I know it's one game at a time, but in the big picture...

PF, you aren't getting my point at all. I never once said that the Jets game should be ignored. Never,

PatsFanSince74 said:

We should just stop this discussion. I keep "lumping the Jet game in" because it is completely relevant to the topic we are debating. You want to say it's irrelevant. I don't think we can do that because it occurred so recently and because the Jets are so, so really awful bad.

My view is simple: this is a very good Pats team, but it has not yet shown that it is going to be a dominant team this season. It has shown that it is a team with strengths and weaknesses that can shape or deform its performance in a given week.

All that really matters is the next game and, to a lesser extent, what the team sorts itself out to be in December. I have no idea whether that's going to be a team that is ready to make a run deep into January or one that is going to lose to a stronger, more consistent team in the Wild Card or Division round.

Click to expand...

PF, you aren't getting my point at all.

I never said the Jets game should be ignored. Never. Not once. Yet you keep bringing it up as if I did.

NE has demonstrated that they've moved beyond the first four weeks. Ignore those and make your assessment from there. It really is that simple.

PatsFanSince74 said:

"Far off in the rear view mirror?" The Jets game was ten days ago. The Pats ceded 40 minutes of possession time to Geno and crew, gave up a total of 423 yards of which 218 were on the ground and might have lost the game if Special Teams hadn't made a play with no time left on the clock. I'm NOT saying that that is what the Pats are, just that I am not smart enough to know what they are at this point in this season.

I also disagree that the really good Pats teams of the last 14 seasons took "several months to get themselves figured out." Several weeks, sure. But we're heading into week eight now. That's half the season. The only team that took several months to figure it out and go on to win it all has been the Giants in both of their SB-winning seasons under Coughlin. So, there's hope, but it's not the pattern of the Pats in 03, 04, 07 and 11.

Click to expand...

As Brady just reminded us, they were 5-5 after 10 games in 2001. Even with the problems, we are 6-2.

The Three bad rushing games on Defense, in my mind were, two exceptions and a legitimate ass beating.

The second half of the Miami "Summer heat" reminiscent of '68 to '85 without dinged up reserves to spell the starters; and the the Jets held harmless as BB tricked them, three days after Mayo went down, don't really count.

Even the KC game on Monday night at KC was a sort of a special night with the Fans amped up to reclaim the Noise record from the 'Hawks playground.
I agree it is ambitious to replace three O-linemen simultaneously, in a single season but BB still managed to be 6-2, while doing so.

Oswlek said:

PF, you aren't getting my point at all. I never once said that the Jets game should be ignored. Never,


PF, you aren't getting my point at all.

I never said the Jets game should be ignored. Never. Not once. Yet you keep bringing it up as if I did.

NE has demonstrated that they've moved beyond the first four weeks. Ignore those and make your assessment from there. It really is that simple.

Click to expand...

Now, I'm really confused.

Two posts ago you said I shouldn't be "lumping the Jets game" in with the first four games. Now you're telling me that you never said it should be ignored. OK, maybe that's just semantics and you meant something else.

But, your position now seems to be that we should ignore the first four games and draw our conclusions from what has happened since, including the Jets game.

OK. Just for the heck of it, I'll jump through your Looking Glass, ignore the first four games and make my "assessment from there."

What I see is still what I said I saw.

A very good team that humbled the 3--5 Bears and the 4--2--1 Bengals and put the 5--3 Bills in their place at home, but that has yet to show that it is going to be dominant. The 1--7 Jets were humiliated at home yesterday by a decent but not great Buffalo team that has one of the weakest Offenses in the League. Yet, the Pats couldn't hold the ball for much more than 20 minutes against them and needed a Special Teams play at the last second to seal their victory on their own turf. A dominant team would not have done that. This team has a lot of question marks that will be resolved one way or the other. As I said above, we're all just along for the ride now. All that matters is next Sunday...and then the next game...and the next.

There is little point to this discussion. The games against Denver, Indy, San Diego, Green Bay and Detroit, a combined record of 27--12 and several of the best QB's in the League are what will tell us what we have going into the Division games that wrap up the regular season.

PatsFanSince74 said:

But, your position now seems to be that we should ignore the first four games and draw our conclusions from what has happened since, including the Jets game.

Click to expand...

No, that has been my point all along, to which you kept saying, "we shouldn't ignore the Jets game!" and I responded, "you're right, don't lump the Jets game in with the others we can safely discard." I've been entirely consistent throughout.

PatsFanSince74 said:

A dominant team would not have done that.

Click to expand...

Dominant teams win - and even lose - squeakers over bad teams all the time. Particularly if there are some extenuating circumstances.

Whether they are dominant or not is purely semantics - and meaningless as you rightly point out. The larger point is that we can safely disregard everything that happened up to and including the KC blowout as far as how we can expect future games to go. That still stands.

Oswlek said:

No, that has been my point all along, to which you kept saying, "we shouldn't ignore the Jets game!" and I responded, "you're right, don't lump the Jets game in with the others we can safely discard." I've been entirely consistent throughout.



Dominant teams win - and even lose - squeakers over bad teams all the time. Particularly if there are some extenuating circumstances.

Whether they are dominant or not is purely semantics - and meaningless as you rightly point out. The larger point is that we can safely disregard everything that happened up to and including the KC blowout as far as how we can expect future games to go. That still stands.

Click to expand...

We're just not going to agree, but one thing is certain: "We will see." Sunday is a big test, followed after the bye by several others in quick succession.

There is one thing, though, on which I think we can agree: I hope that your logic proves to have been correct and that my rationale for being concerned at this point proves to have been wrong. I really want TB to get that fourth ring.