I consider the last 2 games GOOD wins for the Pats. I certainly don't expect the general opinion of this board to agree with this, but I seem to have a different critieria than the "manic-depressive crowd". (The manic depressive crowd is that group of fans who overreact positively to good days---runing the table talk was common a week ago--then overreact negatively to winning, if it isn't a dominant effort. My favorites are the post that CONCLUDE faliure in the playoffs based on a win they didn't like, and the 'if this didnt happen, we could have lost, or if we were playing someone else we would have lost) My critieria in calling these good wins is very simple. Over the first 9 weeks of the season, we went 6-3, and lost 3 games that in past years it would have seemed we should have won. The #1 characteristic of the Champion Pats teams was making plays in the clutch, and KNOWING HOW TO WIN. After the 6-3 start the primary thing I felt this team lacked was that it hadn't learned how to win. Every team, every season needs to learn that. Some start closer than others because of returning core players who do know how to win, but every year has turnover to every team. Lost on the media is that a TEAM is the sum of its parts. I bristle every time I hear "professional analysts" rate a team by naming their 3 best players, and conclude that is why they will win. Nothing could be further from the truth. The 20th-22nd best player (worst 3 starters) ultimatley has more to do with determining championships than the 3 best. (And by that I mean the gap between how good your 20-22nd is vs the other team) "Knowing how to win" isn't a function of your best players, it is a function of your 53 man roster. These last 2 weeks, the Patriots have shown me that this version now seems to have learned how to win. When it comes down to Championships, the ability to win close games, regardless of the quality of the opponent correlates much more to success than blowing people out. We see it every year. When the Pats are in the playoffs, we look at the opponent and one of the first analyses is have they beaten anyone good. i never remember ANYONE critiquing an opponent for ONLY beating team X by 7 points. Other random thoughts. Amazing that we criticize play calling when we score 28 points. That same criticism comes along with criticism of how plays are set up by the previous calls. To me, if you add up all of the play calls in the game, and they total 28 points, you did a good job. I could care less about the plays that didnt work so well if they set up others that got us 28 points. (and it would have been more without the turnovers) I have read doom and gloom posts about how the D played this week. We allowed ONE TOUCHDOWN. That makes 14 in 12 games. Somehow those doom and gloom posters point to our own turnovers as a reason for our imminent failure, yet give our defense no credit for forcing 5. Personally, I am fine with allowing less than 3 ypc to the other RB, having the other QB pass for 300 yards, but getting 3 picks, a fumble on a sack and allowing ONE TOUCHDOWN. A curious question: It was mentioned many times during the game how the Lions have spent all season losing close games. If a team loses a lot of close games, why is it expected that you blow them out? Why wasnt a close win pretty much what was expected? There are very few blowouts in the NFL. If you wish to judge your team by their blowouts, go ahead, but you probably should root for the Colts from September to December, then shift over to the Pats in January.