- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 26,101
- Reaction score
- 52,115
I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like this. Trust me, I'm glad. I hope that no one even utters Patriots and dominance in the same sentence, and I hope the Pats win out yet finish #7 in the "power rankings."
I just can't understand why this offense is dismissed by virtually every pundit. Don't get me wrong, they are considered to be elite, but we are talking about arguably the best offense in the league's modern history. What's more amazing than their ppg stats is that they've turned the ball over what, 5 times all season? You could easily make an argument that, based on the production and lack of turnovers, this is the best offense of all-time, and that's with some very key players being banged up this year.
The only reasons I can think of:
-They don't seem as historically great because everyone is used the Pats having a great offense
-The 2007 team was more "explosive" and controversial. Randy Moss was a highlight reel, there was novelty, and the individual records by Moss and Brady were more highlight grabbing than a balanced team approach.
-Last year's Packers also put up a ton of points, and based on the eye test, there isn't much difference (but based on the stats, there is.)
-Everyone is too focused with their man crush of Peyton Manning that they dismiss that Brady's offense is averaging a full TD more per game- SEVEN points per game! That's the difference between the Broncos and the Bills as well.
-Given the Patriots struggles last year versus the Ravens and Giants, and the Jets playoff game two years ago, where they looked very average on offense, people assume that this team will inevitably fulfill the same fate.
As to that last point, I respectfully disagree that it's likely. The 2010 and 2011 Patriots were similar offensively, both great but with big weaknesses. Although Green-Ellis was a good, reliable running back, the emergence of Ridley and Vereen make them much better, as their running game would be pretty good even without being setup with a great passing game. The Pats also have more playmakers, with the re-birth of Edelman in the offense, the addition of Lloyd, and the overall depth. I would also argue that the offensive line is now deeper and more athletic. As you may recall, the Pats had a "big 3" model the last few seasons, depending almost solely on Welker, Hernandez, and Gronkowski for all production while role players would take advantage of defensive schemes designed to shut down those three. I think that some of those role players like Woodhead, Edelman, and the young running backs are now solid starters if necessary, not just guys that benefit from great talent around them.
Simply put, I don't think the stats lie. The Pats are scoring more efficiently and more frequently than they have in the past, and that's with having ONE game with a healthy Gronk and Hernandez on the field, which is the most difficult duo to defend in the league.
I just can't understand why this offense is dismissed by virtually every pundit. Don't get me wrong, they are considered to be elite, but we are talking about arguably the best offense in the league's modern history. What's more amazing than their ppg stats is that they've turned the ball over what, 5 times all season? You could easily make an argument that, based on the production and lack of turnovers, this is the best offense of all-time, and that's with some very key players being banged up this year.
The only reasons I can think of:
-They don't seem as historically great because everyone is used the Pats having a great offense
-The 2007 team was more "explosive" and controversial. Randy Moss was a highlight reel, there was novelty, and the individual records by Moss and Brady were more highlight grabbing than a balanced team approach.
-Last year's Packers also put up a ton of points, and based on the eye test, there isn't much difference (but based on the stats, there is.)
-Everyone is too focused with their man crush of Peyton Manning that they dismiss that Brady's offense is averaging a full TD more per game- SEVEN points per game! That's the difference between the Broncos and the Bills as well.
-Given the Patriots struggles last year versus the Ravens and Giants, and the Jets playoff game two years ago, where they looked very average on offense, people assume that this team will inevitably fulfill the same fate.
As to that last point, I respectfully disagree that it's likely. The 2010 and 2011 Patriots were similar offensively, both great but with big weaknesses. Although Green-Ellis was a good, reliable running back, the emergence of Ridley and Vereen make them much better, as their running game would be pretty good even without being setup with a great passing game. The Pats also have more playmakers, with the re-birth of Edelman in the offense, the addition of Lloyd, and the overall depth. I would also argue that the offensive line is now deeper and more athletic. As you may recall, the Pats had a "big 3" model the last few seasons, depending almost solely on Welker, Hernandez, and Gronkowski for all production while role players would take advantage of defensive schemes designed to shut down those three. I think that some of those role players like Woodhead, Edelman, and the young running backs are now solid starters if necessary, not just guys that benefit from great talent around them.
Simply put, I don't think the stats lie. The Pats are scoring more efficiently and more frequently than they have in the past, and that's with having ONE game with a healthy Gronk and Hernandez on the field, which is the most difficult duo to defend in the league.
