2014 Season Moot?

Rob0729 · Apr 29, 2014

supafly said:
No one was trying to start an argument, Rob. Chill out, dude.

I implore you to re-read my small and basic response about Manning, because I think you are making way too big of a deal about nothing. There are tons of people on this board who constantly bring up Manning's "lame duck" arm, and yet he seems to do pretty well still, which was my point. I wasn't putting words in your mouth, you can look through this thread alone and see the implication that Manning somehow isn't as good. That wasn't necessarily in response to you, but more to the general thought of homerism. Another popular thought lately is that the DEN OL suddenly isn't any good, due to losing one player in Beadles. People forget that they played the entire year without their franchise LT Clady, so I attempted to clarify that misconception just the same as Manning being 1/2 as poor as some seem to claim. We're on a Patriots related board, so I certainly don't fault those who are fantasizing a bit. At the same time, you can't fault me for trying to keep it real either.

As far as my thoughts on the Ravens last year: I did not say that the Ravens wouldn't "miss a beat and would be a strong SB contender" at all. Talk about twisting words! As far as twisting your words now, I haven't responded to many of your posts, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Either you are thinking of someone else, or you are generalizing a few instances here and there over the years. I am not known for "twisting words."

I said that you were making way too big of a deal about their losses on defense, and I was proven to be right. Their defense was significantly better last year--by far. I claimed that they very well could end up stronger due to their weak defense in 2012 when they won the SB. I said that they would end up right around the same record that we've known them to accomplish with a prediction of around 9-7, since that was what they won the SB with and have finished around recently. I also said many times that "if they played the season 3 times, we'd likely see 3 different division winners for the AFCN," so please...give credit where due, and let's not take this any further than you've already attempted to take it.

You were responding to my post when you were talking about homerism in thinking Manning sucks. How do you expect me to react.

Although Clady is a far superior player to Beadles, I think the loss of Beadles may be a bigger loss. They seemed to find replacements for Clady and Manning like Brady is susceptible to rushes up the middle. If they cannot adequetly replace Beadles, Manning will be in trouble but he could overcome deficiencies to poor pass protection on the outside. I think the interior line for the Broncos is a question mark right now, but I don't know if it is high on my question mark list.

As for the Ravens, I will say the following and not continue to rehash old arguments:

Maybe I did mis-remember what you said, but I thought you clearly thought they were a contender.
On the same note, you are misremembering what I said. I wasn't make as much of a big deal about the losses on defense as much as unimpressed with their additions. But ultimately, the Ravens' defense was middle of the pack last year like it was the year before.
As for the Ravens' defense being much improved, you are way overstating that and arguably outright wrong. I would say they were slightly better (and only slightly) although the numbers say they were worse (I attribute that to the offense). They gave up 22.0 PPG last year and 21.5 PPG in 2012. So they actually gave up more points in 2013 than 2012, but I will account some of that to decline in offense. They gave 335.5 YPG last year and 350.9 in 2012. Opposing QB passer rating last year was 82.2 while it was 80.6 in 2012. They had 24 take aways last year and 25 in 2012. In 2013, they allowed 25 passing TDs and in 2012 they allowed 15. In 2013, they allowed 7.1 yards per passing attempt and in 2012 they allowed 7.0. I don't know how you can argue the Ravens defense was much better last year than in 2012.
I do think people think their defense was better because they went through a stretch right before they played the Patriots where they faced a lot of mediocre to awful teams in a row where their defense looked far better than it did the rest of the year.

mgteich · Apr 29, 2014

I am not surprised that the beat writers for those in the SB expect their teams to repeat. I am not surprised that many media expect the SB teams to repeat. Check the betting odds. I suspect that Denver is expected to repeat.

And of course, patriot fans expect Denver NOT to repeat.

And this is NEWS!

We have NOT improved so much as to be favored at this point. All teams have threats including the 2 SB participants. Everyone understands that the patriots and SF have a good chance to be in the SB, as they did last year. However, we (and SF) are the underdogs.

And, while we play one game at a time, the issue this year (and every year) and next is playoff health and performance.

PatsWickedPissah · Apr 29, 2014

mgteich said:
We have NOT improved so much as to be favored at this point. All teams have threats including the 2 SB participants. Everyone understands that the patriots and SF have a good chance to be in the SB, as they did last year. However, we (and SF) are the underdogs.

And, while we play one game at a time, the issue this year (and every year) and next is playoff health and performance.

Yes, that is the point of the thread. All teams have credible threats, Denver Post notwithstanding.
Favoring Denver to repeat is rational. Saying there is no opposition in the AFC is lunacy.

