If this is truly a championship caliber team

[Boomer B]

Injuries happen. This team was flawed before the Gronk went down. Our D is mediocre. But the good news is that every team in the league has flaws and every team that will be in the playoffs if beatable.

The key for the Patriots is home field. If we get home field we are favored to get to the Super Bowl, and then against a team like the Cowboys or the Seahawks it's basically a toss up in my opinion. They have their own strengths (Dallas's O-line and running game, Seattle's defense) and we have our strengths (Brady & Belichick).

Without home field and no Gronk I don't think we make the Super Bowl. KC, Denver, or Oakland would be pretty tough places to win come playoff time.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Without home field and no Gronk I don't think we make the Super Bowl. KC, Denver, or Oakland would be pretty tough places to win come playoff time.

Pretty much sums it up.

 

[jri37]

I would have said no but has anyone seen how flawed the rest of the teams are in the league? Based on what I've seen from around the league, comparatively speaking they are absolutely a championship caliper team.

 

[tasmlab]

49 out of 50 Superbowls were won by teams who didn't have Gronk playing for them that day.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

49 out of 50 Superbowls were won by teams who didn't have Gronk playing for them that day.

I literally said the same about Collins last week. Verbatim lol.

We have more than enough weapons on offense and the line has very well most of the time.

The defense is the biggest factor. If they can create a few TO's it would go light years with our offense.

*I would really like to see Long, Sheard and Flowers on the field at the same time more. Our DT's need a rest and this team needs pressure in the worst way. Those 3 are handful for any offensive line.

Giving Brady an extra possession is certain death for the opponent.


*Edit* Dumb penalties have become too frequent the past few years. Yes it can be overcome but the automatic ones are killing us.

 

[XLIX]

49 out of 50 Superbowls were won by teams who didn't have Gronk playing for them that day.

Not to mention 3 of 4 Patriots Super Bowl Championships.

 

[XLIX]

I would have said no but has anyone seen how flawed the rest of the teams are in the league? Based on what I've seen from around the league, comparatively speaking they are absolutely a championship caliper team.

I agree 100%. We have as good a chance as any team (and a better chance than most).

People criticize our defense, which is 3rd in the league in PA. The mighty Oakland Raiders are -->22nd<--. Right now, Denver isn't even in the playoffs so they are hardly unbeatable. And KC? They are very good, but I will never fear a team led by Andy Reid and Alex Smith.

 

[fightingirish595]

You don't know if a team is "championship caliber" until and unless it wins a championship.

It's a different team without Gronkowski. We really can't pretend that he's "just another player" where we can say "next man up." There are those who would make the case for him as the best TE ever if he can put in a few more years. You just don't plug someone else in his place and pretend that everything's going to be fine, no matter how great BB and TB are.

Personally, I'm just taking it one game at a time. I'm not even assuming that the LA game is in the W column until it is. Then, a big test against Baltimore and another big test on the road on a short week in Denver.

Just becsuse you dont win a championship does not mean you were not mean you were not good enough to win it. I think thats outrageous in my opinion. Theres been plenty of teams that have been good enough to win the superbowl who did not

 

[mosslost]

We are fine, we almost won the Super Bowl in 06 with Brady throwing to who and who?

I think the Pats are still loaded.

 

[PatriotsPimp136]

Wrs have to step up. I do expect teams now to play more man coverage against us. They wanna see if our wrs can get separation.

 

[mosslost]

Injuries happen. This team was flawed before the Gronk went down. Our D is mediocre. But the good news is that every team in the league has flaws and every team that will be in the playoffs if beatable.

The key for the Patriots is home field. If we get home field we are favored to get to the Super Bowl, and then against a team like the Cowboys or the Seahawks it's basically a toss up in my opinion. They have their own strengths (Dallas's O-line and running game, Seattle's defense) and we have our strengths (Brady & Belichick).

Without home field and no Gronk I don't think we make the Super Bowl. KC, Denver, or Oakland would be pretty tough places to win come playoff time.

I actually think as long as we get the 2 seed.. we have a solid chance at getting to the Super Bowl. With HFA I think we are still favorites.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

49 out of 50 Superbowls were won by teams who didn't have Gronk playing for them that day.

Yeah, but how many of those teams won without their top weapon?

 

[PatriotsPimp136]

Yeah, but how many of those teams won without their top weapon?

Brady's gonna have to spread it around now. I really hope mitchell and brady have a connection and will be on display against the rams.

 

[PatRiot]

To compare the Pats Team and Coaching staff to the Rest of the NFL Teams like Hawks , Boys, Pitts or Raiders the answer is simple = yes​

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Just becsuse you dont win a championship does not mean you were not mean you were not good enough to win it. I think thats outrageous in my opinion. Theres been plenty of teams that have been good enough to win the superbowl who did not

That's a concept I don't understand.

What do you mean by "good enough to win it?"

Some paper measure? Some set of statistics like DVOA?

Is it what the talking heads on the Pre-game shows think about the team?

Is it the team's Record? Was the Greatest Show on Turf "good enough" to win the SB in 2001/02 even though the upstart Patriots upset them as a 14 point favorite? That's what Marshall Faulk and Kurt Warner have been whining and crying for years, saying they deserved to win that game. I don't buy it.

Or is it a fan's gut feel? My gut feel. Your gut feel.

Were the Buffalo teams that lost four consecutive SB's "good enough" to win them?

Were the Vikings' teams that went to and lost three SB's in four years "good enough" to win them?

Were the Broncos' teams that went to and lost three SB's in four years "good enough" to win them?

If they were, by what metric were they "good enough?" And, if they were, why didn't one of those teams actually win even one of those 10 games?

