Road woes are overblown

[Don_the_patfan]

Bottom line: You are what you records says you are. Anything else is homers making excuses. Don't mean to be harsh but it's reality. Lets not sound like other teams fans when we were rolling on them back in the day.

 

[upstater1]

Bottom line: You are what you records says you are. Anything else is homers making excuses. Don't mean to be harsh but it's reality. Lets not sound like other teams fans when we were rolling on them back in the day.

The thread is about making excuses. Obviously I'm making excuses. What's wrong with making excuses? You're just restating the obvious.

Why am I making excuses? Because I think the excuse is valid. What good is making excuses? It makes you realize that you shouldn't AT ALL be worried about the Patriots performance on the road.

You should be worried about the Patriots coming apart in the second half of games. Not only road games.

 

[upstater1]

The road woes are not overblown.

Look at the other teams that haven't had a road win at a non-neutral site yet this year... it's the Pats and then a half dozen teams with a combined record of 4-million

So, if the Patriots beat Miami, then we can stop worrying about road losses, because we will be in league with teams like the Steelers with enough wins to get to the playoffs?

 

[aluminum seats]

I was thinking the same thing the other day--and it has nothing to do with excuses or not being objective (the second half issues are real.) Not winning a road game (at another team's home stadium, that is) at this point is more of statistical oddity than anything else.

 

[jmt57]

I do think the focus of the Pats record on the road is overblown as well. For starters, does anybody actually think if the London game had been played in Tampa that the Bucs would have won? While 1-4 is still not good, it looks and feels a whole lot different than 0-4.

Secondly, the Pats have only been blown out in one of those games. If they were not competitive in all or most of their road games, then I would be concerned - but that hasn't been the case.

Third, half of those losses were to teams that nobody else in the NFL has beaten either. If that 1-4/0-4 mark was against a bunch of bad teams, again there would be more cause for concern. Don't forget the Jets and Broncos were both playing very well when the Pats played them.

In regards to the 'haven't beaten any good teams' theory, I would counter that by saying that both Baltimore and Atlanta were playing very well at the time the Pats played them. Conversely, the Titans look like they may finish with a good record, but they were not a good team when they faced the Pats.

My concerns are the predictability of the play calling, and the lack of successful in-game adjustments - on both offense and defense. That is what in my opinion is leading to the second half points/points allowed problems, as well as the low rankings in the red zone. I think if the Pats focus on improving in those two areas (predictability/play-calling, and in-game adjustments) then just about everything else will take care of itself.

 

[makoute]

The Denver and Jets losses where due to Offense, the offense had to score about 6 more points in each of those games. The loss in Denver also had to do with the Defensive game plan (coaching), but I wouldn't blame the D players on the field for those games. They led in all those games, and the teams they played didn't score that much. The offense just didn't step up, and everyone's blaming that's blaming the D, we all thought coming in the O would have to carry this team this year for the most part, and they are not, they've actually contributed more to most of the losses this year. They've played sloppy, called bad TO, they seem like a poorly coached team.

 

[Rob0729]

Bottom line: You are what you records says you are. Anything else is homers making excuses. Don't mean to be harsh but it's reality. Lets not sound like other teams fans when we were rolling on them back in the day.

It isn't much about making excuses. We aren't saying the Pats should have won the games. We are just saying the reason the Pats lost the games they did may have less to do with them being road games and more that the competition they faced.

In fact, I would say that if the Pats switched their road and home games from this season, they would probably still be 1-4 against Tampa, NY, Denver, Colts, and the Saints. We would be just talking that the Pats can't win at home. My point is that the Pats' problem has more to do with the quality of the competition than where it was played.

My only excuse I will say is that other than the Saints game, the Pats could have won any of their other losses if they played slightly better.

 

[Don_the_patfan]

Why am I making excuses? Because I think the excuse is valid. What good is making excuses? It makes you realize that you shouldn't AT ALL be worried about the Patriots performance on the road.

I beg to differ.

Whether the excuse is valid or not while it makes you feel good it is irrelevant. The record is what it is no matter who you played on the road. So you should be worried because the fact is we are not good on the road according to our record on the road. If we are to be a good team we have to beat good teams so who we played is irrelevant.

It isn't much about making excuses. We aren't saying the Pats should have won the games. We are just saying the reason the Pats lost the games they did may have less to do with them being road games and more that the competition they faced.

But it is an excuse at the end. And that is we lost because we faced better teams on the road? What does it matter? Aren't we supposed to beat better teams on the road And why does that matter other then makes us feel better.

Guys it is what it is. What is important is what we do from now on.

 

[Rob0729]

But it is an excuse at the end. And that is we lost because we faced better teams on the road? What does it matter? Aren't we supposed to beat better teams on the road And why does that matter other then makes us feel better.

Guys it is what it is. What is important is what we do from now on.

