Oh please. So now because I don't have a specific gameplan mapped out, I'm not allowed to say that there's a chance that the Pats can score 20 points in the Super Bowl?
Not at all. You're perfectly allowed to say that just as I'm allowed to say that I don't believe that this offense, as is currently constructed, would be able to post more than 17 against Seattle and that I believe we would have to win a defensive contest against them.
Is that really how you want to play this? You're welcome to live in your gloom cave where everything that has ever sucked will continue to suck forever,
I literally have no idea what this even means, especially given how complimentary I've been about certain units of this team over the last couple of months and my opinions on how the Patriots would fare in other match-ups.
and that unless your team goes into a post season without a single weakness they have no shot against a team that has a strength opposite to it. I choose to live in the real world where sports isn't a math formula, and instead is played by human beings in a variety of conditions. And once again, I'm not saying they WILL score against Seattle if they meet them there, just that they CAN. Are you honestly telling me there's NO chance that they can? If so, have fun with that, but I vehemently disagree with your philosophy.
I'm talking about match-ups. The thread title is centered upon how good Seattle looks and my comment was in the context of a couple of things...
1. Seattle looks really good right now.
2. Seattle has an defense, probably the best in the NFL.
3. Seattle is the defending champion and, aside from a few pieces, is returning that Super Bowl-winning team.
4. The Patriots offense doesn't match up well with Seattle's defense.
When looking at specific match-ups, the current playoff teams that I would feel most comfortable with the Patriots playing are as follows:
1. AFC: Everybody, especially now that Denver is falling apart. But, even before Manning began showing his age, I've long thought that we match up well against them because of how the defense is built.
2. NFC: Lions, Cardinals, Cowboys, and Panthers.
I would like to avoid Green Bay because Rodgers is capable of exploiting corners not named Revis and Browner, as we saw in the last match-up. That said, I don't think their defense would have that kind of success slowing down our offense again outside of Lambeau and on neutral territory. I would like to avoid Seattle because LaFell would be easily contained by Sherman 1 on 1 the majority of the time, Maxwell is physical and athletic enough to stay with Edelman, and the combo of Wright and Thomas/Chancellor can contain Gronk. Further, they're stout up front against the run while our OL has been inconsistent at best opening holes against some of the better run defenses we've faced (as a matter of fact, we usually just go pass-heavy against those teams) and they're capable of pressuring Brady with just four guys (and we know what that usually does to our offense). Like I said, we don't have the offense to make them pay. We would have to win a defensive stalemate in this one while, hopefully, pulling down a turnover for 6.
Ok so if you are so sure about it, if the Pats and Seahawks meet in the SB put your membership on the line that Seattle will dominate the Pats offense.
This is what's known as a deflection. In my experience, these sorts of deflections are usually trotted out when the "challenger" knows he can't make a cogent counter-argument. So let's stick to the debate at hand. Here, I'll even lay a format out for you. Tell me which match-up or match-ups you feel that the Patriots are best equipped to exploit on offense and why:
1. LaFell vs. Sherman
2. Edelman vs. Maxwell/Simon
3. Tyms/Amendola vs. Maxwell/Simon
4. Gronk vs. Wright and Chancellor/Thomas
5. Patriots run offense vs. Seattle's run defense
6. Patriots OL vs. Seattle's DL