Would you be happier if we won 30-23? How about 49-42?

Or maybe 35-28? What if it was 27-20?

Those are all wins by 7 points, too.

How about some games that we won by less than 7 points? Do big numbers make you feel good?

We beat Cleveland 27-26 last year - by 1 point.
We beat Houston 34-31 last year - by 3 points.
We beat Atlanta 30-23 last year - by 7 points.
We beat Buffalo 23-21 last year - by 2 points.

Now I'm not saying point differential is everything, because it isn't. But it's at least as important or more important than big, pretty double digit numbers on a scoreboard.

People won't be happy until Pats are doing these things every game

Pats are winning every game by at least 20-24 points
Brady is 30 for 35 for 300 3 TD 0 INT
Ridley rushes for 100+ yards
Gronk has 2 TD
Dobson has 100+ yards a game
0 QB hits allowed
Defense allows less than 10 points a game
4+ sacks a game
2 INT a game
Forces a 3 and out on almost every drive

No. I'd be happier if we won 48-3.

The team you play means everything. Beating the Broncos 16-9 is much more impressive than beating the Raiders by the same score, and having to hold on to do it. Based on postgame pressers and interviews, key players on the team are not happy with yesterday's performance. I, for one, am happy to hear that.

VrabelJr said:

Or maybe 35-28? What if it was 27-20?

Those are all wins by 7 points, too.

How about some games that we won by less than 7 points? Do big numbers make you feel good?

We beat Cleveland 27-26 last year - by 1 point.
We beat Houston 34-31 last year - by 3 points.
We beat Atlanta 30-23 last year - by 7 points.
We beat Buffalo 23-21 last year - by 2 points.

Now I'm not saying point differential is everything, because it isn't. But it's at least as important or more important than big, pretty double digit numbers on a scoreboard.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the Patriots could just as easily have been 8-8 as 12-4 last season. The Cleveland, Saints, and Broncos games were basically miracle victories, and they only beat the Bills in the first game on a last second field goal. A lot of winning in the NFL is luck.

The score from yesterday doesn't reflect how the game really was. We left 2 TD's out there and the score should have been 24-9. Not great, but not bad either.

People are upset about the oline and consistency on offense. That doesn't mean we expect 40 pts a game, but we sure do expect a competent offense that can move the ball and have a efficient redzone percentage. I think our defense is much improved from last season, and will help us win games until the O gets clicking. Last years defense = a loss yesterday.

VrabelJr said:

Or maybe 35-28? What if it was 27-20?

Those are all wins by 7 points, too.

Click to expand...

of the three scores provided(your two and the actual score) the one that would have been most acceptable is the 27-20 one.

here is why your argument is really bad:

The raiders are a joke, this is a team that is going to be LUCKY to win 4 games this year, and they were one pin ball interception away from have a chance to go to overtime.

The patriots winning by 7 isn't important, whats important is HOW they did it, and who they did it to.

16-9 vs the raiders means that the defense did what it was supposed to do, held the raiders out of the endzone, but basing everything just on the score doesnt show the whole picture. The raider at over 6 minutes minutes of the first quarter on their second drive, sure the pats eventually held out, but you would like to see them stop a rookie QB throwing to a bunch of nobodies. they are ranked 32nd in rushing and total yards. this is a BAD BAD BAD offense on the raiders, and they still almost tied it.

on the same coin that means the patriots put up 16 points against a team with a bad defense. they gave up 19 to the jets, and 30 to the texans. GENO FING SMITH put up more points against the raiders then brady. let that sink in.


So let's go to the other scores 35-28 first

35 points means the patriots offense played about as good as they USED to play before hernandez turned out to be walter white. but that is not the important thing here, they key number is the 28 points the patriots defense gave up to the 32nd ranked offense in the league for the patriots offense to get lit up twice in three weeks by teams that are not that gifted offensively would be a HUGE HUGE HUGE red flag.

So finally we look at 27-20

The patriots offense plays well, the defense plays okay but not good. lots of plusses and minuses and things to build off of.

49-42 might of made for better TV. Although 27-26 at Cleveland last year was about as good TV entertainment as possible.

Personally, I will not be happy until we win a super bowl. If struggle in week 3 of the regular season in the process I really don't give a ****.

I think you are confusing concern for complaining. I am concerned because if we do not correct the things that plaqued us yesterday I do not see a super bowl in our future. That is why I talk about the negatives. Ignoring weakness is the leading cause of failure.

Personally, I was expecting the Pats offense to be better than last year. I thought that last year's offensive struggles were the result of injuries -- Volmer, Vereen, Gronkowski, among others -- and incorporating new receivers, including rookies.

Now, with a relatively healthy squad, the offense has exactly the same problems as last year. It's clear that the problems are serious. I don't think the team can do anything in the post season without major improvements in offensive production.

JMC00 said:

People won't be happy until Pats are doing these things every game

Pats are winning every game by at least 20-24 points
Brady is 30 for 35 for 300 3 TD 0 INT
Ridley rushes for 100+ yards
Gronk has 2 TD
Dobson has 100+ yards a game
0 QB hits allowed
Defense allows less than 10 points a game
4+ sacks a game
2 INT a game
Forces a 3 and out on almost every drive

Click to expand...

You are painting a picture with a broad stroke here. I think the concerns around the offense are merited especially when you consider we have one of the best QBs in NFL history under center. Nobody likes seeing a 37 year old Tom Brady getting knocked around like a rag doll. It is going to create negative buzz among fans and media.

Brady6 said:

You are painting a picture with a broad stroke here. I think the concerns around the offense are merited especially when you consider we have one of the best QBs in NFL history under center. Nobody likes seeing a 37 year old Tom Brady getting knocked around like a rag doll. It is going to create negative buzz among fans and media.

Click to expand...

Hate to say it, Peyton took some brutal hits yesterday. It's part of the game.

This is how the Pats won games when Brady was a new QB. The season is young, things are still gelling, we're 2-1, same as the Broncos. Things are concerning, but a win is a win. Onward & upward I say...

Pat Riot said:

Hate to say it, Peyton took some brutal hits yesterday. It's part of the game.

Click to expand...

Nick Foles took some devastating hits too. Including one that led to a fight.

skspikex2 said:

Nick Foles took some devastating hits too. Including one that led to a fight.

Click to expand...

That one was blatantly dirty because it happened after the ball "carrier" was down (carrier in quotes because it turned out the interception was actually incomplete anyways).

I understand people getting a little perturbed over the bashing the team is getting. The almighty Pats are allowed to to have stinkers. But they are held to a high standard by many. If they right the ship, fine. But you can't deny that have not been playing good. Not to what we are used to. Watching Brady's time slip away is a bummer. Maybe they get their act together, but right now they are playing poorly. If it weren't for Edes, they would have lost. Thats too close for comfort, in my book. Lets hope they pull their usual greatness again. I know it will get "better.

I would perfer Brady reamaining upright after a down gettin a chance to run his Offense confident enough to spread it out to open receivers instead of runnin for his life hittin Edeman & Gronk ONLY and scoring TDs rather than FGs and then let Score Chips Fall where They may.

I'd rather of had it more high scoreing beacuse were atleast putting more points on the board. It kinda scares me that were only getting one touchdown vs. the raiders. I'd rater have had 3 or 4 thouchdowns and a close game. Just to prove we can put points on the board.

The Houston Texans beat the Oakland Raiders by 16 points with Ryan FitzPickSix at quarterback.

ATippett56 said:

The Houston Texans beat the Oakland Raiders by 16 points with Ryan FitzPickSix at quarterback.

Click to expand...

Not like they have an elite RB or anything