Reminder: We are 4-0 despite an all-time awful offseason and key injuries.

[AzPatsFan]

Would you put him on Graham man to man? It seems risky to take away the deep safety coverage for their other receivers (although interestingly Colston is the only WR with more than four catches this year).

To all you tactical genius', could you see them going with 1 LB (Mayo), 2 safeties (McCourty, Gregory) and four CBs (Talib, Dennard, Arrington, Ryan) on obvious passing downs? That way you can cover Graham with Talb, put Arrington/Dennard on the main WR's with safety help which still leaves a CB to cover Sproles/Thomas and allows Mayo to help cover the interior DL?

I have no idea how practicable that is, but does seem at face value to cover all the potential holes.

BJGE and Bernard would have a field day rolling up 200+ yards rushing...

 

[FCB02062]

Homer post, but I don't give a ****. It's remarkable that despite all of the stuff that happened this offseason, the offensive departures, Tebow drama, breaking in rookies all over the place and injuries arguably our top 2 or 3 skill position players we are currently 4-0 atop the AFC East.

Gotta give so much credit to this coaching staff.

What position do you play? I love it when "fans" go into "we" mode....

 

[Oswlek]

Did you fall asleep during the first three years of Brady's career too or were you just becoming a fan then? Dalton and Brady's first three years as starters are eerily similar from a playing stand point (obviously not the Super Bowls). I'd even argue that Dalton's been asked to do a bit more than Brady, some of that can possibly be attributed to the way the game has changed the last 10 years.

I'm going to have to disagree with this one. Yes, Dalton is a solid QB, but I don't fear him in the least.

 

[mgteich]

Well, we don't admit to fearing any quarterback.

In any case, the CINN offense is certainly not at as good as that of NO or DEN.

I'm going to have to disagree with this one. Yes, Dalton is a solid QB, but I don't fear him in the least.

 

[Rob0729]

Well, we don't admit to fearing any quarterback.

In any case, the CINN offense is certainly not at as good as that of NO or DEN.

You know what is funny? Buffalo statistically is a better offense than Cincy. In fact, Cincy will be the second worst offense the Pats have faced in yards and third worst in points scored based on the stats for the first four weeks. I know they aren't as bad as the stats say, but their offense isn't nearly as good as people thought it would be coming into the season.

 

[PatriotSeven]

You know what is funny? Buffalo statistically is a better offense than Cincy. In fact, Cincy will be the second worst offense the Pats have faced in yards and third worst in points scored based on the stats for the first four weeks. I know they aren't as bad as the stats say, but their offense isn't nearly as good as people thought it would be coming into the season.

Are these NFL.com and ESPN.com standard stats? If they're not curated and compared against the average, they're not much to go off of.

For example Denver has the worst run defense, which is no different than us when we were lighting up the league. That always tends to happen when you light up your opponents so bad they never run the ball against you because they're playing catch up. Fake stats for sure.

Tebow put up the #1 rushing attack in football with the Donkeys the year before. That tends to happen to, when you never freaking pass the ball. Fake stat? Absolutely.

If you were to go off of standard stats we had one of the worst defenses in the NFL going to the Superbowl. The same year, advanced stats said we had the #2 most efficient D. Fake stats? Well in the playoffs, our D played like a #2 D, not what the standard stats said. And I was one of the few people on this board that said it all year long that year when everyone else was thrashing our D.

So....yeah.

 

[Oswlek]

Are these NFL.com and ESPN.com standard stats? If they're not curated and compared against the average, they're not much to go off of.

For example Denver has the worst run defense, which is no different than us when we were lighting up the league. That always tends to happen when you light up your opponents so bad they never run the ball against you because they're playing catch up. Fake stats for sure.

Tebow put up the #1 rushing attack in football with the Donkeys the year before. That tends to happen to, when you never freaking pass the ball. Fake stat? Absolutely.

If you were to go off of standard stats we had one of the worst defenses in the NFL going to the Superbowl. The same year, advanced stats said we had the #2 most efficient D. Fake stats? Well in the playoffs, our D played like a #2 D, not what the standard stats said. And I was one of the few people on this board that said it all year long that year when everyone else was thrashing our D.

So....yeah.

I'm a little confused. You meant to say "best" run defense, right? Because teams tend not to run when trailing by multiple touchdowns. "Best" would make more sense, but even then Denver isn't the actual best, tough pretty close.

The only "advanced stat" that said NE had the #2 defense was crack-pot CHFF and their point efficiency metric, which is nearly as meaningless as yards. There were reasons to believe NE's defense might improve in the playoffs - CHFF not being one of them - but they were legitimately bad for most of 2011. Football outsiders, a far better advanced site for team performance, had NE's D ranked 30th, for instance.

 

[Uncle Rico]

One thing I was wondering about re: the Atlanta game: Depending on which report you believe, the Patriots to some degree perhaps thought Gronk would play this week. I wonder how much they game-planned thinking he would play, and how much they had to scramble when it was decided he couldn't. Depending on the answer, would make the win (and 30 pts) that much more impressive.

