This is going to be an easy game...

Ice_Ice_Brady said:

-Meanwhile, the Patriots have fared astronomically well against sub-.500 teams under Belichick, which should be a reason why the "trap game" argument should be hot air by now. My research may be off slightly, but just running down the games from profootballreference, I believe the Pats are 53-4 since 2003 against sub-.500 teams (that's the final record, not at the time of the game.) Three of those losses were to Miami, and the other was the infamous opener in 2003 to Buffalo. You could argue that their incredible consistency in dispatching bad teams is actually the reason for their record-setting streaks and winning pct over the last decade, even more so than beating good ones.

-So you can talk about all the matchups and possibilities, but in the end, I see this as an easy call. In 53 of 57 games, the Pats have taken out the garbage successfully, and they haven't lost to a sub-.500 besides Miami since the first game seven years ago. During all of these 50+ games it's the same story every week: watch out for this guy, Pats will be overconfident, the other team will be playing with nothing to lose, the other team is better than we think, etc. etc. Belichick prepares his team for one game at a time, and he loses extremely rarely when he has a big talent advantage.

Prediction: The Patriots offense might continue to struggle again early on, so I don't expect a 2007-esque woodshed game. However, I expect the Patriots to easily cover the 4 point spread. This game will be ugly, as Belichick/Mangini matchups typically are, with neither coach wanting to look bad. The Browns will play conservatively, and so will the Patriots. Patriots 24, Browns 13.

Click to expand...

We're favoured in this game for a reason; we're the better team. We should win. But to say we'll win easily is a completely different thing.

Yes, we've beaten a lot of sub-500 teams, but very few of those wins were easy. Last year, we played 5 games against sub-500 teams and only blew out one of them (Tampa). We split with Miami, beating them by 10 and losing to them, and beat Buffalo twice by a combined 8 points.

In 2008, Cassel played. In 2007, we blew out most teams, even good ones. But as we transition back to old-school Patriots football, it's important to remember that those good ol' days weren't filled with many easy wins. If we look at the period where we won our Super Bowls (2001 to 2004), you'll see that there were plenty of close games even against the sub-500 teams.

Even if you look only at the 3 Super Bowl winning years, you find a lot of close games. Below are the results of our games vs. sub-500 teams during our SB years:

2004
Arizona by 11
Miami by 14
Chiefs by 8
Browns by 27
Loss to Dolphins by 1
49ers by 14

2003
Loss to Buffalo by 31
Jets by 7
Loss to Redskins by 3
Giants by 11
Cleveland by 6
Houston by 3
Jacksonville by 14
Jets by 5
Bills by 31

2001
Loss to Bengals by 6
Indy by 31
San Diego by 3
Atlanta by 14
Buffalo by 10
Saints by 17
Browns by 11
Bills by 3
Carolina by 32

That's 4 losses to 4 different teams out of 24 games vs. sub-500 teams, or 16% of those games vs. our Super Bowl teams. During those 3 years, we only lost 9 total games, and 4 of them were to sub-500 teams.

Lets say a blowout is more than 2 possessions. A close game is 1 possession. Competitive is in-between. You could say 4 of those games were "easy" games or blowouts.

7 games were within 1 possession, with the other 9 falling into the competitive range. That's at least 11 games that were either lost or decided by a possession or less against a sub-500 team.

As for this year's Pats, we beat Cincinnati by 14, Buffalo by 8, San Diego by 3, and Minnesota by 10. The Cincy game looks a lot better because of a big second half from the Bungles, but the other 3 games were very competitive and easily could have been losses.

At 6-1, we deserve to be favoured. But we don't deserve to expect to beat anyone easily.

convertedpatsfan said:

We're favoured in this game for a reason; we're the better team. We should win. But to say we'll win easily is a completely different thing.

Yes, we've beaten a lot of sub-500 teams, but very few of those wins were easy. Last year, we played 5 games against sub-500 teams and only blew out one of them (Tampa). We split with Miami, beating them by 10 and losing to them, and beat Buffalo twice by a combined 8 points.

In 2008, Cassel played. In 2007, we blew out most teams, even good ones. But as we transition back to old-school Patriots football, it's important to remember that those good ol' days weren't filled with many easy wins. If we look at the period where we won our Super Bowls (2001 to 2004), you'll see that there were plenty of close games even against the sub-500 teams.

