12-4

[Bella*chick]

12-4 with all of our so-called "franchise rot"? Two games better than last year's record as well. I'll take it.

 

[godef]

The Patriots finish at 12-4. This is the third best record in team history. Pretty good for a team with no receivers, an aging defense and a QB with bad body language. To finish winning three in a row is a good way to enter the playoffs. I really like our chances this year, but one game at a time. Bring on the Jets.

The third best? Actually, only TIED for fourth best... In 1976 they were 11-3, which is a better precentage than 12-4. In 1964 they were 10-3-1; in the NFL, ties count as half a win and half a loss, so a 10.5-3.5 record EQUALS 12-4.

 

[Bill B.]

The third best? Actually, only TIED for fourth best... In 1976 they were 11-3, which is a better precentage than 12-4. In 1964 they were 10-3-1; in the NFL, ties count as half a win and half a loss, so a 10.5-3.5 record EQUALS 12-4.

Nitpicking, aren't we. Okay, third best since we went to the 16 game schedule, which is what teams are measured on now. My point is the Patriots have just completed one of their more successful regular seasons in their history. It remains to be seen how it will conclude, but another SB win would put it close to the top.

 

[mgteich]

I had us at 11-5. I thought we'd lose one at the end of the season when the game didn't matter.

This was a great season. We'll have plently of time to look back on 2006 and forward to 2007. Now is the time for the 2006-2007 playoffs (actually the 2007 playoff season).

BTW, I'd rather play the jets than KC, so I'm glad Indy cooperated and beat Miami.

 

[Kdo5]

The Patriots finish at 12-4. This is the third best record in team history. Pretty good for a team with no receivers, an aging defense and a QB with bad body language. To finish winning three in a row is a good way to enter the playoffs. I really like our chances this year, but one game at a time. Bring on the Jets.

Considering the talk of the Fins de-throning the Pats, I think we had a pretty damn good regular season.

But "no recievers" is a bit of an unfair term. I'd agree saying "no great recievers". Yes that is true. But it is a bit unfair to say that considering Caldwell topped his previous career highs in his receptions(by 33 receptions), yards(by 408), TD's(by 1). So he has really showed improvement from his mediocore days in San Diego. And I hope that he will improve even more next season. Troy is 35 and he had to step it up, 43 receptions - 384 yards - 4 TDs. Thats good for an old man who plays WR, sometimes DB and sometimes ST. Ofcourse beyond those two, yes there is no reciever over 20 receptions.

However you are right, no great WR's. I dont know about everyone else but Brady had one of his best seasons this year despite what stats might tell. He lost his top 2 recievers from 2005, came back from 2005 with just 1 reciever being Troy Brown. And he had to work with 4 or 5 other recievers throughout the years whom have been nothing beyond ok and decent.

 

[shakadave]

Pats have never won this many games without going on to win the Super Bowl.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

Eh, I was guilty of predicting 14-2. I was still holding onto '03-'04, and those teams would have probably beaten the Colts and Jets.

I cannot in any way complain about this team. I largely think the difference between 10-6 last year and 12-4 this year was the schedule. I didn't think there was any way that this year's team would suffer as many injuries but it seems like they did.

If they go on to the superbowl we'll look back at this team and compare them to the '01, '03, and '04 teams; hearts of champions, gritty, blah blah subjective accolades. If they lose in the first couple rounds we'll compare them to last year's team and say that they just didn't have enough and couldn't overcome talent drain and injuries. Some people will even call them complacent. Gotta love how that works and everything becomes crystal clear black & white once we know the outcome.

They're still playing in January and that is all that really matters. Who needs homefield when you rule the road.

 

[Clonamery]

Pats have never won this many games without going on to win the Super Bowl.

Succint and very agreeable.....

 

[Brownfan80]

I predicted 11-5. I was one off, but in the right direction.

I honestly thought that 11-5 was a little too over-hopeful for the situation that our offense was in.

There were so many question marks this season. But the team really did an amazing job this year. 12-4.... and yet so many complained the whole way through.

Well, negative ninnies: this record is better than anything we would have EVER complained about prior to 2001. So please, check your reality and be proud of the team now, since you couldn't do it all year long. Thank you!

 

[godef]

Nitpicking, aren't we. Okay, third best since we went to the 16 game schedule, which is what teams are measured on now. My point is the Patriots have just completed one of their more successful regular seasons in their history. It remains to be seen how it will conclude, but another SB win would put it close to the top.

Well, with the key phrase (yours) being "team history", that was a pretty straightforward response. Of course, a Super Bowl victory in 2007 *would* make it third best... :eat3:

 

[VJCPatriot]

12-4 is a very good achievement and they also won the division. I think the Pats are where they want to be right now. AND a KC win over the Colts is not all that improbable.

The Pats however need to take care of business from here on out. No more lapses in concentration can be allowed. They SHOULD beat the Jets if they play up to their potential. The encouraging thing is that the Pats have played fairly mistake free the past 3 weeks and haven't turned the ball over. That's the Patriots brand of winning football. Let's keep it up! Go Pats!