Kontradiction · Apr 29, 2014

PatsWickedPissah said:
Yes, that is the point of the thread. All teams have credible threats, Denver Post notwithstanding.
Favoring Denver to repeat is rational. Saying there is no opposition in the AFC is lunacy.

Agreed. It's been mentioned elsewhere but even if it isn't the Pats, the Colts are a very legitimate threat to them in the conference as well if they're healthy. I actually think the Colts will take them out at Lucas Oil in Week 1.

ausbacker · Apr 29, 2014

mgteich said:
I am not surprised that the beat writers for those in the SB expect their teams to repeat. I am not surprised that many media expect the SB teams to repeat. Check the betting odds. I suspect that Denver is expected to repeat.

And of course, patriot fans expect Denver NOT to repeat.

And this is NEWS!

We have NOT improved so much as to be favored at this point. All teams have threats including the 2 SB participants. Everyone understands that the patriots and SF have a good chance to be in the SB, as they did last year. However, we (and SF) are the underdogs.

And, while we play one game at a time, the issue this year (and every year) and next is playoff health and performance.

I'm not sure I agree @mgteich. The Patriots should improve with the return of Kelly, Wilfork, Mayo, Vollmer and hopefully, a healthy Gronkowski. The team suffered negligible personnel losses whilst adding an elite and decent Defensive Back.

The NFL is about creating match-ups. New England's defensive strength now appears to be its secondary. Competing against a pass first team, this looks to be a good match-up.

I believe New England and Denver have both improved. I don't happen to believe either team has a clear advantage over the other. In my opinion, they are 1A to 1AA in the AFC. Whether or not that's enough to get past the defensive juggernauts in the NFC is yet to be determined.

mgteich · Apr 29, 2014

PatsWickedPissah said:
Yes, that is the point of the thread. All teams have credible threats, Denver Post notwithstanding.
Favoring Denver to repeat is rational. Saying there is no opposition in the AFC is lunacy.

The issue is semantics. Media can say that lots of teams have chances and that there are no clear favorites. They can say that every year. Bettors don't do this. To me, in some years, there are clear favorites, even when others were close. We, as fans, believe that the patriots have improved so much that we are now the equals or are better than DEN. That's fine. Many of us are upset when the media doesn't share our fan's view of our team. That too is fine.

Media exaggerates. However, as you say, it is reasonable to consider DEN the favorites to be in the SB.

mgteich · Apr 29, 2014

Yes, IF all our injured players come back strong and remain uninjured, we will indeed improve. I would add the wide receivers. That is a very big IF.

ausbacker said:
I'm not sure I agree @mgteich. The Patriots should improve with the return of Kelly, Wilfork, Mayo, Vollmer and hopefully, a healthy Gronkowski. The team suffered negligible personnel losses whilst adding an elite and decent Defensive Backs.

The NFL is about creating match-ups. New England's defensive strength now appears to be its secondary. Competing against a pass first team, this looks to be a good match-up.

I believe New England and Denver have both improved. I don't happen to believe either team has a clear advantage over the other. In my opinion, they are 1A to 1AA in the AFC. Whether or not that's enough to get past the defensive juggernauts in the NFC is yet to be determined.

JMC00 · Apr 29, 2014

mgteich said:
Yes, IF all our injured players come back strong and remain uninjured, we will indeed improve. I would add the wide receivers. That is a very big IF.

Ya and it's a big IF that the Broncos offense comes anywhere close to what they did last year.

ausbacker · Apr 29, 2014

mgteich said:
Yes, IF all our injured players come back strong and remain uninjured, we will indeed improve. I would add the wide receivers. That is a very big IF.

Most improvement is predicated on the magical "if" as you correctly point out.

supafly · Apr 29, 2014

Rob0729 said:
As for the Ravens, I will say the following and not continue to rehash old arguments:

Maybe I did mis-remember what you said, but I thought you clearly thought they were a contender.

My main argument was just to dispel the notion that BAL would quickly tank due to what certain posters described as "a record setting number of losses in free agency," etc. I felt their losses on defense were quite overstated, and that GM Ozzie Newsome was right in letting some of that older and overpriced talent go.

I did say that they'd be "contenders," however I also said many, many times that if "they played the AFCN 3 times in a row, I could envision 3 separate division winners." Considering the fact that all 3 were in playoff contention during weeks 16 and 17, I'm not sure how that was incorrect?