Even if you look only at the 3 Super Bowl winning years, you find a lot of close games. Below are the results of our games vs. sub-500 teams during our SB years:

2004
Arizona by 11
Miami by 14
Chiefs by 8
Browns by 27
Loss to Dolphins by 1
49ers by 14

2003
Loss to Buffalo by 31
Jets by 7
Loss to Redskins by 3
Giants by 11
Cleveland by 6
Houston by 3
Jacksonville by 14
Jets by 5
Bills by 31

2001
Loss to Bengals by 6
Indy by 31
San Diego by 3
Atlanta by 14
Buffalo by 10
Saints by 17
Browns by 11
Bills by 3
Carolina by 32

That's 4 losses to 4 different teams out of 24 games vs. sub-500 teams, or 16% of those games vs. our Super Bowl teams. During those 3 years, we only lost 9 total games, and 4 of them were to sub-500 teams.

Lets say a blowout is more than 2 possessions. A close game is 1 possession. Competitive is in-between. You could say 4 of those games were "easy" games or blowouts.

7 games were within 1 possession, with the other 9 falling into the competitive range. That's at least 11 games that were either lost or decided by a possession or less against a sub-500 team.

As for this year's Pats, we beat Cincinnati by 14, Buffalo by 8, San Diego by 3, and Minnesota by 10. The Cincy game looks a lot better because of a big second half from the Bungles, but the other 3 games were very competitive and easily could have been losses.

At 6-1, we deserve to be favoured. But we don't deserve to expect to beat anyone easily.

Click to expand...

Nice post, and thanks for humbling me for the game tomorrow. Perhaps my thread title was misleading. I don't expect the Patriots to win by a huge margin, I'd just be very surprised if they lost the game. It has less to do with the Patriots, who I believe have a lot of room for improvement. The Browns are not a good team and lack the play makers to make me believe they are capable of winning this game, short of some kind of very unexpected twist. I think the Patriots win this game 19 times out of 20, especially with their chemistry right now.

Ice_Ice_Brady said:

Why click on the post if you're not going to read it?

Click to expand...

Two reasons, the title was enough for me and it was too long.

Pats offense is not lights out, but the team leads the NFL in scoring. The Browns are 31st out of 32. Not sure where you are going here...

Click to expand...

As weird as it sounds, I don't think the Pats offense is very good.

Defense could crack at any second? Of course it could, but do you really think that after playing well enough to WIN against Rivers, the Vikings weapons, Ochocinco and Owens, Marshall and Bess, and some other pretty good offenses, you would expect them to crack against this Ben Watson-led offense?

Click to expand...

First, Carson Palmer is a loser. It doesn't matter if he had Jerry Rice in his prime, he's not a very good QB.

Same goes with Chad Henne.

Rivers had nobody to throw to.

The Vikings are struggling.

In the end, the Pats D may never get tested because the NFL sucks in general this year. Worse than 2008.

Yes, the Pats are beatable, just not as beatable as the Browns.

Click to expand...

My point, which you guys are missing completely, is that no game is a shoe-in. Especially with this team.

Ice_Ice_Brady said:

And in response to the Browns beating the Saints, well, with the exception of last year, the Saints have regularly been a very inconsistent team.

Click to expand...

Exactly how has our offense been inconsistent? We have been the #1-4 offense sense 2006. 2009 is all people remember, pretty false statement. No disrespect, but look these things up before you make sweeping judgments.

pherein said:

Exactly how has our offense been inconsistent? We have been the #1-4 offense sense 2006. 2009 is all people remember, pretty false statement. No disrespect, but look these things up before you make sweeping judgments.

Click to expand...

He's not talking about the Saints' offense, he's talking about your W/L record over the past few seasons being inconsistent...which is true.

Afatguy said:

He's not talking about the Saints' offense, he's talking about your W/L record over the past few seasons being inconsistent...which is true.

Click to expand...

I guess your smarter than I am, because I dont see how your extrapolating what your saying from his quote. I mean its kind of crazy to say the Saints offense has not been consistent, at this point. This seems a simplification. How are you getting wins an loses from his quote? Its seems a pretty clear blanket statement to me, guess Im slow. I wouldn't underestimate this team again, especially since the defense is better than last year. I"ll say the same thing I said before we played last year, its a mistake. We don't suck. Theres no team in the NFL that the Saints cant beat 50/50.

Meh, I've been on this board for over four years and this is the first time I've boldly proclaimed a victory, but it's mostly because I just don't understand all of the anxiety. Patriots are better across the board. I don't see Cleveland pulling this one out. And in response to the Browns beating the Saints, well, with the exception of last year, the Saints have regularly been a very inconsistent team.

