a lot tougher?

AndyJohnson said:

How do you feel the schedule is a lot tougher?

Click to expand...

NFC South and AFC South Vs. AFC West and NFC West

Come on, Andy. I don't want to argue over this, you gotta admit that's a HUGE difference in talent.

The "West" vs "South" comparison in not that relavent for this discussion.

What's more relavent is the 2009 is not even remotely as difficult as the 2007 schedule. The 2007 was brutal.

The 2008 Squeelers don't stand within 21 points of a Brady oiled pat machine

2009- 15-1

AndyJohnson said:

I dont pay attention to that schedule argument. First, teams change so much from year to year that strength of schedule isnt accurate. We also kept hearing all last off-season how brutal our 2008 schedule was going to be. Now all of a sudden it was easy?
I dont see much of a difference in this years sched vs next years.

Click to expand...

You might want to re-charge those memory banks:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/77418-2008-schedule-tough-away-easier-home.html

NFC South is very tough at home however we only play @Saints and @Bucs* but remember that is played in a neutral location London.

ScottieC said:

NFC South and AFC South Vs. AFC West and NFC West

Come on, Andy. I don't want to argue over this, you gotta admit that's a HUGE difference in talent.

Click to expand...

Not really.
NFCS isnt real impressive. The NFCW had this years SB team.
Which teams in the NFCS would you expect that we wouldn't beat with either our 07 or 08 team? I see none.
AFCS vs AFCW. You actually have to look at the entire conference schedule because we play one from the other divisions
Last year
SD loss
INDY loss
Pitt loss
Den
KC
Oak

This year
Indy
Tenn
Bmore
Den
Jax
Houston

How is that substantially tougher? You think we would have lost more than 2 of the 5 that werent indy?
To say that the 09 schedule is a lot tougher is to say we would have lost at least 3 games to Tenn, Balt, Jax or Houston. That is silly.
Or to say we would lose to Atl, Carolina, NO or Tampa. I guess your opinion of those 4 mediocre teams, or of the Pats is very different than mine.

Note that 'strength of schedule' is a lot more appropriate gauge for an 8-8 team that SB contender. It doesn't make much difference if you are playing a bunch of 8-8 teams or a bunch of 3-13 teams when you are the Patriots, because you arent losing to bad teams OR mediocre teams.

Above all, things change so dramatically year to year that schedule analysis is useless.
A year ago the NFCS was considered horrible. The NFC is a weak conference. That creates mediocre teams such as Atlanta or Arizona being able to look 'tough' but they really aren't. The NFC has the Giants, some awful teams and then a whole bunch that are 8-8 teams disgusied as anywhere from 5-11 to 11-5 based on how the ball bounces. Then of course they all have gains and losses in the offseason.
Project that over a conference and I can guarantee you which NFC conferences are considered strong or weak today will be dramatically different 12 months form now.

Deus Irae said:

You might want to re-charge those memory banks:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/77418-2008-schedule-tough-away-easier-home.html

Click to expand...

My memory isnt based on one post someone made.
As soon as Brady was injured the most typical post on this board proclaimed how screwed we were and how could we have any hope with no Brady and a BRUTAL schedule.
-Pitt
-Indy
-SD
-Denver
-Arizona
The Jets and Fins and Bills are all strong teams
We have to play 4 games on the west coast, blah, blah, blah

The point is the schedule is the schedule and teams simply don't succeed or fail in the NFL because of their schedule.

PatsChamp88 said:

NFC South is very tough at home however we only play @Saints and @Bucs* but remember that is played in a neutral location London.

Click to expand...

I just dont get how we consider Atlanta and Carolina in our house 'Very Tough'.
They are medicore teams that are as likely to win 6 games as they are to win 10.

AndyJohnson said:

My memory isnt based on one post someone made.
As soon as Brady was injured the most typical post on this board proclaimed how screwed we were and how could we have any hope with no Brady and a BRUTAL schedule.
-Pitt
-Indy
-SD
-Denver
-Arizona
The Jets and Fins and Bills are all strong teams
We have to play 4 games on the west coast, blah, blah, blah

The point is the schedule is the schedule and teams simply don't succeed or fail in the NFL because of their schedule.

Click to expand...

Andy, you're wrong. Just admit it and move on.


Sheesh.