Don Banks on some recent pats stats/history

[SVN]

NFL Playoffs -- No shortage of storylines surrounding divisional round - NFL - Don Banks - SI.com

1. Houston, you may not have a problem: The struggling Texans look doomed in New England on Sunday thanks to that 42-14 drubbing the Patriots handed them on Monday night of Week 14 in Foxboro. But the obvious blueprint for Gary Kubiak's team is what happened in 2010, when the Patriots humiliated the Jets 45-3 at home on Monday night in Week 13, and then lost 28-21 to New York six weeks later in the divisional round. History might repeat itself.
And there's more than just that to hang your hopes on, Texans fans. In the Belichick era, the Patriots are 8-0 in the playoffs against teams they didn't face in the regular season that year. Against teams they did face (like Houston), they're just 8-6, and just 3-6 from 2005 on. Baltimore (2009), the Jets (2010) and the Giants (2007) are teams that have recently beaten New England in the playoffs after losing to them in the regular season.
Not that I think it's going to happen again. But it could.
2. One more run at No. 4: Bill Belichick and Tom Brady go back to work this weekend, trying to push the rock up the hill once again and finally win that Chuck Noll-Terry Bradshaw-tying fourth Super Bowl ring together. It's been eight years since the Patriots' Hall of Fame coaching-quarterback duo won their third Super Bowl, and who could ever have dreamed it'd be this hard to get another one?
In the past seven seasons, the Patriots have lost twice in the Super Bowl (both to the Giants, as New England fans might recall), lost once in the AFC title game (to the comeback Colts in 2006), lost twice in the divisional round (at Denver in 2005, home against the Jets in 2010), lost once in the first round (home against Baltimore in 2009) and missed the playoffs altogether at 11-5 (without Brady) in 2008.
If the eighth time is the charm, it'd be the longest gap between Super Bowl wins for any coach and quarterback since Dallas' Tom Landry and Roger Staubach had to wait six years between winning ring No. 1 (1971) and ring No. 2 (1977) together.
But don't sketch out that parade route just yet, because since going 14-2 in the playoffs together from 2001 through their 2007 AFC title game win over San Diego, the Patriots are just 2-4 in their most recent six postseason games. To slice the facts a different way, New England went 9-0 in the playoffs in winning their three Super Bowls, but have gone just 7-6 in the postseason since. A 16-6 playoff mark is still something to behold, but while it took Belichick and Brady just four years to win their first three Super Bowls together, the quest for No. 4 has now taken them twice that long.

 

[dales804]

So, winning in the playoffs is tough? I throw that history out the window every year. Its a new team and a new season with new opponents. There are varying reasons why NE has lost more often in the postseason recently than in Brady's first 4 years. I don't think any of it will affect what happens on Sunday and, hopefully, thereafter.

 

[Uncle Rico]

SO, the Pats have lost a few playoff games since BB and TFB started out 9-0. Isn't that what Bob KRaft calls " a high class problem?"

 

[Patriot 37]

NFL Playoffs -- No shortage of storylines surrounding divisional round - NFL - Don Banks - SI.com

I love the way these reporters point out Brady is 7-6 since 2004, Manning is 6-5 since 2004, funny how you never read that.

 

[Rob0729]

I am so tired of people bringing up the Jets playoff game. The Texans aren't the 2010 Jets and this Pats team is not the 2010 Pats.

 

[BananaRepublican]

What the Jets did is not a blueprint. It was an outcome at a different time with different teams.

All those stats are just meaningless. Two teams face each other Sunday, not two sets of statistics. If any statistics need review it's how bad Houston finished their season.

And I have a question for Spygaters who think cheating won all those SBs: Wouldn't the record be better against teams you played (videotaped) than new teams you haven't played?

 

[BananaRepublican]

I love the way these reporters point out Brady is 7-6 since 2004, Manning is 6-5 since 2004, funny how you never read that.

It's a team sport. It's hard to win even when your name is Tom Manning. Can we move on from all the *****ing and moaning about somebody paying attention to Non-Tom?

Answer: No.

I knew that. Of course, people are extremely jealous from both cities. Nobody can stand somebody having the opinion that the OTHER guy is better. We can't be serious falling for this stuff as if it's real. It's talk. It's actually bullcrap talk by people who insist on being on top by cherry picking stats. Since a SB trophy is a team accomplishment we should have been SMART ENOUGH to figure this out long ago.

