Congrats Negative Nancy's!!!!!!

[RayClay]

Maybe yours will also.

If you want to play least likely teams, I go with 2013. Pretty happy to have a healthy Gronk and a defensive line. That team was decimated and running on fumes and didn't get anyone back that i can recall.

 

[Ring 6]

Again, unless you're a fortune teller, you have no idea what the likelihood is. I know that everytime the Patriots go undefeated, they lose the Super Bowl.

That makes no sense. The likelihood of a coin landing on heads doesn't change after you flip it.

I don't pretend to know how their health and practice over a 2 week period will affect newer players and injured players scheduled to come back.

I remember seeing our quarterback get destroyed and having been left with some 6th round pick and a team mostly made up with street free agents. Was that team more likely to succeed than this one? How about the team that lost so badly to Kansas City they should have been sent to the Arena league.

You are drifting away from reality. The 2001 and 2014 team peaked on their way to the playoffs.

You have it in your mind that only teams that are healthy and peaking at the end of the year have a chance to win the Super bowl and that is not true, historically.

No I say teams playing well have a BETTER chance than teams that end the season looking pathetic. This is indisputable.

Check out the injury stats on our 2003 and 2004 teams. All of our Super Bowl teams had factors making them unlikely to succeed. Some crappy teams have won, but with our coaching, QB, defense and gronk, we are not crappy and i think will take maximum advantage of the 2 weeks.

None of those teams ended the season looking like this one. Does it not concern you that Bill Belichick feared his own offense having the ball?
You have to admit the strategy, game plan and approach over the past month looks as different from what we have seen out of BB than at any time in his era. That isn't because he changed his mind that winning matters. Its about what he is putting on the field.

 

[Ring 6]

If you want to play least likely teams, I go with 2013. Pretty happy to have a healthy Gronk and a defensive line. That team was decimated and running on fumes and didn't get anyone back that i can recall.

2013 won 5 of 6 to end the season. Most people here felt they go to the SB if Welker doesn't take out Talib.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Being realistic is fine....Hey, I put my money where my mouth is every year. I go to watch the games win or lose, that doesn't mean that I expect them to win every game. In fact, I prefer to go to the games I feel they could lose.

The over the top homerism is for the young and idealistic.

"Being realistic" is recognizing a winning percentage of almost 80%, 4 Super Bowl Championships, 9 Appearances in the AFCCG, well over 100 games over .500 and another first round bye this season. It's not "Belichick sucks, MacDaniels sucks, Patricia sucks, this team has no chance......etc. etc. etc" Its the so called homers who are the realists not the cynical a holes who never pass up any opportunity to sh.t all over this team and its coaches. A homer would be someone who thinks they are a lock to win it all, not those who give them a 20-30% chance going in, which is where 95% or more of the so called homers fall. And as we have seen in the brackets thread all of the haters have passed up the opportunity to weigh in because to do so would actually put them on record when they are really hoping they lose but are reserving the ability to jump on the bandwagon if they win, just as they did last year.


The vast majority of posters here are the realists and they realize they are witnessing one of the greatest runs of success in sports history, not those who rip them under the pretense of "realism" when in fact they are as out of touch with reality as any crackhead is.

 

[SVN]

He was responsible for that, the team was terrible in the first 5 games, do you disagree? We can only comment on the body of work we have seen.

I think 14 yrs and constantly improving the team as the season goes on is a bigger body of work to trust before declaring the same person incompetent is more logical ? do you disagree?

 

[SVN]

2013 won 5 of 6 to end the season. Most people here felt they go to the SB if Welker doesn't take out Talib.

Not really sure. Even BB in "Do your job" concedes that missing gronk and lack of secondary play were their undoing in most of their previous losses.. Even in that game, other than the overthrow brady made to edelman our offense wasnt functioning . And manning was barely pressured. They couldve won with talib but was going to be tough for that team.

