Have we gotten to used to winning?

[Ian]

My concern might be influenced by Brady's obvioius frustration

True, but Bruschi's comments on that kind of put it in perspective:

“Tom Brady is holding them to a standard that they can’t maintain, and that’s Tom Brady’s standard. He expects them to be perfect because at times he rarely makes mistakes,” Bruschi said. “He has to lower his standards for these receivers right now. The defense is good and will buy him some time.

“I remember back in 2001, we had a quality defense and we had to pick up our weight a little bit more, pick up the slack, because we had a young quarterback by the name of Tom Brady. We had to wait for him. Now he has to wait for them.”

What next at wide receiver for the New England Patriots? - ESPN Boston

 

[wolverinejoe80]

of course we are. we are blessed to win 10+ games every year. we are used to beating up lowly teams and play well against good teams.

we should be thankful for this team.

 

[Horace's Ivories]

how about a couple of 3-13 seasons to serve a nice reminiscent slice of post Grogan humble pie -

 

[borg]

People are whining because the highest scoring team in the NFL in '12 may be the lowest scoring team this year. Early record be dammed.....averaging 3 points in the second half of games won't get it done when the Pats start playing varsity squads.

 

[Joey007]

To be honest, I hope we play in the wildcard round this year. I think it'd be good for us in the long run..

 

[Joker]

We should celebrate that the NFL chooses to keep us in the NFCE with three very weak teams.

and here I thought we played in the AFC East all these decades.

 

[mgteich]

...........

and here I thought we played in the AFC East all these decades.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

...
The reality is that Belichick likely believes that these 2 games (jets and TB) truly are of little importance, since we play in the AFCE. This is NOT the Belichick that we have grown to respect for more than a decade. We are used to Belichick doing the best to play one game at a time. IMHO, this was not the case yesterday, or in Game One for that matter.

BTW, having a backup veteran on the roster does not translate to this player being tired by playoff time. His playing time would be expected to be minimal for most games.

In the end, Belichick gambled and won, twice.

Huh? Your posts usually make more sense than that.

On what do you base the statement that BB might believe the first two games were of little importance? Are you suggesting that he thinks the Pats could have afforded to lose one or both of those game since he thinks the division is as good as won anyway with 14 games to play and he can mail it in? Come on man!

Or, are you suggesting that Belichick didn't field and prepare his team to give the Patriots the best chance to win on both occasions? I dare ya...double dare ya...no, I double triple dare ya with a cherry on the top...to say that to his face...or to say it to the face of Tom Brady.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

of course we have. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar. We are all use to winning with this team.

 

[RayClay]

Funny hacked video of BB, a boring life.

A Football Life: Bill Belichick - YouTube

 

[Observer]

Better to be used to winning than to be used to losing,

 

[102 Pat]

As a fanbase we are used to winning and often the expectations are high. Personally, I think fans go into chicken little mode if the Pats don't win a game by a large margin.

 

[IcyPatriot]

There are a few who feel a need to point out where they would have made a more correct roster decision than Belichick. to which I always say to pick on Belichick for a decision also assumes that you would have also made all the correct moves he made - which sorry to say I doubt very highly.

It's one thing to discuss roster moves but the people here who imply Bill is cheap, Kraft is cheap, Bill is out to prove a point at the expense of winning and all the rest is just plain crap. You roll the dice in sports to hopefully increase your odds of winning ... Bill wins that one more often than many.

The bottom line is we compete with 31 other teams for coaches and players. We have no advantages in that area ... to expect to come out on top year after year when every team has a 3.125 % chance of doing so is an extremely high expectation. Bill defies those odds by a huge margin ... it's good enough for me.

 

[BTTA]

Rhetorical question, really.

Only one team has looked good thus far this year (Denver). Really, no other team has looked strong in both of their games, and most of the teams have looked mediocre at best in both of their games. Parity has created a new mediocrity this year, it is remarkable. If there were six or eight teams who looked really good in both of their games, I'd be much more worried about this season. But unless it is Denver, this year's SB champion will be a team that started out slowly this year.

 

[Nunchucks]

Rhetorical question, really.

Only one team has looked good thus far this year (Denver). Really, no other team has looked strong in both of their games, and most of the teams have looked mediocre at best in both of their games. Parity has created a new mediocrity this year, it is remarkable. If there were six or eight teams who looked really good in both of their games, I'd be much more worried about this season. But unless it is Denver, this year's SB champion will be a team that started out slowly this year.

