Reminder: We are 4-0 despite an all-time awful offseason and key injuries.

shmessy said:

The poster wrote: "The only Tebow drama was on this board".

That was incorrect.

Thank goodness, there was no Tebow drama on the team.

Maybe you think there are only two realms in this world - - The Patriots and Patsfans.com. I've been told there are others.

Click to expand...

There was no drama anywhere I care about. It didn't affect, me, the players or the team. I'm sure the Kardashians have drama around them, but not that affects me.

And next week is very winnable in Cincy. Talib Did a solid job covering JJones and BB can put him on AJ Green leavin different D Coverage pkgs. TB can move this offense and if we get back Gronk or/and Amendola would be that much potent. Hopefully Dobson wasn't seriously hurt.

DaBronxPats14 said:

And next week is very winnable in Cincy. Talib Did a solid job covering JJones and BB can put him on AJ Green leavin different D Coverage pkgs. TB can move this offense and if we get back Gronk or/and Amendola would be that much potent. Hopefully Dobson wasn't seriously hurt.

Click to expand...

Agreed. It's actually Jimmy Graham and the Saints that worries me more. who covers him? Will they do what they did to Gonzales for the last few minutes to Graham for a whole game?

We better be ready for Gresham - he could Gonzalez us.

moosekill said:

The only Tebow drama was on this board.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much my point. Tebow drama played a part in the Jets' derailment last year - if only that it eroded Sanchez' already dwindling confidence to have the guy lurking on the depth chart behind him. But it wasn't even a blip on the radar.

One of our top players killed a bunch of dudes and yet here we are, no drama, no circus and 4-0.

It's remarkable.

manxman2601 said:

Agreed. It's actually Jimmy Graham and the Saints that worries me more. who covers him? Will they do what they did to Gonzales for the last few minutes to Graham for a whole game?

Click to expand...

McCourty.....

manxman2601 said:

Agreed. It's actually Jimmy Graham and the Saints that worries me more. who covers him? Will they do what they did to Gonzales for the last few minutes to Graham for a whole game?

Click to expand...

I'd almost want to put Talib on him, not that it will happen but he's by far their most dangerous weapon.

That said, amazing this team is 4-0. Most teams in this league would fold given all these injuries/off season drama but the Pats are keeping it going and should only get better as Gronk and Amendola get healthy. Losing Wilfork will hurt but let's be honest, he hasn't been right all year, we've seen it and commented on it, so it's not like we won those first 3 games with Vince at 100% anyway.

Tony Gonzalez is the greatest TE of all time if he keeps playing the way he is right now he will be ranked 3rd all time in rec yards at the end of the season, AJ Green is still the number one guy to stop next week without green they have no offense

AndyJohnson said:

McCourty.....

Click to expand...

Would you put him on Graham man to man? It seems risky to take away the deep safety coverage for their other receivers (although interestingly Colston is the only WR with more than four catches this year).

To all you tactical genius', could you see them going with 1 LB (Mayo), 2 safeties (McCourty, Gregory) and four CBs (Talib, Dennard, Arrington, Ryan) on obvious passing downs? That way you can cover Graham with Talb, put Arrington/Dennard on the main WR's with safety help which still leaves a CB to cover Sproles/Thomas and allows Mayo to help cover the interior DL?

I have no idea how practicable that is, but does seem at face value to cover all the potential holes.

Gronk and Danny injuries turned out to be a blessing in disguise (given record) because it forced the rookies to get reps and probably passes they would never have gotten otherwise. This should allow them to be much better down the stretch and makes us much better prepared in case of injuries.

manxman2601 said:

Would you put him on Graham man to man? It seems risky to take away the deep safety coverage for their other receivers (although interestingly Colston is the only WR with more than four catches this year).

To all you tactical genius', could you see them going with 1 LB (Mayo), 2 safeties (McCourty, Gregory) and four CBs (Talib, Dennard, Arrington, Ryan) on obvious passing downs? That way you can cover Graham with Talb, put Arrington/Dennard on the main WR's with safety help which still leaves a CB to cover Sproles/Thomas and allows Mayo to help cover the interior DL?

I have no idea how practicable that is, but does seem at face value to cover all the potential holes.

Click to expand...

Against the Saints every down is a passing down. They hate to run the ball, but their backs are all really dangerous in the passing game, especially Sproles. Brees loves throwing the quick dumps to the backs and letting them take it 40 yards.

manxman2601 said:

Agreed. It's actually Jimmy Graham and the Saints that worries me more. who covers him? Will they do what they did to Gonzales for the last few minutes to Graham for a whole game?

Click to expand...

Good question, Graham, Colston Sproles of course Brees, we need a solid all round D performance. What was encouraging was Roddy White not goin off while Gonzalez was gettin his & JJones was pretty much a non factor majority of game. DBs comin into their own together and what will be Interesting to see how they fill in Wilfolk void in middle.

PatsSox363804 said:

Against the Saints every down is a passing down. They hate to run the ball, but their backs are all really dangerous in the passing game, especially Sproles. Brees loves throwing the quick dumps to the backs and letting them take it 40 yards.

