After listening to all the media yesterday and the PFW guys on the internet this afternoon, I have wonder....... 1, Why is it.....when ever people talk about the Pats you ONLY here 3 things. a. The Pats great offense b. The Pats "troublesome defense" c. Ocho and his role Well the first is obvious Brady and the offense has been record breaking. HOWEVER when you think that there are currently SEVEN QBs who are on track to break Dan Marinio's passing record. A record that has lasted almost 30 years. You have to wonder if in THIS context, is what Brady is doing THAT remarkable? Why is it that when the Pats are mentioned, so is their defense. I HAVEN'T heard a single comment about the Packer defense, unless its a positive. Yet the "great" Packer defense has allowed a whopping 2 total yds LESS than the Pats over the first 2 games. In total defensive stats the Packers are #30 while that Pats are 31st (damned those 2 yds.) However in the most important defense stat, scoring D, the Great Packer defense is ranked 26th while the "horrible" Pats defense is a respectable 15th Why is that? Why aren't people wondering if Clay Matthews is suffering from a "third year slump" or if Charles Woodson is losing his All Pro abilities. Instead its Mayo sucks and McCourty doesn't have a clue. Why is it that when talking about the Pats the media initially acknowledges the positive aspect of Brady and the offense, yet then immediately focuses on any negative aspect of the defense, real OR not. Again, give the context of the first 2 weeks of offense around the NFL, why is it only the Pats defense that seems to be in trouble. Why is it that anyone is talking about OCHO at all. At this point of the season he has been totally IRRELEVANT to the Pats offense. If he'd been playing more and gotten,. say 5 receptions per game, no one would be saying anything, but in all likelihood, not a single additional yard of offense would have been added to the total yardage. His catches would have just meant fewer yards for the other receivers. The point here being is that if Ocho had been viewed as "effective" right from the start, he wouldn't have made the offense as a whole any better.....just less newsworthy This never had anything to do with his work ethic or his knowledge of the playbook. It had everything to do with the individual game plans the Pats had planned, and for the first 2 weeks 3 WRs sets were NOT featured and Ocho IS the #3 WR. A WR who was NOT going to beat out the more established Welker and Branch. Why is it they don't get that? BTW- With the Hernandez injury its a lot more likely that 3 WR sets will be more prevalent kthis week. There is also the possibility that the Pats will use Ocho in some of plays where Hernandez is split out or in that "bunch set" The Hernandez injury opens up a lot of possible scenarios. But that's a discussion for another thread. Well these are just a few of the "Why is it that"s I can think of, just to get the ball rolling. I await your comments on mine and all the additions we know exist.