You may have a point that BAL's defense seemed to be improved due to a stretch where they looked very good, but all you'd have to do is go back to some threads prior to our week #16 matchup, where many here posted all of their top 5-top 10 defensive categories. You're not including any of those numbers, and are simply cherry picking other categories to support your argument. Either way, I couldn't care less. It's nothing more than a difference of opinion, but I feel as though BAL's SB winning defense was quite overstated, and that they actually looked better last season. Where they failed as you point out, was on the offensive side of the ball. Personally, I would expect that to change, and would once again target them as a potential 9-7 or even 10-6 team for the 2014 season. Probably anything from 8-8 to 10-6 would be a solid prediction, as they are somewhat consistent in that regard.

Unfortunately for them, they played 3 semi-tough quarters vs us in week 16, then their season fell apart as we put the nail in the coffin. That's quite a big difference, however, from many of the dire predictions during last off-season that they made horrible moves and would not be a contender, which is the only thing that I defended.

supafly · Apr 29, 2014

mgteich said:
We, as fans, believe that the patriots have improved so much that we are now the equals or are better than DEN. That's fine. Many of us are upset when the media doesn't share our fan's view of our team. That too is fine.

Media exaggerates. However, as you say, it is reasonable to consider DEN the favorites to be in the SB.

I don't think we, as fans, mind the fact that DEN is the AFC favorite to repeat as conference champions, as much as we resent the fact that the majority of mediots seem to place them quite a bit ahead of us. That at least is the issue for me, personally.

As you say, a better source may be to check the betting odds, which show a pretty close competition much like SEA being ahead of SF, which is to be expected, and an excellent comparison to our DEN being ahead of NE scenario. The thread itself though was more about the poor journalism and constant ballwashing for Peyton Manning and the Broncos, so that's what tends to piss people off, I think.

Deus Irae · Apr 30, 2014

mgteich said:
The issue is semantics. Media can say that lots of teams have chances and that there are no clear favorites. They can say that every year. Bettors don't do this. To me, in some years, there are clear favorites, even when others were close. We, as fans, believe that the patriots have improved so much that we are now the equals or are better than DEN. That's fine. Many of us are upset when the media doesn't share our fan's view of our team. That too is fine.

Media exaggerates. However, as you say, it is reasonable to consider DEN the favorites to be in the SB.

"Team "A" is the favorite to make the SB."
"Team "A" has no real competition in its conference."

It seems reasonable to think the first statement is more acceptable to fans of other contending teams than the second in a case like this season, as of now.

Rob0729 · Apr 30, 2014

Deus Irae said:
"Team "A" is the favorite to make the SB."
"Team "A" has no real competition in its conference."

It seems reasonable to think the first statement is more acceptable to fans of other contending teams than the second in a case like this season, as of now.

The first statement can be true. The second is almost never true. I can't remember the last time a team was so clearly the only team who could win the conference barring shooting themselves in the foot or injuries. Not in today's NFL. Even back in the days of powerhouses like the Steelers and 49ers dynasties, they had teams that at least challenged them for the conference.

PlainOldEd · Apr 30, 2014

50-yard-line said:
Some team steps up every year, seemingly out of nowhere............

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Browns step up this year. Last year they seemed to be turning it around until Hoyer got hurt. I'm not putting them in the contender category just yet, but I bet they will surprise a few teams...

Rob0729 · Apr 30, 2014

supafly said:
My main argument was just to dispel the notion that BAL would quickly tank due to what certain posters described as "a record setting number of losses in free agency," etc. I felt their losses on defense were quite overstated, and that GM Ozzie Newsome was right in letting some of that older and overpriced talent go.

I did say that they'd be "contenders," however I also said many, many times that if "they played the AFCN 3 times in a row, I could envision 3 separate division winners." Considering the fact that all 3 were in playoff contention during weeks 16 and 17, I'm not sure how that was incorrect?

You may have a point that BAL's defense seemed to be improved due to a stretch where they looked very good, but all you'd have to do is go back to some threads prior to our week #16 matchup, where many here posted all of their top 5-top 10 defensive categories. You're not including any of those numbers, and are simply cherry picking other categories to support your argument. Either way, I couldn't care less. It's nothing more than a difference of opinion, but I feel as though BAL's SB winning defense was quite overstated, and that they actually looked better last season. Where they failed as you point out, was on the offensive side of the ball. Personally, I would expect that to change, and would once again target them as a potential 9-7 or even 10-6 team for the 2014 season. Probably anything from 8-8 to 10-6 would be a solid prediction, as they are somewhat consistent in that regard.

Unfortunately for them, they played 3 semi-tough quarters vs us in week 16, then their season fell apart as we put the nail in the coffin. That's quite a big difference, however, from many of the dire predictions during last off-season that they made horrible moves and would not be a contender, which is the only thing that I defended.