Click to expand...

Agreed, Have to always account for Sproles dinks and dunks and beatin linebackers down sidelines.

AndyJohnson said:

There was no drama anywhere I care about. It didn't affect, me, the players or the team. I'm sure the Kardashians have drama around them, but not that affects me.

Click to expand...

Yep, this was exactly what I thought. It was an interesting discussion here, but that was it.

Who cares what they write on ESPN. Most of the writers have no more knowledge of what goes on in Foxborough than any of us do. They make crap up to sell "newspapers" Then hope we believe the crap they are slinging.

Hell, people here even link Borges articles. The last interesting thing he did was beat up an old crippled boxing reporter.

PromisedLand said:

I don't know how old you are, but for a Boston sports fan to put this time above the 1956-69 Boston Celtics is amazing. I love the Patriots, and yes this team is incredible. Have been a fan since the team was formed in 1960 and this is indeed the best era we have ever seen and likely will see. And no doubt the best in the NFL considering the whole body of work over the past 12 seasons.

BUT the Celtics won 11 championships in 13 years. Stop and think about that and let it sink in. 11 championships - almost twice as many as Michael Jordan's bulls, more than half the team's overall total of 18, were won in just 13 years. And 8 of those were in a row. From 1959 through 1966, the Celtics won 8 championships in a row. These Patriots are great, and they are doing it in an era of salary caps and free agency which somewhat changes the equation, but they still aren't the best team in the history of sports. No way, no how.

Click to expand...

Let's have a little perspective. The NBA did not have 32 teams back then. And the Celtics needed doubleheaders with the Globies to fill 70% of the Garden.

I am a huge Celticphile and have read all of Red's and Russ' books + my favorite Heinsohn Don't You Ever Smile? But placing the degree of difficulty of winning NBA championships during that era with winning a Super Bowl in this era is waaaaaaaay out of perspective.

AndyJohnson said:

There was no drama anywhere I care about. It didn't affect, me, the players or the team. I'm sure the Kardashians have drama around them, but not that affects me.

Click to expand...

So what position do you play?

shmessy said:

So what position do you play?

Click to expand...

Why the wise@ss response?
I don't have to be on the team to have a criteria that if it doesn't affect ME or affect the team or players I don't care about it.
You seem to want to make this into something that it wasn't.
He was in camp, got cut, and a bunch of people who have nothing to do with the Patriots were very interested in what happened to him.
I don't much care how much attention One Direction gets either but I suppose you see drama there too?

AndyJohnson said:

It needs to be cemented with one or 2 more rings.
If they win the SB this season without Vince, it will be BB and Brady plus 52 different players since they won the first 3. That is legendary.

Click to expand...

yeah...I agree with you...hell, every Pats fan here and anywhere else agrees with you....BUT...this will never happen...there's too much blind hatred of the northeast, too much narrow minded, pinheaded, petty jealousy and groundless animosity aimed at Belichick, Brady and to a lesser degree, Robert Kraft from scumbags like ESPN and NFLN to EVER extol the Patriots' past decade of league dominance. Ten years from now, the legendary conversation emanating from these sewers will be Peyton, Peyton, Peyton and how his little brother slew that dastardly dragon and bastion of "cheating" and how THEY saved the NFL's reputation.

50-yard-line said:

Not to take anything away from that great Celtics run, but there were 9 teams in the league in the mid-60's, and little to no free agency. I was on the first National Dekhockey Championship Cadet team! There were four other cities, maybe five, competing for the title.

So it's hard to compare, really.

It's like the Pittsburgh Steelers run in the 70's - they won the fourth ring with pretty much the same team as with the first ring. And the 49'ers had a payroll tens of millions above the rest of the competition.

It's a different era, and what the Pats have accomplished in the last dozen years is simply amazing, imo. They are always drafting near the bottom of the pile, and the league is designed for parity, forcing them to play the previous year's division winners year after year.

And they just win.

Click to expand...

There were 8 teams in 1956, 14 by 1969. And yes as I acknowledged already there was no free agency. But at the same time there was only one constant over those 11 championships - Bill Russell. All his teammates changed, the coach changed (from Red Auerbach to him). So the fact that there was no free agency takes on less significance when viewed in that light.

As far as the number of teams in the league of course mathematically it is more likely to win a championship in an 8 team league (1 in 8) than in a 32 team league (1 in 32). But if we are looking at probabilities, all other things being equal, what are the odds of winning 8 in a row in an 8 team league? 1 in 8 to the 8th power. I'll let you do the math but that is one over a very big number. And then there were three other championships to add to that. To put it another way, the Patriots won 3 championships in 4 years. The Celtics won 3 championships in the 5 years that weren't part of the 8 year streak, PLUS 8 championships in a row, in a span of 13 seasons. Again, both teams are/were amazing but I take issue with your assertion that the Patriots are the greatest of all time.

Ya but supposedly it's been a soft 4 games so far.