 

[Ring 6]

Not really sure. Even BB in "Do your job" concedes that missing gronk and lack of secondary play were their undoing in most of their previous losses.. Even in that game, other than the overthrow brady made to edelman our offense wasnt functioning . And manning was barely pressured. They couldve won with talib but was going to be tough for that team.

There was a lot of confidence here going into that game because of the way the team was playing.
I just can't believe there is as much confidence going into these playoffs as there was then.
I mean is it blasphemy to admit we just endured the worst month of football under BB in at least 13 years?
It is what it is.
Whether we are confident or not really has not impact on what will happen, but why lie to ourselves?

 

[Nunchucks]

I think 14 yrs and constantly improving the team as the season goes on is a bigger body of work to trust before declaring the same person incompetent is more logical ? do you disagree?

I most certainly never called Belichick incompetent.

 

[Nunchucks]

"Being realistic" is recognizing a winning percentage of almost 80%, 4 Super Bowl Championships, 9 Appearances in the AFCCG, well over 100 games over .500 and another first round bye this season. It's not "Belichick sucks, MacDaniels sucks, Patricia sucks, this team has no chance......etc. etc. etc" Its the so called homers who are the realists not the cynical a holes who never pass up any opportunity to sh.t all over this team and its coaches. A homer would be someone who thinks they are a lock to win it all, not those who give them a 20-30% chance going in, which is where 95% or more of the so called homers fall. And as we have seen in the brackets thread all of the haters have passed up the opportunity to weigh in because to do so would actually put them on record when they are really hoping they lose but are reserving the ability to jump on the bandwagon if they win, just as they did last year.


The vast majority of posters here are the realists and they realize they are witnessing one of the greatest runs of success in sports history, not those who rip them under the pretense of "realism" when in fact they are as out of touch with reality as any crackhead is.

Again, Hyperbole is not just a pond in New Hampshire. Just because after 5 games last year, I expressed serious concern about the ability of the OL to keep Brady upright, doesn't mean that I felt Belichick had diminished as a coach.

They moved Wyndell to guard once Stork got healthy and the OL issues were solved. But, to expect a rookie center and an undersized center who never played guard to all of a suddent fix the OL issue with a new OL coach who had been out of football for a year.....

Belichick is a football god, and I expected the team to improve...but, there were issues in those games and I was commenting on them and was very uncertain that the issues could be fixed. Those were valid concerns, to say they weren't.....that is not being honest.

 

[RayClay]

I get it now. You thought I said this team looks the best going in to the playoffs of any BB team, and were arguing against that. No I said they look the worst, yes worse than the undefeated team.

I was contrasting. A team was on a 16 game winning streak and lost the super bowl.

This team is on a bad streak. Past performance does not predict future results. Obviously, you'd like to look great and have no injuries. That will not be the case this year.

 

[Ring 6]

I was contrasting. A team was on a 16 game winning streak and lost the super bowl.

This team is on a bad streak. Past performance does not predict future results. Obviously, you'd like to look great and have no injuries. That will not be the case this year.

You should be saying past performance doesn't GUARANTEE future result. We are also talking about current performance, by the way.
How you are playing absolutely does PREDICT how you will play in your next game(s) with a level of accuracy.

If what you are saying is they COULD turn it around and overcome the state they are in now, I agree.

If what you are saying is the state they are in now means nothing, and they are as likely to win as if they were peaking, of course that is not true.

 

[SVN]

i think the early bye has not helped. coupled with night games, flex games etc...even the coaching staff may have been worn out.Hope the bye week helps.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Again, Hyperbole is not just a pond in New Hampshire. Just because after 5 games last year, I expressed serious concern about the ability of the OL to keep Brady upright, doesn't mean that I felt Belichick had diminished as a coach.

They moved Wyndell to guard once Stork got healthy and the OL issues were solved. But, to expect a rookie center and an undersized center who never played guard to all of a suddent fix the OL issue with a new OL coach who had been out of football for a year.....

Belichick is a football god, and I expected the team to improve...but, there were issues in those games and I was commenting on them and was very uncertain that the issues could be fixed. Those were valid concerns, to say they weren't.....that is not being honest.