I don't practice with the team, I don't play on the team, and I don't get paid by the team, so if the Pats do lose the game, I didn't jinx them, they just lost the game. But again, they should win this one. This is the second worst opponent they will play all season, and I'd argue that Buffalo is a bigger threat simply because they see us twice a year (plus that streak has to end sometime.)

Click to expand...

pherein said:

I guess your smarter than I am, because I dont see how your extrapolating what your saying from his quote. I mean its kind of crazy to say the Saints offense has not been consistent, at this point. This seems a simplification. How are you getting wins an loses from his quote? Its seems a pretty clear blanket statement to me, guess Im slow. I wouldn't underestimate this team again, especially since the defense is better than last a year.

Click to expand...

Actually he is correct. I am not sure where you are getting the Saints offense out of this. I said the Saints, and by that, I meant the overall team's ability to play at a consistently high level. They maintained it last year, but look at the overall body of work for the last few years. They are an up-and-down team. This year, they look like champions against Steelers and Bucs, and then they get beaten by the Browns and Cardinals. Nothing against the Saints, as they are the defending champions, but beating them does not hold the same level of achievement as beating, say, the Colts. The Saints have a lot of games where they just don't show up to play to their capabilities. The Browns game is a good example.

Ice_Ice_Brady said:

Actually he is correct. I am not sure where you are getting the Saints offense out of this. I said the Saints, and by that, I meant the overall team's ability to play at a consistently high level. They maintained it last year, but look at the overall body of work for the last few years. They are an up-and-down team. This year, they look like champions against Steelers and Bucs, and then they get beaten by the Browns and Cardinals. Nothing against the Saints, as they are the defending champions, but beating them does not hold the same level of achievement as beating, say, the Colts. The Saints have a lot of games where they just don't show up to play to their capabilities. The Browns game is a good example.

Click to expand...

I'd suggest any time you beat the defending Superbowl champion that holds sway wherever you are. What a peculiar line of thought.

RayClay said:

You flunk Patriots 101. One game at a time.

Click to expand...

For the life of me, I will never understand this way of thinking. Why must FANS take it one game at a time? Are we suddenly preparing for a physical game against the Browns in which we should expect every trick in the book thrown at us?

HEY BRO! WHAT UP? said:

In the end, the Pats D may never get tested because the NFL sucks in general this year.

Click to expand...

If that is the case then you should be more optimistic then, right?

After all, the Pats are not competing against anybody from another year or another era for some mythical fantasy best team ever fan poll award; they're competing on the field here and now against those 31 other 'sucky' teams this year.

ausbacker said:

I'd suggest any time you beat the defending Superbowl champion that holds sway wherever you are. What a peculiar line of thought.

Click to expand...

You must have missed the stat that the Browns are 3-19 against teams with .500+ records over the past three years, with all three wins coming against defending SB Champs.

Ice_Ice_Brady said:

Actually he is correct. I am not sure where you are getting the Saints offense out of this. I said the Saints, and by that, I meant the overall team's ability to play at a consistently high level. They maintained it last year, but look at the overall body of work for the last few years. They are an up-and-down team. This year, they look like champions against Steelers and Bucs, and then they get beaten by the Browns and Cardinals. Nothing against the Saints, as they are the defending champions, but beating them does not hold the same level of achievement as beating, say, the Colts. The Saints have a lot of games where they just don't show up to play to their capabilities. The Browns game is a good example.

Click to expand...

2007-2008 where all injuries, 2008 the only receiver we had was Lance Moore on the roster.
You need to research this a bit. Our defense sucked until GW , no argument there.

The Saints have a lot of games where they just don't show up to play to their capabilities

Click to expand...

Again, Im just to dumb to understand, if we don't show up, exactly how did we beat beat 4 MVP QB's in row? and how does Payton maintain the top #1-4 offense for 4 years?


As a team, if the Saints offense played their best vs the Patriots offense best, and our defense played their best vs the patriots best, who would win?

Thats my point.

KontradictioN said:

For the life of me, I will never understand this way of thinking. Why must FANS take it one game at a time? Are we suddenly preparing for a physical game against the Browns in which we should expect every trick in the book thrown at us?

Click to expand...

