Running the table? I wouldn't bet on it. Lower your expectations.

[DaBruinz]

PS: Let me put it to you in a simpler way. We have played 3 of the top 10 best scoring defenses and we lost all 3 games. Does that make you feel confident? We have 3 more top 10 defenses left, including the #1 SF and #4 Huston, and at least one of those have a more potent offense than any of the other 3 we faced.

I have news for you. When the Pats played Denver, they were a top 10 defense. The reason they aren't, now, is because of the Pats.

What you also ignore is the fact that the Pats lost those 3 games by 4 points and a TON of controversy in the Arizona and Baltimore games because of the replacement refs.

You also ignore that the Pats have changed. They're young secondary has more experience now and will have even more by the time they play Houston and San Fran.

 

[Kontradiction]

Houston is not as good as advertised and I think San Fran will struggle to score against us if our defense plays like last week.

I'm telling you guys if we maintain the increased aggressiveness of last week we're gonna be unstoppable.

And why not maintain last week's aggressiveness? It's hardly like bend-don't-break was stopping the big plays.

Actually, it was. The big plays earlier in the season were strictly coming against the Pats when they were lined up in press man coverage. The BBDB style was limiting the big plays, but the opposition were sustaining long drives by just picking apart the crap zone over the middle of the field.

 

[PatriotSeven]

I have news for you. When the Pats played Denver, they were a top 10 defense. The reason they aren't, now, is because of the Pats.

What you also ignore is the fact that the Pats lost those 3 games by 4 points and a TON of controversy in the Arizona and Baltimore games because of the replacement refs.

You also ignore that the Pats have changed. They're young secondary has more experience now and will have even more by the time they play Houston and San Fran.

I already said I considered Denver 1 strong team we beat. But the only one. However, when the Pats played Denver they were ranked top 10 based on a total of 4 games. We have 10 games of statistical data now so it's more reliable. If Phillip Rivers wasn't a turnover machine like last year I'd be highly surprised Denver's D would be ranked anywhere near top 10.

I'm not ignoring we lost by 3 points or less. But we lost by 3 points or less to top 10 defenses with the #27 and #30th ranked offenses.

So both Arizona and Seattle have proven they can keep us to under 25 points a game. Our defense proved they can make bad offenses look better than they are. Arizona and Seattle average 16.3 and 19.8 points per game. Against us they scored 18 and 23.

Based on what we have seen, I'm very much inclined to believe that yes, Huston's and SF's defense can probably keep us to under 25 points per game too. Especially without Gronk.

The question is can we keep Huston's top 10 offense, which is currently averaging 29.3 ppg, to under 24-23 points per game when we usually make bad offenses look better than they are? Can we even keep San Fran's offense to under 24.5 ppg?

We'll see if Talib makes up for it. Even as recently as this weekend, Indianapolis averaged 21 ppg, but against us they still put up 24. Now I realize we blew them out so you can make an argument we were not too concerned with stopping them, but we still have not proven it.

All we proved is that our offense can score a lot of points against the following scoring defenses: #31, #30(twice), #26, #21 and #11.

Enough said.

 

[Finnishfan]

If the Patriots play to their potential they'll run the table, if not they won't. That's all it comes down to.

I disagree with the mentality in this comment.

This is one of those comments that make it sound like there is only 1 team whose performance determines the outcome. "If we play well we win, if we won't we will lose."

It's not only about how we play, it's about how our opponents play as well. We can win Texans or whomever, even if we have a bad day, as long as they have worse.

Furthermore, I don't think we have more potential than the 49ers, and I'm not sold on the comparison against the Texans either seeing how high of an upside Schaub obviously has. If Kaepernick can put up 32 on the Bears, then he can definitely put a 50-burger on us in his best day. Even though TFB is the best QB in the NFL, I don't see him putting up 50 on the 49ers D without some help in terms of turnovers etc.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Let's put everything in perspective in sentences that are as short as possible:

The 8--2 Ravens now play @SD, vs.PIT, @WAS, vs.DEN, vs.NYG, @CIN. That looks like 13--3 or 12--4 to me. Could it be 14--2 or 11--5? Sure, but I'm not ready to bet real money on either outcome.

The 7--3 Broncos now play @KC, vs.TB, @OAK, @BAL, vs.CLE, vs.KC. That looks like 11--5 or 12--4 to me. Could they run that table? Sure, but I wouldn't bet next month's paycheck on that outcome either.

We all know the Pats remaining schedule by heart.

Anything can happen, but an 11--5 or 12--4 Pats team would have a tiebreaker over the Broncos for #3. A 12--4 Pats team would lose a tie breaker to a 12--4 Ravens team.

I'd need to IV the Kool Aid to see the Pats end up 13--3. But, even 13--3 might not get them the Bye.

So, I'm hoping for a number three seed with the Broncos Tie breaker and not betting on anything better.

But first, they have to win in the Meadowlands and Miami over the next two weeks to make number three feasible; if you think either of those games are a "lock," God Bless You!, you're following a different team this year than I am following.

