PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

Denver Post - Pats are now "too soft" to repeat


Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Nice work...
 
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.
That's allot of typing?
 
BTW, this reminds me of the 2004 season. We were undefeated, coming off a SB the previous season, and we go into Pittsburgh (banged up) and they beat us down. We lose to the #1 defense, a rookie QB, and a team that most deem the best in the league.

They talked **** about us and how we "weren't on their level" and the team took notice. Bruschi's comments at 13:25 and then at 27:25 are perfect.



Then we laid the smack down on them in the AFCCG.

The only difference is that Pittsburgh was way better that season than Denver is this season.



So of course I end up watching all of it.....you know....because I had all that extra time.

Cracks me up when BB says "I went to the wrong bench" haha
 
Well now apparently the new growing thing in the media is that Edelman isn't a lock for the playoffs.
Yeah, I heard Bertrand mention that today. Said he heard it from Bedard yesterday when he was on with Squeaky and the Douche who said he heard it from some guy from USA Today. Makes sense to me: Curran, Reiss, Howe, Price et al evidently haven't heard it, but some moke from TNNPSAS (The National Newspaper for People with Short Attention Spans) got the exclusive scoop which, to my knowledge, hasn't been reported anywhere else.
 
The funny thing is the last month makes me believe this may be the toughest Patriots of the Belichick era. What team could perform like the Patriots have while losing most of their starting o-line for most of the first half of the season including their starting and back up LT, their top WR for the last three weeks, their top defensive player for the last month, their dynamic RB for the season, their number #3 receiving option for last week's game,and losing their last remaining top defensive player and top offensive player not Brady during the game on Sunday?

Most teams would have folded long ago. The Pats have hung tough and won all their games but one.
 
34-8, you Charmin-soft weenies.
 
LOL Woody Paige.

What ever happened to him?

Is he still spouting his crap.on ESPN?
I may have related this little vignette before here, but here goes again: I think it was in 2003, or so, the Pats were heading to Denver for a night game, I believe. Woody wrote a scathing piece the day of the game about how the Pats had no chance. Well, that was the Paxton goal post snap for a safety/Brady to Givens late winning TD pass win. So, I, in a semi-drunken state (OK, maybe pretty hammered) fired off a late email to Woody which read thusly: "Nice call, you dink." The next morning I woke up and checked my email. Sure enough, a 2 word response from Woody: F### you. I printed it out and still have it. Ever since, I've always had a soft spot in my heart for Woody.
 
Yeah, I heard Bertrand mention that today. Said he heard it from Bedard yesterday when he was on with Squeaky and the Douche who said he heard it from some guy from USA Today. Makes sense to me: Curran, Reiss, Howe, Price et al evidently haven't heard it, but some moke from TNNPSAS (The National Newspaper for People with Short Attention Spans) got the exclusive scoop which, to my knowledge, hasn't been reported anywhere else.

Well to be fair a monkey could tell you it isn't a lock. With injuries, anything can happen.
 
Well now apparently the new growing thing in the media is that Edelman isn't a lock for the playoffs.

Is it really growing? It seems that one national guy mentioned it to Greg Bedard and now people are running with the same story. I have yet to hear anyone else report this other than repeating what Bedard said.

There is a chance that Edelman doesn't come back, but Zolak said his sources feel Edelman is going to come back in the early time frame (although this was last week). Until I hear that Edelman isn't likely to be back for the playoffs from a local or national guy I trust have an in with the Pats, I am just going to chalk this up to speculation.
 
Well to be fair a monkey could tell you it isn't a lock. With injuries, anything can happen.
I refuse to be fair with Bedard, Squeaky, the Douche or anyone from USA Today.:)
 
Is it really growing? It seems that one national guy mentioned it to Greg Bedard and now people are running with the same story. I have yet to hear anyone else report this other than repeating what Bedard said.

Well I just meant that this one particular report is going to make the rounds because it's negative Pats press.
 
They can ask Steeler fans about the value of a regular season win against an injured Patriots.
 