The only team in a given year that's "good enough" to win the SB is the team that (a) gets to the game after a 16 game Regular Season and two or three Playoff Games and (b) laces 'em up, steps between the white lines, plays the game and (c) wins the game.

Everything else is whining and crying and woulda, coulda, shoulda.

 

[bostonia3333]

Are they championship caliber? YES, but

1. Malcolm Mitchell is the wild card here. He may have incredible ceiling. He may be a bust like Kenbrell Thompkins. It's possible he can become a star in a one month span. This stock is something to keep an eye on. Realistically all we can hope for is a 2014 Lafell or even a 2012 Lloyd. Production out of him is essential to go anywhere in the playoffs.

2. I know it's boring as hell, but commit to the run and be patient with it. That keeps our crappy defense off the field for extended periods. And......no more vertical go routes to Dion Lewis please.

3. Gostkowski needs to be laser sharp or it's game over. Red zone tds are gonna be much tougher and our kicker is gonna be asked upon even more.

 

[fightingirish595]

That's a concept I don't understand.

What do you mean by "good enough to win it?"

Some paper measure? Some set of statistics like DVOA?

Is it what the talking heads on the Pre-game shows think about the team?

Is it the team's Record? Was the Greatest Show on Turf "good enough" to win the SB in 2001/02 even though the upstart Patriots upset them as a 14 point favorite? That's what Marshall Faulk and Kurt Warner have been whining and crying for years, saying they deserved to win that game. I don't buy it.

Or is it a fan's gut feel? My gut feel. Your gut feel.

Were the Buffalo teams that lost four consecutive SB's "good enough" to win them?

Were the Vikings' teams that went to and lost three SB's in four years "good enough" to win them?

Were the Broncos' teams that went to and lost three SB's in four years "good enough" to win them?

If they were, by what metric were they "good enough?" And, if they were, why didn't one of those teams actually win even one of those 10 games?

The only team in a given year that's "good enough" to win the SB is the team that (a) gets to the game after a 16 game Regular Season and two or three Playoff Games and (b) laces 'em up, steps between the white lines, plays the game and (c) wins the game.

Everything else is whining and crying and woulda, coulda, shoulda.

I pretty much disagree with most of this, The Patriots were not a championship caliber team in 2007? I think the greatest show on turf was a championship caliber team, I think Seattle two years ago was a championship caliber team. Only one team can actually be the champion. It's all about being good enough on that particular day.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I pretty much disagree with most of this, The Patriots were not a championship caliber team in 2007? I think the greatest show on turf was a championship caliber team, I think Seattle two years ago was a championship caliber team. Only one team can actually be the champion. It's all about being good enough on that particular day.

If you don't win the championship, you weren't good enough to win it. Doesn't mean you weren't a very good or even a "great" team. It just means that you weren't the Champion. I don't like losers who whine.

In the NFL, that's defined as winning one game on one day.

In most other major team sports, except for World Cup Soccer, it's defined as winning four of seven games over a ten or so day period.

I know what it means to say that a team is Champion. I just don't have any idea what it means to say that a team is "Championship Caliber." It's a vague, subjective and, to my mind, a completely meaningless combination of words.

I think we could take a lesson here from The Open Championship in Golf as played in Great Britain. At the end, the winner of the Tournament is introduced as "The Champion Golfer of the Year." He is not introduced as the "greatest" golfer of the year or the "best" golfer of the year, but rather as the Champion. He was the guy who played 72 holes on a very tough course over four days against most of the best players in the world. The guy who came in second is the "Runner up."

You either define it the way I have or you have to completely dilute its meaning by saying something like, all 12 teams that make the NFL Playoffs are "championship caliber" or all 32 teams that make it to the World Cup final are "championship caliber," or all 156 players who comprise the field of the British Open are "championship caliber." That's actually fine with me, as it might even have the benefit of being the truth. I just think it dilutes the term "Champion" and is therefore, virtually meaningless; there is such a thing as truisms or "meaningless truths."

 

[fightingirish595]

If you don't win the championship, you weren't good enough to win it. Doesn't mean you weren't a very good or even a "great" team. It just means that you weren't the Champion. I don't like losers who whine.

In the NFL, that's defined as winning one game on one day.

In most other major team sports, except for World Cup Soccer, it's defined as winning four of seven games over a ten or so day period.

I know what it means to say that a team is Champion. I just don't have any idea what it means to say that a team is "Championship Caliber." It's a vague, subjective and, to my mind, a completely meaningless combination of words.

I think we could take a lesson here from The Open Championship in Golf as played in Great Britain. At the end, the winner of the Tournament is introduced as "The Champion Golfer of the Year." He is not introduced as the "greatest" golfer of the year or the "best" golfer of the year, but rather as the Champion. He was the guy who played 72 holes on a very tough course over four days against most of the best players in the world. The guy who came in second is the "Runner up."

You either define it the way I have or you have to completely dilute its meaning by saying something like, all 12 teams that make the NFL Playoffs are "championship caliber" or all 32 teams that make it to the World Cup final are "championship caliber," or all 156 players who comprise the field of the British Open are "championship caliber." That's actually fine with me, as it might even have the benefit of being the truth. I just think it dilutes the term "Champion" and is therefore, virtually meaningless; there is such a thing as truisms or "meaningless truths."

I see your point, but were talking about the best athletes in the world. You can lose and still play at a championship level. I guess everyones opinion is different, maybe you do not feel that way.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I see your point, but were talking about the best athletes in the world. You can lose and still play at a championship level. I guess everyones opinion is different, maybe you do not feel that way.

That's a totally different statement. I understand what it means for a team or player to play at a championship level, even in the first game of a 16 game season. I still don't know what a "championship caliber" team is, though. Let's just agree to disagree on that one point.