Pats Inadequate... Except Not

[CheerforTom]

Just something for humor, if you find the media's attempts to create a big story funny. Check out the NFL section of www.foxsports.com, and the front page declares "PATS INADEQUATE", with an article attached which apparently argues that the "Pats postseason win streak is overhyped".

But, when you click on the article, although the guy rates New England awful low in his rankings, he actually says very little about the team... nothing about them being 'inadequate'. He doesn't offer a prediction for the game, or even mention it, either.

Anyway, you gotta love the shock value of the media sometimes. Personally, if I was that writer I'd want to stab my editor (or however the hell websites are managed/created).

Have a good week.

 

[Mosi Moose]

So let me get this straight, a team that is OUT of the playoffs is ranked higher than us?? You have to laugh at these rankings sometimes. If we beat Denver, we would be one of the last 4 teams standing, but this Aaron Schmuck guy will probably drop us down below#10 in his bizarro ranking system!

 

[TruthSeeker]

Hey, everyone has the right to their own opinion. Some people are picking us to lose this weekend, and that can very well happen. We stomped a 12-4 team, but that doesn't guarantee us beating a 13-3 team, in their house. I mentioned after the Tampa game that IF we play like that in the playoffs, nobody can beat us, but IF is the biggest 2-letter word in the english language. So far, in game one, we played a very similar game to the Tampa game, let's see if they can keep it going. IF they do, watch out history books. IF we win, I bet a lot of writers will change their tune.

 

[CheerforTom]

Hey, everyone has the right to their own opinion. Some people are picking us to lose this weekend, and that can very well happen. We stomped a 12-4 team, but that doesn't guarantee us beating a 13-3 team, in their house. I mentioned after the Tampa game that IF we play like that in the playoffs, nobody can beat us, but IF is the biggest 2-letter word in the english language. So far, in game one, we played a very similar game to the Tampa game, let's see if they can keep it going. IF they do, watch out history books. IF we win, I bet a lot of writers will change their tune.

That's very true, but it also implies that jumping on the bandwagon when a team's doing well is fine. I agree with what you say, but ranking the Pats as one of the last teams when they're doing as well as they are (plus so many of his peers are liking the Pats now) seems a little fishy to me.

 

[skri65]

It seems that for the past 6 week, there's always been SOMETHING that has been holding people back from admitting that the Pats are a real contender.

1.) Never played a good offense over second half of season and won.
*We SHUT DOWN the Bucs. Media: Chris Simms sucks (to be honest, i'm not mrpessed by him either. Nonetheless, people need to understand when you shut down offenses this badly for so many consecutive weeks, no matter the offense, it shows you have something going.

2.)Then came Jax, and nothings really changed. We limited them to 3 points.

But then again, critics will always say "Well, Byron was rusty."-which I admit could be very true.

It'll never end. If we win this week, it'll be that plummer choked, and that it had nothing to do with our defensive performance.

There will be only one test that will hush the critics. We all know what it is. Beating Indy in the RCA Dome. We've known this was gonna be the real test for some time now. If we get past this week, it will be one of the most anticipated games in many many years.


GO PATS

p.s. Is it just me or are the bronco trolls abnormally obnoxious?

 

[alamo]

That's very true, but it also implies that jumping on the bandwagon when a team's doing well is fine. I agree with what you say, but ranking the Pats as one of the last teams when they're doing as well as they are (plus so many of his peers are liking the Pats now) seems a little fishy to me.

People who have been here the entire season (rather than jumping on the bandwagon for the playoffs) would know that Aaron Schatz runs footballoutsiders.com to provide objective analysis. The rankings are all algorithm-driven and more meaningful than commentators who move teams up and down based on the emotion of one game. The rankings weight the later games more heavily but also take into account who you are playing.

If you look at the entire season objectively the Patriots as #8 is perfectly reasonable, especially if the Pats lose this weekend. The fact we think they will win doesn't mean the world has to give them credit for doing so in advance.

Aaron Schatz is a Patriots fan, he lives in Framingham, but he doesn't make the rankings, the computer does. If any team has a complaint it's the Bears, who are ranked below us even though they had a bye!