People really are superstitious. Most really believe that they affect the outcome of the game. Probably because they go on a lot of forums and hear idiots talk about "karma" and other stupid ways of looking at the NFL world. Teams don't lose because their fans are ****y. Brady's knee wasn't blown out because the Patriots ran up the score in 2007.

Gosh, I can't believe the resistance to this thread. For the last eight weeks, I've been pacing around my house for hours before the game, telling myself I just don't see how the Patriots win on paper. Is it so inconceivable that I see this as one of their easiest opponents and can't understand why everyone, as fans, are so uptight?

This is the game that, universally, everyone had a "W" next to when going over the Pats W/L record before the season. Well, the Pats are much better than we expected, and the Browns are still not good.

VectorPrime said:

I have said it twice already and I will say it again.

Want to know why the Browns beat the Saints? Because Brees threw 4 ints. That's why.

Tom won't do that.

Click to expand...

well tom brady could get strip sack and fumble the ball twice, BJGE could fumble the ball once, and welker could fumble the ball while trying to catch it on a punt return. Hernandez if he plays could fumble the ball while trying to hard to get some extra YAC.

jmt57 said:

If that is the case then you should be more optimistic then, right?

After all, the Pats are not competing against anybody from another year or another era for some mythical fantasy best team ever fan poll award; they're competing on the field here and now against those 31 other 'sucky' teams this year.

Click to expand...

Because the NFL is so bad this year, I think the Pats actually have a chance to win the super bowl this year.

However, at the beginning of the season, I didn't think they had a chance.

Nikolai said:

Eh, I don't disagree with the OP's intent to balance the oddly high degree of angst in this forum over tomorrow's game. I don't get the fear of the Browns.

Of course, I hypocritically believe that Detroit will be a tough game.

Click to expand...

Detroit has some very high quality talent. They're a draft and an extra year away. They'll score 20 points.

Ice_Ice_Brady said:

People really are superstitious. Most really believe that they affect the outcome of the game. Probably because they go on a lot of forums and hear idiots talk about "karma" and other stupid ways of looking at the NFL world. Teams don't lose because their fans are ****y. Brady's knee wasn't blown out because the Patriots ran up the score in 2007.

Gosh, I can't believe the resistance to this thread. For the last eight weeks, I've been pacing around my house for hours before the game, telling myself I just don't see how the Patriots win on paper. Is it so inconceivable that I see this as one of their easiest opponents and can't understand why everyone, as fans, are so uptight?

This is the game that, universally, everyone had a "W" next to when going over the Pats W/L record before the season. Well, the Pats are much better than we expected, and the Browns are still not good.

Click to expand...

It's not karma. I just don't understand why people adopt the team's mantra. Why should we take it one game at a time? To my knowledge, nobody here plays for the Patriots. To my knowledge, nobody here is even on their payroll. Fans have the ability to look ahead to future games which appear to be tougher on paper. It's the TEAM that should take it one game at a time.

pherein said:

2007-2008 where all injuries, 2008 the only receiver we had was Lance Moore on the roster.
You need to research this a bit. Our defense sucked until GW , no argument there.

Again, Im just to dumb to understand, if we don't show up, exactly how did we beat beat 4 MVP QB's in row? and how does Payton maintain the top #1-4 offense for 4 years?


As a team, if the Saints offense played their best vs the Patriots offense best, and our defense played their best vs the patriots best, who would win?

Thats my point.

Click to expand...

Not sure on who would win between Pats and Saints. Both teams playing their best is contradiction, as that scenario is impossible by its nature. Because the Saints beat the Pats last year, I'd probably pick the Saints, but Brady and Belichick's dominance goes way back- nine years of elite play and not one- so you can never count them out.

Okay, well let's just stick to this year for now.

The Saints opened up against the Vikings. At that time the Vikings were better than they are now. I'd say it was a nice win for the Saints.

They played at San Francisco. The Niners are terrible. Since the Saints won the game on the road, it was a good win.

They lost to Atlanta at home. Atlanta is a good team, but the Saints should not lose many games at home. Loss.

They squeaked by Carolina at home, by two points. Not exactly impressive, and although a win is a win, it's hard to argue that they looked like an elite team. Carolina is 1-6.

They lost at Arizona. The Cardinals have Max Hall. WTF?

They crushed Tampa Bay. Starting to look like the up-and-down team that I was describing. You never know what you're going to get.

They lost to Cleveland (a terrible team) at home... so, you are telling me this team is consistent?

They beat Pittsburgh, who at the time is ranked #1 by most pundits.