 

[JJDChE]

It's been done 9 times since 2001:
2003 Patriots 3-0
2004 Steelers 1-1
2006 Chargers 0-1
2007 Patriots 2-1
2008 Colts 0-1
2009 Chargers 0-1
2010 Patriots 0-1
2011 Saints 1-1
2011 Patriots 2-1

Of those 9, the Patriots have four. Although, sweeping the second half of the season isn't all it's made up to be, I found out. Of those 9 teams, four lost their first playoff game, two lost the second. Only the 2003, 2007, and 2011 Pats made it to the Super Bowl, and we all know how that worked out. So 1 of the 9 teams to go 8-0 in the second half of the season has also gone on to win the Super Bowl.

That's interesting. I guess my memory sucks, it's happened almost every year. We're the only team that's even made it to the Super Bowl after a 2nd half run. Pretty surprising considering all those teams were 12-4 or better. Probably means nothing, but good job on the googlefu.

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree, and Blackmon is probably doing fist pumps whenever nobody can see him. However, if the Gabbert experiment is acknowledged as a failure by the Jaguars, Smith might as well start packing up his office. He's probably gone anyway, but there's no way the new ownership is going to let him choose the next franchise QB when the last busted attempt at it is still in year two.

I just wanted to update this:

Gabbert has been placed on IR.

 

[PP2]

Houston got taken to OT by Jaguars with a new QB, which can impact a team in a major way. Clearly. The fact Houston got taken to OT by the Jaguars to me isn't a sign of the Texans slipping, but a reminder that at times we looked equally vulnerable against poor teams.

How is Houston a reminder of our weakness? One has nothing to do with the other.

And if you're going to be objective, how can you make that argument and not acknowledge the SAME thing can be said about us against the Jets, Bills, Arizona and Seattle? The reality is, the Texans only lost 1 game and it was to Green Bay, a powerhouse. They beat Baltimore, the Bears and Denver. That's 3 strong teams. Again, I re-iterate. We only beat 1 strong team this year. We're just now about to be tested.

We are not the same team that faced the teams you listed, and even then, the margin of loss for all 3 games was what? 4 points?

We walloped a team with a rookie QB, the same team who went 1-15 last year. That's exactly my point. Too many fans are putting weight on this.

The Colts team from last year is nowhere similar to the team this year. Luck's version of the Colts had won four straight before facing us.

That means little to me. Wins over strong teams carry a lot more weight than huge scoring margins against weak teams.

PS: Let me put it to you in a simpler way. We have played 3 of the top 10 best scoring defenses and we lost all 3 games. Does that make you feel confident? We have 3 more top 10 defenses left, including the #1 SF and #4 Huston, and at least one of those have a more potent offense than any of the other 3 we faced.

The same team that played 3 of the top 10 best in the beginning of the team isn't the same team that's playing right now, and clearly not the same team that's going to face another round of top 3 D.

Your argument is based on the assumption that teams in the NFL are static and do not evolve through the season. The fact is we're starting to peak. Houston started strong but is now starting to slow down and so are the 49ers.

 

[fnordcircle]

Anything can happen, but an 11--5 or 12--4 Pats team would have a tiebreaker over the Broncos for #3. A 12--4 Pats team would lose a tie breaker to a 12--4 Ravens team.

Unless we end up in a three way tie with the Broncos and Ravens and the Broncos beat the Ravens. Head to Head would not matter anymore since we beat the Broncos and it would move to the next tiebreaker.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

All we proved is that our offense can score a lot of points against the following scoring defenses: #31, #30(twice), #26, #21 and #11.

They hung a 30 burger on the Ravens, who by your stds are the #9 defense... I understand how you've managed to confused yourself into leaving that out with the obfuscated nature of arguments.

 

[BradyManny]

When people say we didn't beat any good teams, I gotta put an asterisk on that. We might've lost to the Ravens, but that game was a mess because of the officiating. It might've been our best played game of the season, and it should've been out of hand by the 3rd quarter had insanity not ensued.

Brady was lethal that game, the defense was playing well until the zebras gave Baltimore 5 downs - we outperformed them, in their stadium, by a wide margin.

We'll know a lot more about this team when it plays HOU & SF.

But there is some value in dominating lesser teams and getting stronger as the year goes on - which seems to be our MO in the last two seasons.

 

[PatriotSeven]

The same team that played 3 of the top 10 best in the beginning of the team isn't the same team that's playing right now, and clearly not the same team that's going to face another round of top 3 D.

Your argument is based on the assumption that teams in the NFL are static and do not evolve through the season. The fact is we're starting to peak. Houston started strong but is now starting to slow down and so are the 49ers.

You're right. For one it's missing Gronk. And we added Talib.

Look, I agree. Teams do evolve. I don't believe teams remain static, but the teams I'm talking about are fairly consistent. We may have started clicking a little bit after McDaniels got a better hang of our offense but I will re-iterate, we also look better because we faced the defenses I pointed out.