I said I won't continue the Ravens' discussion, but I do want to defend myself in saying that I didn't cherry pick stats. I listed all the big ones (yards allowed, points allowed, turnovers, opposing QB ratings). BTW, as far as I can tell Baltimore did not finish in the top 10 in any defense category other than rushing yards allowed per carry where they were fifth and rushing TDs allowed where they were 7th. They were a good run defense, mediocre pass defense in a passing league.

supafly · Apr 30, 2014

Rob0729 said:
I said I won't continue the Ravens' discussion, but I do want to defend myself in saying that I didn't cherry pick stats. I listed all the big ones (yards allowed, points allowed, turnovers, opposing QB ratings). BTW, as far as I can tell Baltimore did not finish in the top 10 in any defense category other than rushing yards allowed per carry where they were fifth and rushing TDs allowed where they were 7th. They were a good run defense, mediocre pass defense in a passing league.

There were definitely a handful of ways that the 2013 BAL defense improved and played tough:

Rushing yrd per carry--5th

Rushing TDs allowed--7th

Total team defense--12th

First downs allowed--284 total (in comparison SF allowed the same at 284 and SEA allowed 2 less at 282)

As you said, they were better against the run by far, but their passing TDs allowed were the exact same as ours (25), and they allowed LESS first downs via the air than both SF and Carolina, which is more than impressive, due to the amount of passing that teams attempt to do because of those teams' excellent run defenses.

Again, it's a matter of opinion, but there were certainly things that the BAL defense did well. All you have to do is go back and read through some of the week 16 threads prior to the matchup vs NE. Their defensive stats were pointed out time and again in the week or two leading up to the game.

Ice_Ice_Brady · May 1, 2014

PatsWickedPissah said:
I've been jacked and pumped about the Pats' 2014 season given some improvement in FA and the return of key starters lost in 2013 and the forthcoming draft. Well at least I was until I listened to usually informative SIRIUS NFL radio today. The 1st guest was the Seahawks beat writer who I thought had a fair and of course optimistic assessment of the team and its 2014 chances. You should be on a high after winning the SB. Not overdone and a typical NFL radio fun listen. Nice 2015 salary cap recap.

Then onto the Denver beat writer. The hosts led off with Clady's statement that the Donks have a clear path back to the SB since there is no opposition on the horizon in the AFC. The writer of course agreed and worst of all, the hosts agreed. WTF? No AFC team even mentioned as a possible threat to February. Next, the hosts mentioned TJ Ward's statement that this 2014 Denver defense is "the best in the world". Some smidgen of sanity was interjected when they said last years' 24th rated D would only be a Top 10 NFL defense this year. Whew! Given this scenario, I guess I had better find lists of family activities and productive things to do for the next 10 months, as the die has clearly been cast.

Clady's quote:
"It was definitely tough, not being able to control what was going on out there. It was probably one of the hardest games I have ever watched. It's part of the game. Injuries happen. ... But barring injuries we should have an awesome team, and we should be able to make it back to the Super Bowl."

Ward's quote:
“We’re sending a message right now that we’re coming in not only trying to be one of the top offenses in the league, but one of the top defenses in the world and get that Super Bowl ring.”

I find your post to be misleading at best.

Miguel · May 2, 2014

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
I find your post to be misleading at best.

PatsWickedPissah clarified his post later in the thread.

1960Pats · May 3, 2014

I think the only threats to the Pats in the AFC are Denver, KC, SD, Cincy, Pitt, Baltimore and Indy, with maybe a Texans revival or a Jets, Fins or Bills upset for the AFCE title thrown in for good measure. Other than that the Pats are a cinch in the AFC.

SeanBruschi54 · May 3, 2014

Rob0729 said:
I still think the Broncos have a lot of question marks which includes their QB. Manning despite having a historic year showed serious signs of decline in arm strength. I still think there is a tipping point where his other skills won't over come the decline in his arm strength. And not having Decker and his size hurts that too.

Favre had career year in his second to last season and came crashing down the next. Kurt Warner won the league MVP in his second to last season and was mediocre the next season. It is a really possibility that Manning takes a huge step back this year considering his age and neck surgeries.

The Broncos are a favorite in the AFC and most likely the front runner along with the Pats, but with their schedule and question marks I wouldn't be shocked if they went 10-6 this season. Or even worse if Manning hits the age/injury wall.

Same could be said for Brady at any given moment. Mannings arm has been in decline for roughly 3 seasons now and hes been winning consistently throughout that time period.

2014 Season Moot?

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Veteran

PatsFans.com Supporter

On my retirement tour.

TB12

PatsFans.com Veteran

PatsFans.com Veteran

Pro Bowl Player

TB12

Eff you, Shula

Eff you, Shula

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

Eff you, Shula

I heard 10,000 whispering and nobody listening

Patriots Salary Cap Guru

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

Similar threads