On the Monday afternoon show on EEI Dale Arnold read another article from the Denver press, the first line was (paraphrasing) "At the end of the game The Broncos walked off the field after showing the Patriots that they were the tougher team".

What is Denver's preoccupation with being "tougher" than the Patriots? A bunch of BS penalties against the Patriots proves that the Broncos are "tough"?
 
If Denver was missing Thomas, Sanders, Von Miller, CJ Anderson, Owen Daniels and had to play in Foxboro and all the fumbles bounced our way and the refs made a ticky tack defensive holding call that negated a clutch sack on Brady is there any chance in hell that the game would have gone to overtime?

Now tell me who the ****ing tougher team is.
 
I haven't read through all 95 comments, but there were three parts of the article that made me go

6Wmxw.gif



First, the Denver homer (yeah, unbiased columnists always use terms such as "Mr. Grumpypants" when describing an opponent's head coach) so jubilant to celebrate his favorite team's November Super Bowl cites the loss of Ryan Wendell as one that the Patriots just won't be able to overcome. Because as we all know the dropoff from Wendell to Bryan Stork is just too much for a team to overcome. :rolleyes:


Second, there is this gem: "the Broncos can run the offense that Peyton Manning could not, and the team's new ground-and-pound style complements a stout defense".

That of course omits the fact that the Patriots were without Jamie Collins and Dont'a Hightower. If he had even paid any attention during the game, NBC showed a graphic of yards per carry with and without Hightower, but I guess that what either too difficult to comprehend - or maybe he was too bust celebrating, who knows.

So the reality that Denver could not run the ball for ten games means nothing, but because they could against a defense that was without two of its best players (both linebackers) means everything? Huh?


Third, the author chastises the Patriots for not running the ball. Denver entered the game with the NFL's best rush defense. Why would they insist on running the ball more than they did? If anything, you can make the argument that there were times should have passed the ball rather than run it.


The guy's name looks familiar. If I recall correctly he's had some over the top pro-Broncos, anti-Pats columns in the past. How he is employed by a relatively large news outlet rather than a fan site like SB Nation or Bleacher Report is baffling.
 
Denver journalist writing an article that people in Denver would find enjoyable. Sounds like smart business.

must be nice to have local media actually supportive of the hometown team.
 
must be nice to have local media actually supportive of the hometown team.

New Englanders thrive on negative stuff. If WEEI or whoever does a 'things are going great' show it's stale. If they do a 'everything is awful about this team' show the phones are melting with people calling in to join in the *****ing.


They're just giving us what we want.
 
I honestly, 100% HOPE in my heart we play them in the playoffs. TB12 saying he was " pissed " at a press conference, plus all the fluff coming out of Denver being used as posterboard material, if this team is healthy, I would be shocked if we dont blow them out worse than Seattle did.
 
Well yeah, the Pats are beat-up to hell n back now and they sure do pass a whole lot. But they'll be healthy for the playoffs and in today's NFL, you can win throwing 80% of the time.

If I'm part of the Broncos, I'm cutting this writer off from any access. Come playoffs, whether in NE or Denver, this story will be some definite bulletin board material.

Usually I think that stuff is overrated, but "too soft"? Dems fightin' words.

(I mean it's not like their star player poses in men's emo magazines or anything.) :)

Seriously though if they meet-up in the playoffs, I expect a serious @ss_whoopin from NE now.


we prefer metro. :cool:

we'll see who's soft. this is like a boxing match and now we know we can take their best punch, walk in and knock them out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


TRANSCRIPT: Eliot Wolf’s Pre-Draft Press Conference 4/18/24
Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/18: News and Notes
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/17: News and Notes
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/16: News and Notes
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/15: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-14, Mock Draft 3.0, Gilmore, Law Rally For Bill 
Potential Patriot: Boston Globe’s Price Talks to Georgia WR McConkey
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/12: News and Notes
Not a First Round Pick? Hoge Doubles Down on Maye
Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/11: News and Notes
Back
Top