I see eight games that include:

-Two extremely impressive wins (TB and Pittsburgh) that suggest the team is elite
-Two extremely concerning losses (Cleveland and Arizona) that suggest the team is bad
-W-L-W-L-W-L-W, in that order, from the second week of the season on. How is that not up and down?

Are you really trying to say the Saints have been consistent this season?

Point was not to insult the Saints, but to put in perspective that Cleveland beat them. Against sub-.500 teams this year, the Saints are hardly a juggernaut. They held off the Vikings (2-5), went to the last minute to beat the Niners (2-6), nipped the Panthers (1-6) by two points, and lost to the Cardinals (3-4). All games decided by one possession except for the loss to AZ. It's not inconceivable that a bad team can beat them on a given week and still be bad.

Ice_Ice_Brady said:

Not sure on who would win between Pats and Saints. Both teams playing their best is contradiction, as that scenario is impossible by its nature. Because the Saints beat the Pats last year, I'd probably pick the Saints, but Brady and Belichick's dominance goes way back- nine years of elite play and not one- so you can never count them out.

Okay, well let's just stick to this year for now.

The Saints opened up against the Vikings. At that time the Vikings were better than they are now. I'd say it was a nice win for the Saints.

They played at San Francisco. The Niners are terrible. Since the Saints won the game on the road, it was a good win.

They lost to Atlanta at home. Atlanta is a good team, but the Saints should not lose many games at home. Loss.

They squeaked by Carolina at home, by two points. Not exactly impressive, and although a win is a win, it's hard to argue that they looked like an elite team. Carolina is 1-6.

They lost at Arizona. The Cardinals have Max Hall. WTF?

They crushed Tampa Bay. Starting to look like the up-and-down team that I was describing. You never know what you're going to get.

They lost to Cleveland (a terrible team) at home... so, you are telling me this team is consistent?

They beat Pittsburgh, who at the time is ranked #1 by most pundits.

I see eight games that include:

-Two extremely impressive wins (TB and Pittsburgh) that suggest the team is elite
-Two extremely concerning losses (Cleveland and Arizona) that suggest the team is bad
-W-L-W-L-W-L-W, in that order, from the second week of the season on. How is that not up and down?

Are you really trying to say the Saints have been consistent this season?

Point was not to insult the Saints, but to put in perspective that Cleveland beat them. Against sub-.500 teams this year, the Saints are hardly a juggernaut. They held off the Vikings (2-5), went to the last minute to beat the Niners (2-6), nipped the Panthers (1-6) by two points, and lost to the Cardinals (3-4). All games decided by one possession except for the loss to AZ. It's not inconceivable that a bad team can beat them on a given week and still be bad.

Click to expand...

I think insulting the Saints is exactly what you are trying to do. Excuse my forwardness. Of course thats your right, its your board.

Yes, we we have stubbled this year, but the Saints body of work has beens amazing sense 2006.

pherein said:

I think insulting the Saints is exactly what you are trying to do. Excuse my forwardness. Of course thats your right, its your board.

Click to expand...

This was not your own post which is basically stating the same thing that I was: the Saints played badly. You didn't insult your own team? I will make a note never to converse with you again, as you just wasted my time. You're an annoying troll.

I dont believe you have to over think the Browns game to much. If you look at the saints 2 major upsets Browns and Cardinals games, you will notice that the Saints just played badly, not that either team beat them or won the game. The problem the Saints have been facing is that their OL had fallen to #22 place, so no run game and no long ball. The the OL has moved up to 6th places as of the Steelers game, hence the win.

Saints vs Cardinals
Saints vs. Cardinals - Scoring Summary - October 10, 2010 - NFL - Football - SI.com
CP/AT YDS TD INT
Hall 17/27 168 0 1

CP/AT YDS TD INT
Brees 24/39 279 2 3


Saints vs Browns
Browns vs. Saints - Scoring Summary - October 24, 2010 - NFL - Football - SI.com
CP/AT YDS TD INT
McCoy 9/16 74 0 0

CP/AT YDS TD INT
Brees 37/56 356 2 4

1) Saints gave up 7 Ints and 3 Fumbles in 2 games. Giving the Browns and Cardinals their score.

2) Combined the Browns and the Cardinals only scored 1 TD on the Saints defense.


Neither of these teams are very good. IF you just play error free ball, maybe one TO, it should be an easy win for the Pats. If the Saints had just played conservative instead of trying to force big plays, even with the OL playing so poorly we would have won these games.