 

[JMC00]

One thing I was wondering about re: the Atlanta game: Depending on which report you believe, the Patriots to some degree perhaps thought Gronk would play this week. I wonder how much they game-planned thinking he would play, and how much they had to scramble when it was decided he couldn't. Depending on the answer, would make the win (and 30 pts) that much more impressive.

Trust me Mike Smith and Mike Nolan had something in mind if Gronk were to play. But the second it was reported he didn't make the trip it was thrown out. Which was more than a day before the game. With that kind of time before the game you are not scrambling.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

I believe 2004 and 2007 are the only other years under BB we started out 4-0. Usually the other years the first loss has been a divisional game and/or a non-playoff team. So what this team is doing is pretty rare regardless of the competition and how it has looked and it hasn't been any easier now than it would have been those years. This is without Gronk and Amendola btw.

My only complaint from the offseason was the lack of veteran DB's brought in to some thin positions (especially CB) but so far it hasn't been tested thanks to Dennard/Talib staying healthy. And hopefully Ryan/Harmon can prove to be worthy backups if called upon. But overall the results are showing that the front office has put this team in a position to compete despite all the criticisms.

 

[PatriotSeven]

I'm a little confused. You meant to say "best" run defense, right? Because teams tend not to run when trailing by multiple touchdowns. "Best" would make more sense, but even then Denver isn't the actual best, tough pretty close.

The only "advanced stat" that said NE had the #2 defense was crack-pot CHFF and their point efficiency metric, which is nearly as meaningless as yards. There were reasons to believe NE's defense might improve in the playoffs - CHFF not being one of them - but they were legitimately bad for most of 2011. Football outsiders, a far better advanced site for team performance, had NE's D ranked 30th, for instance.

Right, and no, not just CHFF. Yards per point and points allowed is a tried and true metric. Yards alone aren't worth ****.

Listen to Vince just two weeks ago. Points allowed...that is a stat even the Pats care about. Yards is a completely meaningless and pointless measurement for anything outside of fantasy football.

Yards per point though, if applied correctly, is even more accurate than points allowed or points scored by themselves.

And Football Outsiders, I don't care for them. They were wrong in the end. The Pats D played exactly like the yards per point metric said they would in the playoffs. They played nothing like Football outsiders, or the NFL stats said they would.

 

[Deus Irae]

Right, and no, not just CHFF. Yards per point and points allowed is a tried and true metric. Yards alone aren't worth ****.

The Patriots defense sucked in 2011 and 2012.

 

[PatriotSeven]

The Patriots defense sucked in 2011 and 2012.

And yet the FACTS say they went to the Superbowl and allowed 13.25 points per game throughout the playoffs.

Ok. Ignorance is bliss I guess if it matches the acceptable mantra.

 

[Ring 6]

Well, we don't admit to fearing any quarterback.

In any case, the CINN offense is certainly not at as good as that of NO or DEN.

Or Atlanta

 

[manxman2601]

BJGE and Bernard would have a field day rolling up 200+ yards rushing...

They might if that was a strategy for the Bengals, but it was suggested for the Saints.

 

[Deus Irae]

And yet the FACTS say they went to the Superbowl and allowed 13.25 points per game throughout the playoffs.

Ok. Ignorance is bliss I guess if it matches the acceptable mantra.

The defense sucking, and the team going to the SB and allowing 13.25 ppg throughout the playoffs, aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Ring 6]

The defense sucking, and the team going to the SB and allowing 13.25 ppg throughout the playoffs, aren't mutually exclusive.

Priceless.

 

[PatriotSeven]

The defense sucking, and the team going to the SB and allowing 13.25 ppg throughout the playoffs, aren't mutually exclusive.

Except when you consider that a "defense sucking" and allowing 13.25 point per game in the playoffs is just complete nonsense. Let alone a defense who helps their team make the superbowl, when the offense couldn't do squat. Including sealing the game against the Ravens.

And what we're seeing this year isn't some massive change as the numbers suggest. The offense is sucking. The opposing offenses haven't been that hot. The defense is stepping up. Fewer drives. Fewer scores. That's all it is.

They're always relative, offense and defense. The fans, even veteran fans, have trouble picking up on this.

And I guarantee you this. When the offense is back to scoring over 30ppg, the defense will go back to allowing more yards and more points and just about everyone will start talking about how the defense is "slipping".

 

[shmessy]

The defense sucking, and the team going to the SB and allowing 13.25 ppg throughout the playoffs, aren't mutually exclusive.

There's our giggle for the day!

 

[chicowalker]

The defense sucking, and the team going to the SB and allowing 13.25 ppg throughout the playoffs, aren't mutually exclusive.

I could see the first part -- a team could make the SB on the strength of its offense.

But how does a bad defense only give up 13 ppg come playoff time?