I don't find anything wrong with that article. Allot of it is factual except for some of the speculative parts. I have resigned myself to not caring what others opinion of this team is. At the end of the day it just won't matter. We will see how things shake out, I like our chances.
Well, know what else won't make Brady happy? Being declared the prohibitive favorite to win the NFL championship only proves even the Las Vegas oddsmakers are guessing. In fact, since the undefeated Patriots lost to the New York Giants to conclude the 2007 season, only two of the eight teams favored in the Super Bowl have emerged victorious.
Faulty reasoning on many levels here. The logic part of my brain hurts badly, and I'm pretty sure you can figure out why. First, it switches from favorite to win the Super Bowl to favorite in the Super Bowl. It ignores that the Patriots have a better chance than anyone else, simply because they are not an odds-on favorite. Oddsmakers are always guessing, unless there is a favorite at 100% odds to win. The Patriots are +280, which is one of the highest probabilities you will see at this point in the season. Further, it ignores that many of these same players won the Super Bowl last year while being a favorite for much of the season and being the favorite (according to most books) going into the game. In other words, it ignores much more relevant examples to the 2015 Patriots and substitutes it for a small historical sample sizes among other NFL teams. Regardless, it tries to argue that since the Patriots are most likely to win the Super Bowl, they are not going to win the Super Bowl, though that reasoning applies even stronger to 31 teams other than the Patriots. This is stupid, second grade fallacy stuff here.
Forged by the strength of Brady's arm and the heat of his competitive fire, New England has made us believe running backs were quickly becoming relics from pro football's past, in the same way that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. The Patriots don't need no stinkin' running game, not when they have Tom Terrific.
...because we are talking about winning championships, and you remember those dominant running games from the '14 Patriots, '11 Giants, '10 Packer, '09 Saints, '08 Steelers, and '07 Giants, right? New England hasn't made you believe that...although they just reinforced it last year in the Super Bowl. It's funny, because the Broncos were the EXACT same thing the last three years and I'm sure there was no flame article about that offense. But now that Kubiak's offense is installed and the team won one big game, the running game is king again?
Well, the sad truth is New England's running game has never stunk worse. None of the six Super Bowl teams during the reign of Brady ever averaged less than the 87.2 yards produced per game by these Pats of 2015. While the NFL is a league ruled by quarterbacks, a New England offense dependent on Brady's arm for more than 78 percent of its yardage from scrimmage is seriously out of whack.
Ignores that the Patriots used the same formula all season and was 10-0, up 21-7 on the Broncos before blowing it, and used the same formula to beat both Baltimore and Seattle last year, with Seattle having one of the best pass defenses ever. The Patriots won the Super Bowl with one rushing first down, an all-time low total for Super Bowls. Their heavy passing, no rushing offense has been the league's best by every statistical measure and have a shiny ring to show for it.
The Patriots were unable to hold a fourth-quarter advantage in Denver because their ability to run was nonexistent. Three times in the final period of regulation, the New England offense took the field with a lead. And New England offensive guru Josh McDaniels did not even try to run the ball. During those three possessions, Brady threw 10 passes and LeGarrette Blount rushed once, for a single measly yard.
This exact strategy has worked enough that they had won 25 of their last 26 meaningful games coming in. They do what they always do, which is attack the opponent where they can succeed. Let's ignore that they had a key first down negated by a bogus OPI penalty and were a muffed punt away from putting the game away. They scored 24 points with many key injuries in the snow on the road against the best statistical defense in the league. Dumb overreaction trying to find causation where it does not exist.
Players know. Leading up to the game against New England, when told the Patriots were a team for the ages, the Broncos rolled their eyes.
No, that didn't happen. No one said they were a team for the ages, and no one rolled their eyes. Otherwise, it would have been a big story. Not surprised the writer just flat-out lies at this point to try to make additional points that aren't there.
The Pats are soft. Soft doesn't win the Super Bowl. In the playoffs, foes smell weakness.
"Soft" won last year's Super Bowl.
Look, the Broncos won the game, we all know this, but the writer is insanely stupid to pin that on the Patriots heavy pass strategy that has worked so many times against so many teams and arguably worked against Denver. It is just ignorant and moronic on so many levels. If the Patriots don't go 19-0, I guess they are doing things wrong. If only they were GM'd and coached by the writer of this article, I'm sure they'd be fine.