It is valid for discussions going forward with the rest of the season. The Pats still have three road games left. If their problem is playing on the road, that is a big issue going forward with the rest of the season. If it is because the Pats struggle with the top teams in the league, that is a big problem in the playoffs, but not so much in the regular season.

It is also not an excuse. I am not say the Pats should have won the game, but so and so happened and that is why they lost. I am saying the Pats lost and would have lost if they were at home. I am just stating a different reason why they lost. I am providing no excuses why they lost. They lost to a better team (at least at the time) and I state the reason why was because of the quality of opponent and not the location of the game.

The Pats lost by 24 points on Monday. Some people say it is because the Pats couldn't score enough to keep up with the Saints' offense, others say it was because the defense couldn't stop Brees. Neither are excuses. They are just stating the reason they lost. It is the same with my point. Some say the Pats lost to the Colts, Saints, and Broncos because they were road games, I say that they lost because those are the three best teams the Pats faced and they have struggled against the top teams. Where is the excuse?

 

[Jimke]

The general rule in football to make the playoffs is win all your home

games and split on the road. Road games are always more difficult to win.

To do this, the Patriots have to win all their remaining games. I think

beating Miami, Buffalo, and Houston will be a difficult task.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

My concerns are the predictability of the play calling, and the lack of successful in-game adjustments - on both offense and defense. That is what in my opinion is leading to the second half points/points allowed problems, as well as the low rankings in the red zone. I think if the Pats focus on improving in those two areas (predictability/play-calling, and in-game adjustments) then just about everything else will take care of itself.

The predictability of the playcalling *is* road-related, IMO...

I believe Brady feels most comfortable in the shotgun and in a loud, hostile environment the Pats playcalling defers to his comfort zone...he IS the franchise after all, so they might as well put him in a formation from which he thinks he'll succeed the most. At home, he's probably more at ease mixing up the formations and playing under center some more as the fans are quiet while he barks out the signals and makes audibles.

It's just a theory and I don't have numbers backing it up (e.g. splits of shotgun calls at home vs. away), but at least that's how it appears to me. If my theory is true, the Pats obviously need to lessen the Brady comfort factor and focus more on calling a game that exploits the D.

Regards,
Chris

 

[MassPats38]

I beg to differ.

Whether the excuse is valid or not while it makes you feel good it is irrelevant. The record is what it is no matter who you played on the road. So you should be worried because the fact is we are not good on the road according to our record on the road. If we are to be a good team we have to beat good teams so who we played is irrelevant.

Parcells used the phrase "you are only as good as your record" in a broad sense to mean look at the standings and see where you team sits in the overall win and loss column, and that tells you if you are a good team or not. The "woulda, coulda, shoulda" and "what ifs" mean nothing in the face of that record. Teams with a losing record cannot claim to be a good team. The Pats are 7-4, which currently makes it a good team and a playoff team.

I have not heard that phrase employed on subsets of schedules, whether home/away, natural grass/turf, or dome/outdoor. Under that logic, you can break it down to throwback jerseys or modern away jerseys. An 8-2 team does not blow because it goes 6-0 at home and 0-2 on the road, nor is a team that throttles teams like the Lions and Browns on the road necessarily a good team, despite the undefeated road record.

It does "matter" that the Pats lost to two teams with 11-0 records. It does "matter" that all 4 losses are to teams that are playoff locks or still in the playoff hunt with 5 games remaining. Otherwise, if the Pats beat the Browns, Lions and Seahawks and Rams, by your logic, it would be a phenomenal away team, as good as its record. A team does not become championship caliber by beating dregs, thus that snippet of an overall record means nothing other than the team won games it should have won, regardless of where they were played.

Teams with loud stadiums with 8-0 records (like the successful version of the Lions from the 1990s) and poor road record end up as marginal playoff teams with a decent overall record because they need the noise and disruption from a home stadium to win. First, the home field advantage for the Pats is elements, not noise (the Razor is not loud in comparison to KC, Indy, or recently NO), and only one game this season I can recall involved the elements. Second, the road losses have not been attributable to an inability to cope with a hostile environment (penalties/miscommunication) but rather poor execution, play calling, etc. that allowed three games to slip away (NO was never in doubt and the Pats were never in that game). The issue thus is not home or away but rather whether the Pats can beat the 3 teams (they beat the Jets) they lost to on any field, home, away or neutral site.

 

[chris66]

Before you throw the defense under the bus for losses, are there ANY games you would attribute to losses due to the offense? Just curious. The defense since 2006 has ranked top 8 every season.

Thats not really a good stat to use. first of all the rest of the division is horrible.So thats 6 games right there to get decent d stats. then out of the remaining 10 games probably only 4 teams are going to be play off contenders.

This d hasent made a game changing stop since 06 divisional game against San Diego.