Here we go again - "Pats look vulnerable"

[Bella*chick]

Oh please. Brad and Moss do not have a great game and the whole team looks vulnerable? The columnist doesn't know what he is talking about, as usual. Did Maroney look vulnerable? The defense gave up NO TDs despite being put in some sucky situations (ie. the TOs).

On this team, other areas step up to fill in the holes. It happens every week. When will these people get it?

 

[fnordcircle]

This is New England's fourth Super Bowl appearance in seven years, but this particular Patriots edition, despite its massive star power, might be the most vulnerable of them all.

I don't mind the vulnerable talk in general because sometimes they've got a point.

However saying this team looks more vulnerable than the 2001, 2003 or 2004 squads is really one of the dumbest things I've ever read. The 2001 squad had a defense comparable to this one and an offense that was not even in the same galaxy as this one. I'd also give the edge to this year's STs.

 

[patchick]

just another vulnerable dynasty that is 18-0 thus far. Happens rather often in the NFL.

It's all a matter of perspective, really. Everybody agrees that this team is the very best in football, they haven't lost a game, but they're "vulnerable" because over the past 6 games their average margin of victory was just +12.5 points instead of the colossal blowouts they'd been racking up.

Meanwhile the opponent they're supposedly "vulnerable" to, the team that's red-hot and playing their best ball late in the season, has gone 4-2 with an average margin of +3 over their last 6 games!

IOW, the "they look vulnerable" isn't comparing the Pats to the Giants, it's comparing the January Pats to the November Pats. (Now THAT would be a game for the ages!)