And I'm talking about the overall, delusion that being constantly negative about the most successful sports franchise in football is realism. The so called homers are the realists not the a holes who only post to Rip them. And using small sample sizes to defend the criticism is simply disingenuous, you know as well as anyone that a season is a marathon and claiming they can be judged on a quarter of it is just dishonest, as is the claim that architect of the winningest football franchise over the last twenty years sucks as a gm. It's impossible to be both the best and bad at your job in a business that is gauged solely by results.

 

[Huckleberry1]

I most certainly never called Belichick incompetent.

The people who are the primary focus of my criticism have done it frequently.

 

[Nunchucks]

And I'm talking about the overall, delusion that being constantly negative about the most successful sports franchise in football is realism. The so called homers are the realists not the a holes who only post to Rip them. And using small sample sizes to defend the criticism is simply disingenuous, you know as well as anyone that a season is a marathon and claiming they can be judged on a quarter of it is just dishonest, as is the claim that architect of the winningest football franchise over the last twenty years sucks as a gm. It's impossible to be both the best and bad at your job in a business that is gauged solely by results.

Um, Belichicks track record as a GM is okay. Certainly not suck, but he had a few of years that he just plain missed on a ton of 2nd round picks. Anyway, I am not one to harp on poor drafting, I understand there are lots of factors involved. Heck, I still hold out hope for the very underutilized probably because he is terrible T. Wilson.

Fine, your perspective is to ignore poor play and injuries because Belichick is magic and everything will turn out great in the end. Got it.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Um, Belichicks track record as a GM is okay. Certainly not suck, but he had a few of years that he just plain missed on a ton of 2nd round picks. Anyway, I am not one to harp on poor drafting, I understand there are lots of factors involved. Heck, I still hold out hope for the very underutilized probably because he is terrible T. Wilson.

Fine, your perspective is to ignore poor play and injuries because Belichick is magic and everything will turn out great in the end. Got it.

OK, if you want to go that route we can do that. It's a shame you think Belichick, Brady and the Patriots suck you are missing out on a great franchise. Sorry about your Jets. Good luck next year.

 

[102 Pat]

i think the early bye has not helped. coupled with night games, flex games etc...even the coaching staff may have been worn out.Hope the bye week helps.

It's no coincidence that they got the earliest bye week possible...

 

[RayClay]

That makes no sense. The likelihood of a coin landing on heads doesn't change after you flip it.


You are drifting away from reality. The 2001 and 2014 team peaked on their way to the playoffs.



No I say teams playing well have a BETTER chance than teams that end the season looking pathetic. This is indisputable.


None of those teams ended the season looking like this one. Does it not concern you that Bill Belichick feared his own offense having the ball?
You have to admit the strategy, game plan and approach over the past month looks as different from what we have seen out of BB than at any time in his era. That isn't because he changed his mind that winning matters. Its about what he is putting on the field.

Are you really trying to twist this as if I said it's better to have lots of injuries and struggle in the last few games?

You have to admit the strategy, game plan and approach over the past month looks as different from what we have seen out of BB than at any time in his era. That isn't because he changed his mind that winning matters. Its about what he is putting on the field.

Are you saying the injuries are caused by his strategy?

 

[RayClay]

Or that there's a strategy that makes Keeshan Martin totally replace both Amendola and Edelman?

Must be a hell of a strategy

 

[RayClay]

You should be saying past performance doesn't GUARANTEE future result. We are also talking about current performance, by the way.
How you are playing absolutely does PREDICT how you will play in your next game(s) with a level of accuracy.

If what you are saying is they COULD turn it around and overcome the state they are in now, I agree.

If what you are saying is the state they are in now means nothing, and they are as likely to win as if they were peaking, of course that is not true.

Are you saying that going balls out in the last few games and racking up lots of injuries, doesn't matter, because it's all about regular season wins [12-4] same as last year btw]. Would you have played Amendola and Edleman the whole game the last 4-6 to keep that momentum?