The Pats will go 19-0 this year if healthy

[AzPatsFan]

There are still some question marks on defense for me. I get it's a touchy topic for a lot of people, but for me the defense wasn't as good as its numbers. Most of the time teams seemed to move the ball too easily, which Belichick agreed with too even before the Seahawks game. The Pats did their best to address the areas of need, but in terms of the pass rush it's not a given that Trey Flowers continues to improve and build on his success. Kony Ealy has potential but there has to be a reason Carolina gave him up for peanuts too. Rivers is a rookie.

Gilmore's knock is consistency- he's very good but it's not like he's prime Revis. Also, he or Butler are replacing Logan Ryan, who had a rough start but wasn't chopped liver. So it's not like overall secondary play was awful last season.

Run defense should be just as good or better with Roberts and Van Noy having a season under their belts.

People treat the LB squad as if there is only one competent player. Despite not producing as expected, Shea was a First round pick selected several positions in front of Donta. Van Noy was not some unknown nebish either. He was a high Second Round pick. Both were misused by new regimes with different coaching priorities. Roberts is an undersized (for BB), genuine BB find. though. Only Feeney possesses no credentials as an UDFA, but he is a pretty good ST player; and BB likes his effort.

In short, the LB squad is NOT bereft of talent.

 

[supafly]

2010 -it is a regular season stat 14-2 I meant, sorry if I worded it wrong. Pats have done at least 14 5 times, the second closest are several teams with just 2 seasons

No, you worded it fine. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing any years, that's all.

You brought up the 14 win mark (5 times), whereas I bumped the bar up to the 17 win mark (4 times). It's remarkable that our team has gone 17-2 or better, four different times.

 

[Kontradiction]

Usually I'm on the first people to take a dump on the "19-0" threads, but wouldn't it be some divine form of poetic justice for the 2017 Pats to not only complete the undefeated season exactly ten years after they first attempted it and failed, but also complete a second dynasty in the Brady/Belichick regime by doing so? What a story that would be.

 

[mosslost]

No, you worded it fine. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing any years, that's all.

You brought up the 14 win mark (5 times), whereas I bumped the bar up to the 17 win mark (4 times). It's remarkable that our team has gone 17-2 or better, four different times.

Yes, it is funny because people are always talking about 19-0, but heck we do get close sometimes!

 

[PatsFanInVa]

To each his own

This beautiful roster could, god forbid, get the injury bug bad... just as a roster this good comes along (through hard work and seizing opportunities) perhaps every 10 years (in Patriots years,) we could have an injury year to match.

But the thread is "if healthy..."

It would be another weird event not to have 1 uncharacteristic "stinker" game.

Beyond that, there's the math above regarding "even if we're 90% likely to win each game..."

Talk to me in dec.

 

[kennyb]

Hello! @saints, @raiders in mexico city, @pitt, @ denver, hosting atlanta. @tampa bay i think.

That's a lot of hard gameroos. If they win all of those games and win the superbowel, then, well, i'll be impressed, that's for sure! Perhaps the greatest feat in sports! Harder than the triple crown even.

 

[neali]

95% chance of winning every game equals 37% chance of 19-0.

 

[supafly]

95% chance of winning every game equals 37% chance of 19-0.

Would you mind breaking that down for idiots like myself? How, exactly, are you able to come to that conclusion? Almost having a 40 percent chance of going undefeated seems odd to me. Thank you in advance.

 

[pheenix11]

You gotta believe.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Would you mind breaking that down for idiots like myself? How, exactly, are you able to come to that conclusion? Almost having a 40 percent chance of going undefeated seems odd to me. Thank you in advance.

(0.95)^19 = 0.37

Note that a 95% chance to win in every game is outrageously high. Even assuming that, going undefeated is still just a shade better than one in three chances. People should temper expectations.

Regards,
Chris

 

[supafly]

(0.95)^19 = 0.37

Note that a 95% chance to win in every game is outrageously high. Even assuming that, going undefeated is still just a shade better than one in three chances. People should temper expectations.

Regards,
Chris

Thanks, Chris. I'm actually shocked that it's as high as 37 percent. Like you said, the 95 percent projected win rate is fine to discuss in May, but likely won't stay that high during the season.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Thanks, Chris. I'm actually shocked that it's as high as 37 percent. Like you said, the 95 percent projected win rate is fine to discuss in May, but likely won't stay that high during the season.

Likely won't stay high is being generous. The Pats simply won't have a 95% win expectancy in each game, if in any game. Imagine the money line in each Pats game being "Pats -1900". Ain't happening.

Regards,
Chris

 

[goheels22002]

Yes, it is funny because people are always talking about 19-0, but heck we do get close sometimes!

They went 17-2 last year including 9-0 on the road or on a neutral field.

 

[mosslost]

They went 17-2 last year including 9-0 on the road or on a neutral field.

yes. And we are the only team to win 14 or more regular season games 5 times. FIVE. All the other closest are 2 seasons only

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Usually I'm on the first people to take a dump on the "19-0" threads, but wouldn't it be some divine form of poetic justice for the 2017 Pats to not only complete the undefeated season exactly ten years after they first attempted it and failed, but also complete a second dynasty in the Brady/Belichick regime by doing so? What a story that would be.

Not only that, can you imagine a rematch against NYG in the super bowl? That would pretty much erase the sting of the last two super bowl losses.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

They went 17-2 last year including 9-0 on the road or on a neutral field.

If brady played against buffalo they would have gone 18-1.

 

[Kontradiction]

Not only that, can you imagine a rematch against NYG in the super bowl? That would pretty much erase the sting of the last two super bowl losses.

That sting is already gone for me. But that would be the absolute cherry on top. Another 3 out of 4 (bookend dynasty) while going undefeated and beating the Giants 17-14 on a last second touchdown.

 

[K. Dog]

If brady played against buffalo they would have gone 18-1.

If Brady had played earlier in the season he'd have been more tired later in the season, and far more likely to have lost late in the season. It's absurd that Belichick is considering playing a 40-year-old QB all 16 games rather than using his backups for the first four games, which worked out perfectly when he did it last year.

I think, as I've said before, this obsession here with improbable records to come is absurd. Pats have been the greatest team in history, but this season presents profound challenges.

 

[supafly]

Likely won't stay high is being generous. The Pats simply won't have a 95% win expectancy in each game, if in any game. Imagine the money line in each Pats game being "Pats -1900". Ain't happening.

Regards,
Chris

Where did the notion that they have a 95% chance to win every game come from, if you don't mind my continued, annoying curiosity?

I find it extremely difficult to believe that teams like OAK, DEN, (especially under the back to back mile high altitude game settings), ATL, and PIT (again, the back end of a 5/6 game road trip....occurring after a road game six days prior on MNF) would only have a 5% chance of winning. That sounds beyond ridiculous. Almost as if the media is just trying to place more pressure on them in a false, made up manner.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Where did the notion that they have a 95% chance to win every game come from, if you don't mind my continued, annoying curiosity?

I find it extremely difficult to believe that teams like OAK, DEN, (especially under the back to back mile high altitude game settings), ATL, and PIT (again, the back end of a 5/6 game road trip....occurring after a road game six days prior on MNF) would only have a 5% chance of winning. That sounds beyond ridiculous. Almost as if the media is just trying to place more pressure on them in a false, made up manner.

The 95% chance in every game was just an exaggerated example showing how hard it would be to go undefeated. Nobody in their right mind actually thinks the Pats would be that favored.

Regards,
Chris