 

[dryheat44]

Furthermore, Aaron has asked me to apologize to all Pats fans. He doesn't write the headlines or the excepts. Fox does. He's pissed this morning, because he feels Fox is putting his analysis in a false context.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

Schatz needs to apologize for himself - the idea that the Pats 10-0 run in the playoffs is over-hyped because of games they didn't play?? He is dealing in fanatasies predicting that the Pats wouldn't have won out in 2002, it's pure nonsense because those games were never even played. Does Schatz, unlike every other pundit out there, have a crystral ball which always gives the right answer when conjuring up the victors of playoff games? No, he doesn't, and he embrasses himself with such speculation based on none of the hard facts he tries to present on his arcane website.

And how can you over-hype a win streak which includes winning 3 of 4 SB's, something only one other team has ever done in the entire modern era of the NFL? How can you over-hype a QB who has won more playoff games in row (and the most without first losing) than HOF'ers Bart Starr and Troy Aikman?? Or how the Pats playoff winning streak included allowing no TD's to the QB who had just set the all time TD/season record while they played without one of the three best D-linemen in the world and had a WR as their nickel back?

Not to mention he has the Pats two teams behind the Redskins who the Pats would wax like a new wooden floor. I mean the Redskins just managed 130 yds of offense against the Bucs, a team we destroyed and plowed under. Numbers, schumbers....

Schatz ought to mad at his editors, not for the gaudy headline they came up with, but for allowing to him to publish such tripe.

pick through the trash yourself- http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5237156

 

[kptmorgan04]

on the other hand the Moose gives a nice breakdown of the playoff contenders in his article. I have always liked him and enjoyed him in the booth during the pats/bucs game.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5234124

 

[alamo]

Schatz needs to apologize for himself - the idea that the Pats 10-0 run in the playoffs is over-hyped because of games they didn't play?? He is dealing in fanatasies predicting that the Pats wouldn't have won out in 2002, it's pure nonsense because those games were never even played. Does Schatz, unlike every other pundit out there, have a crystral ball which always gives the right answer when conjuring up the victors of playoff games? No, he doesn't, and he embrasses himself with such speculation based on none of the hard facts he tries to present on his arcane website.

Apparently you are allowed to have an opinion but he isn't?

And how can you over-hype a win streak which includes winning 3 of 4 SB's, something only one other team has ever done in the entire modern era of the NFL?

Look at the Dallas Cowboys, that other team to win 3 of 4, for proof that it can overhyped. Michael Irvin as network analyst is a product of that.

How can you over-hype a QB who has won more playoff games in row (and the most without first losing) than HOF'ers Bart Starr and Troy Aikman??

Your reading comprehension is a little overhyped, the article didn't mention Brady at all.

All he said was the *streak* was overhyped. The streak is nice but when it ends it will take nothing away from the Pats' accomplishments.

 

[dryheat44]

Schatz needs to apologize for himself - the idea that the Pats 10-0 run in the playoffs is over-hyped because of games they didn't play?? He is dealing in fanatasies predicting that the Pats wouldn't have won out in 2002, it's pure nonsense because those games were never even played.

It's very valid. What's the big deal that the Pats have won 10 playoff games in a row, when they weren't good enough to make it in between? I agree the whole "no way they would have beaten....." is conjecture, because you could say the same thing about the '01 Pats. But the Brady-led Pats choked out the season that year, getting their butts handed to them by Tennessee and New York. I think the fact that they've won seven playoff games in a row is impressive.

Does Schatz, unlike every other pundit out there, have a crystral ball which always gives the right answer when conjuring up the victors of playoff games? No, he doesn't, and he embrasses himself with such speculation based on none of the hard facts he tries to present on his arcane website.

pick through the trash yourself- http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5237156

The best way to predict what happens in a game is to look at the scoreboard. Unfortunately, that creates a problem in the time continuum. Aaron's formula looks at EVERY SINGLE PLAY of the season, and compares it to EVERY OTHER SINGLE PLAY in the NFL that was run in the same situation to see how successful it was. It's the only Power Rankings based on the probable future, not the past.

Now, there are problems with the system, the biggest one being that it can't account for injuries or games when the team isn't really trying. It's a work in progress.

It's probably more valid than any other Power Ranking that's published, since it is based on something other than the author's gut feelings and ego. You or I could do a Power Rankings and it would be exactly as valid as Peter King, or Zimmerman, or Prisco, or whoever.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

Cripes, how can you talk about the winning streak without talking about Brady? It is the very fact Schatz didn't mention Brady that made me bring him up.

And Schatz is entitled to his opinion, whackos like him (and me) help make life interesting. My opinion is that his work isn't very good this week. The problem is, just exactly as dryheat points out, Schatz isn't expressing his opinion but the results of his formula.

Isn't this warm weather great?