Usually there are a few teams that start fast and then fade late. Better to start slow and hit the accelerator in December.

 

[50-yard-line]

And, yes, it is embarrassing to think of celebrating 2-0 when we almost lost both games against to of the very worst teams in the NFL.

We'll see about that. I don't agree.

We should celebrate that the NFL chooses to keep us in the NFCE with three very weak teams.

Again, it's a little premature for such pronouncements. Miami beat a playoff team from last year - one that was expected to make strides with a good young quarterback - in their own building, and one known for home-field advantage.

I'll look back in a few weeks for a better perspective - every year, people THINK they know which divisions are good and which suck, and every year, there are surprises. Like the NFCW last year. This year, I heard a bunch of "experts" naming the NFCS as the strongest division...NO beats Atlanta; NO should have lost to Tampa; Tampa is 0-2 after losing to the Jets; Carolina is 0-2, including a loss to the Bills.

Also, the canard about the Pats always being in a an easy division...haven't the Jets gone to two AFCCG's in the last few years? I wouldn't be surprised to see the AFCE combine for 36-28, or even 38-26 this year.

The division games go 12-12 obviously.

Miami could easily go 2-2 or even 3-1 against the AFCN. They've beaten Cleveland and neither Pittsburgh or Baltimore looks very good to me.

The Dolphins have already beaten the Colts, and I'll take them against the Chargers at home.

They should get at least 2 wins (probably two) out of the NFCS, too. That makes them 6-4 or 7-3 outside the division.

The Jets will win at least 1 against the AFCN - 2 wouldn't surprise me.

They'll win at least one of the Titans and Raiders games, probably both.

They've already won one against the NFCS. Another is likely, though it's possible they could go 0-3.

That makes them 5-5 or 4-6 outside the division.

Same for the Bills against the AFCN/NFCS, and while I don't see them beating the Chiefs, they'll beat the Jags.

I basically see them right beside the Jets at 5-5 or 4-6 outside the division.

So would you be surprised to see those three teams at 17-13 outside the division?

 

[Sivy]

People ask this question like the pats are 0-2..They are 2-0 and pretty well off if you ask me. Its the nfl, its always good to be winning. Newsflash, aint no team all that great so far this year.

Unlike most people I try to form an opinion by actually watching the games. The Broncos aint all that special. Have you watched the games? So far they only really play 1 half of football and the teams they've played are garbage. The giants are just horrible and Eli winning 2 superbowls will never logically be able to be explained.

The Broncos are good, but they are not this unbeatable force that some people think they are (because other people told them that)
Sh@t, in the NFL, they could lose at home next week to Oakland.

Look at the 49ers, week 1, they killed and were suddenly talked about as the greatest team in the history of ever, and Kap was suddenly considered the best of all time and they were scheduling the removal of the statue of Joe Montana in SF.

Then guess what? He sucked the next week and lost.

The pats could win there next 10 games by 55 points, and lose the 11th by 1 point (they wont, because they are going 16-0) and people would talk about how they are no longer "the patriots"

why? Because people only remember the last thing that happened in sports.


Except Mannings playoff performances, most "experts" seem to forget those.

 

[BrickPat]

Perfectly reasonable to ask for folks to wait and see how the Pats look in a few weeks before drawing a conclusion. It's also perfectly reasonable to voice a concern about certain aspects of their game and how that may affect future performance.

 

[Nunchucks]

The Patriots passing game will not remain stagnant. The WRs are getting open, they just have to get on the same page. That will occur as the season progresses. So far it has not cost the Patriots to struggle on offense.

When November rolls around and the Patriots offense is clicking, all you worry warts are gonna seem a bit silly.

 

[Canuck]

We are used to winning and scoring with a high octane offense but I think people forget how tough it was to win games in 2001 when we won the Super Bowl.

Week 2, Loss Jets 3-10
Week 4, Loss Miami 10-30
Week 9, Win Bills 21-11
Week 12, Win Jets 17-16
Week 14, Win Bills 12-9 (OT)
Week 15, Win Miami 20-13

Didn't you see Bill smile! and wave to the crowd after the Jets game. We are 2-0 this season with both wins in our division. Is the road ahead going to be tough, yes.