You have to see that we're peaking because our schedule has been swiss cheese against porous defenses.

And I don't agree Huston and SF are slowing down. What are you basing this on? One game?

Huston's points allowed their previous 4 games: 13, 9, 6 and 34.
San Francisco's scoring defense their previous 7 games: 0, 3, 3, 6, 3, 24, 7

Defensively, I see one anomaly, even if it is recent. Not a trend. Houston was actually getting stingier prior to this Jacksonville craziness.

San Francisco's offense the previous 4 games: 13, 24, 24, 32
Houston's offense their previous 4 games: 43, 21, 13, 43.

San Francisco has been improving offensively. That's an upwards trend. Houston's more inconsistent offensively but it should be noted they dropped 42 on Baltimore 5 games ago. When was the last time we dropped 40+ points on Baltimore's defense?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Unless we end up in a three way tie with the Broncos and Ravens and the Broncos beat the Ravens. Head to Head would not matter anymore since we beat the Broncos and it would move to the next tiebreaker.

Not sure what you're saying. Head to head would matter if we were tied with the Broncos as two Division Winners when determining the #3 vs. #4 seed. My point was that we'd have a tie-breaker for the #3 seed over the Broncos if we both ended up at 11--5 or 12--4 and would lose a tie-breaker for the #2 seed with the Ravens should we both end up at 12--4 or even 13--3.

 

[fnordcircle]

Not sure what you're saying. Head to head would matter if we were tied with the Broncos as two Division Winners when determining the #3 vs. #4 seed. My point was that we'd have a tie-breaker for the #3 seed over the Broncos if we both ended up at 11--5 or 12--4 and would lose a tie-breaker for the #2 seed with the Ravens should we both end up at 12--4 or even 13--3.

I'm saying that if the Ravens, Pats and Broncos are all 13-3 or 12-4 and one of those Ravens losses is to the Broncos then the head to head tie breaker is no longer in play since each of those 3 teams would have beaten one and lost to one of the other two.

The point being

A 12--4 Pats team would lose a tie breaker to a 12--4 Ravens team.

is accurate but there are other factors that could render head to head irrelevant - specifically a 3 way tie where each team has beaten one of the other two as outlined above.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I'm saying that if the Ravens, Pats and Broncos are all 13-3 or 12-4 and one of those Ravens losses is to the Broncos then the head to head tie breaker is no longer in play since each of those 3 teams would have beaten one and lost to one of the other two.

The point being

is accurate but there are other factors that could render head to head irrelevant - specifically a 3 way tie where each team has beaten one of the other two as outlined above.

Sure, that's doubtless the case but was not what I was discussing; there are many possible permutations and combinations as we come to the end of any season and, in a month, we'll no doubt have threads on them. Too many games have to played for that kind of speculation to be meaningful right now.

I was simply commenting on the outcome wherein the Pats tie with one or the other of those two teams.

 

[PatriotSeven]

They hung a 30 burger on the Ravens, who by your stds are the #9 defense... I understand how you've managed to confused yourself into leaving that out with the obfuscated nature of arguments.

Come again? My argument is we haven't beaten a team with a top 10 defense. We lost to Baltimore. Once again, we are 0-3 against teams with a top 10 defense.

Not sure why this is so difficult for you to accept.

 

[fnordcircle]

Sure, that's doubtless the case but was not what I was discussing; there are many possible permutations and combinations as we come to the end of any season and, in a month, we'll no doubt have threads on them. Too many games have to played for that kind of speculation to be meaningful right now.

I was simply commenting on the outcome wherein the Pats tie with one or the other of those two teams.

Yeah, I understand. It's mostly that the optimist in me keeps wanting to spread the good news that there is a scenario - outside of our own control - where we can be tied with Baltimore and still get seeded above them.

It's my childlike nature.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Yeah, I understand. It's mostly that the optimist in me keeps wanting to spread the good news that there is a scenario - outside of our own control - where we can be tied with Baltimore and still get seeded above them.

It's my childlike nature.

"out of the mouths of babes..."

Keep hope alive!

 

[PP2]

You have to see that we're peaking because our schedule has been swiss cheese against porous defenses.

I'm not basing my prognosis on how the team has performed but what they are capable of doing. In other words I am projecting on the basis of their continual improvements, which is to say I expect them to continue to improve.

And I don't agree Huston and SF are slowing down. What are you basing this on? One game?

It is infinitely difficult for a team to start strong and finish that way in the NFL.

San Francisco has been improving offensively. That's an upwards trend. Houston's more inconsistent offensively but it should be noted they dropped 42 on Baltimore 5 games ago. When was the last time we dropped 40+ points on Baltimore's defense?

Had to be way back before they were without Lewis and Suggs, because they didn't play in that game IIRC.

 

[QB12]

After we beat the texans and 49ers the OP will probably still be carping about lowering our expectations.