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Twelve regular season wins...3rd most in team history. Yet with the expectations set by the SB38 & 39 winners, the season felt rocky at times. That's a kind of rocky I'll take every single year.

I think the Dolphins loss was the wakeup call this team needed, similar to the Dolphins loss in '04. Back then, the Pats rebounded with a systematic dismantling of the Jets (no first downs allowed until midway through the 3rd quarter), a dominant "sleepwalk" job over the 49ers, complete shutdown of the powerful Colts offense, then scoring galore against the allegedly awesome Steelers defense before finally hiccupping for a quarter in SB39 before taking control of that game, too. This year, they "sleepwalk" over the Texans to the tune of 40-7, then win back-to-back on the road against two playoff hopefuls, really controlling both games despite the closeness on the scoreboard of the Jax game. I'm trying to temper my excitement, but the parallels between the '04 finish and this year's finish are too great to ignore.

Regards,
Chris

 

[AzPatsFan]

I am all the more certain then ever that the Chicken Littles don't deserve the time of day.

This was a rebuilding, er, retooling year, and still produced a 12-4 record. The constant criticism was about the receivers over which Belichick made the best of an unfortunate and unforeseen situation. We already have big improvements expected in 2007 coming from players already here; Gaffney,, with a full Training camp and CJ also with a TC and a year's experience.

From the beginning, I thought the Reche Caldwell signing was a coup that would rank with the Vrabel steal. And its on its way to be true.

In addition to the receiver criticism, there were two other constant criticisms. They were a) inconsistent and b) they had no play makers.

In both cases it was a bunch of hooey.

The Pats got 22 versus 10 last season in INTs; The plus loss turnover ratio is +8, in the top five of the League. The total number of big plays is among the top five in the League in just absolute numbers. The only reason that the Plus Minus isn't astronomical is that the rebuilding O had an outsize number of turnovers, that were mostly fumbles. QB INTs are somewhat characteristic of the QB, and once the pattern is set you can expect about the same amount from a QB year after year. Fumbles vary. Young players make mistakes and fumbles are but one manifestation of that. As Offensive players mature, it is reasonable to expect a lot less.

Growing pains.

The Offense has only two players over thirty, reserves
Corey and Troy.

The Defense has two starters over thirty Vrabel and Bruschi. Prime ex-starter reserves are Rodney, and Scott. The older starters Tedy and Mike are good for a couple more years, so there are no needs except for improvements and added depth.

The STs have had a major retooling at the end of 2005 we had a 34 year old kicker, who was visibly losing distance and a 36 year old punter. KO distance was abysmal, coverage stunk on both KO and PR. The PR and KO returners weren;t producing. Now we have a high draft pick rookie kicker and a former league leading P where age is no concern. Now we have KOs specialist two of which are top four in the League. The same applies to the PR specialists. KF moved to PR, more suited to his skills and excelled. CJ was revealed as a PR weapon as well. There was a lot of new blood brought in to beef up the ST coverages and succeeded but most ended up on IR. Next year Tebuckey, Mitchell, Gardner will be back and Andrews and Wright will be better.

And they have another "double draft" coming up. :rocker:

 

[CaffeineMan]

I figured 11-5. I think I had losses pencilled in against DEN, CIN, IND, MIA, and JAX. We took down CIN and JAX, but lost to the farkin' Jets. 12-4, I'll take it.

 

[Bill B.]

Well, with the key phrase (yours) being "team history", that was a pretty straightforward response. Of course, a Super Bowl victory in 2007 *would* make it third best... :eat3:

I really meant 12 wins in a regular season makes it our third best if you count just regular season victories. But I agree. It means nothing if we don't win the SB. Go Pats.

 

[Bill B.]

Considering the talk of the Fins de-throning the Pats, I think we had a pretty damn good regular season.

But "no recievers" is a bit of an unfair term. I'd agree saying "no great recievers". Yes that is true. But it is a bit unfair to say that considering Caldwell topped his previous career highs in his receptions(by 33 receptions), yards(by 408), TD's(by 1). So he has really showed improvement from his mediocore days in San Diego. And I hope that he will improve even more next season. Troy is 35 and he had to step it up, 43 receptions - 384 yards - 4 TDs. Thats good for an old man who plays WR, sometimes DB and sometimes ST. Ofcourse beyond those two, yes there is no reciever over 20 receptions.

However you are right, no great WR's. I dont know about everyone else but Brady had one of his best seasons this year despite what stats might tell. He lost his top 2 recievers from 2005, came back from 2005 with just 1 reciever being Troy Brown. And he had to work with 4 or 5 other recievers throughout the years whom have been nothing beyond ok and decent.

I was beind sarcastic about the " no receivers" bit. I liked the guys we had and I am proud of the effort and accomplishments they each had this year. I was refering to the so called experts saying the Patriots are going to be hurting after losing their two starting wide receivers from the previous year.

 

[psychoPat]

'06 team compares quite favorably with '03 and '04 ...
despite their better records and the lustrous 20-game winning streak.

I don't think the AFC in those years had teams
like these Chargers and Ravens though.
Three top-notch contenders
makes a rough road to Miami for any one of them.