 

[Uncle Rico]

It's been eight years since the Patriots' Hall of Fame coaching-quarterback duo won their third Super Bowl, and who could ever have dreamed it'd be this hard to get another one?

This is one of the most absurd comments ever. Even when the Pats won those Super Bowls NO ONE in the media would have predicted the Pats would still be going strong and coming so close so many times so many years later.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Banks used to be a good writer. Oh well.

 

[chasa]

Banks used to be a good writer. Oh well.

hes still better then most. Nobody is giving the texans a chance so banks is playing devils advocate a bit. no biggie.

 

[randomk1]

Yeah...hate this kind of numbers crunching without any context.

Brady is the only player from 2001 yet the fact that they won a SB with that squad is somehow relevant?

 

[BradyManny]

Until 1pm EST on January 10th, 2013, I went my entire life believing that winning Super Bowls was easy. Then I read a Don Banks article and learned that isn't actually the case. It feels good to be informed.

 

[Halifax_Pats_Fan]

SO, the Pats have lost a few playoff games since BB and TFB started out 9-0. Isn't that what Bob KRaft calls " a high class problem?"

Ha ha....awesome post!

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

We've won close Super Bowls we could have lost and lost close Super Bowls we could have won. It has kinda balanced out, but certain morons want to ascribe trends in the outcomes of this small sample size to some sort of tipping point occurring after 2004, be it spygate, a focus on offense rather than defense, whatever.

It just is what it is.

In my opinion we have fielded excellent teams on a consistent basis and lately have come up a little short of our goals.

Talent-wise and factoring in health, personally I think this is our best all-around team since 2004 going into the playoffs, though we had some regular season late-game under-achievements.

IMO among our five Super Bowl teams, the best team one won (2004), the second-best lost (2007), the 3rd-best won (2003), the 4th-best lost (2011), and the 5th-best won (2001).

Crazy things can happen, like helmet catches and a guy named Manningham making a play he would rarely make.

We keep taking good shots on goal, and #4 will come and shut up the nay-sayers.

 

[Sicilian]

I love the way these reporters point out Brady is 7-6 since 2004, Manning is 6-5 since 2004, funny how you never read that.

That's because for Manning, 6-5 marks an improvement.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

SO, the Pats have lost a few playoff games since BB and TFB started out 9-0. Isn't that what Bob KRaft calls " a high class problem?"

I never realized that they went undefeated in the POs when they won the SB. I wonder how common this is?...

Seriously shoddy writing by Banks.

 

[The Gr8est]

We've won close Super Bowls we could have lost and lost close Super Bowls we could have won. It has kinda balanced out, but certain morons want to ascribe trends in the outcomes of this small sample size to some sort of tipping point occurring after 2004, be it spygate, a focus on offense rather than defense, whatever.

It just is what it is.

In my opinion we have fielded excellent teams on a consistent basis and lately have come up a little short of our goals.

Talent-wise and factoring in health, personally I think this is our best all-around team since 2004 going into the playoffs, though we had some regular season late-game under-achievements.

IMO among our five Super Bowl teams, the best team one won (2004), the second-best lost (2007), the 3rd-best won (2003), the 4th-best lost (2011), and the 5th-best won (2001).

Crazy things can happen, like helmet catches and a guy named Manningham making a play he would rarely make.

We keep taking good shots on goal, and #4 will come and shut up the nay-sayers.

Spygate means you never have to admit that the Pats are better than you.

It's the security blanket for loser teams and fanbases.

 

[shmessy]

Hey Don Banks, we're playoff undefeated in the Alphonso Dennard Era.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Spygate means you never have to admit that the Pats are better than you.

It's the security blanket for loser teams and fanbases.

One more ring makes that all go away though. I'm sure that there would be some 50-50 call or fortunate bounce that they might hang their hat on as "giving it to the Patriots",

but their snappy one-liner "Haven't won the big one since spygate" would get flushed down the crapper. FINALLY. I hope SOON.

 

[brdmaverick]

It's funny how these arguments continue to arise....like losing two Super Bowls shows weakness. WIth the numbers they are throwing out, they make it seem like it would almost be better to NOT even make the playoffs. After all, if they didn't make the playoffs after 2004 SB victory then TB would still be 9-0 in the playoffs and the pundits would HAVE to give the Pats the victory this weekend BECAUSE of his clean record, right?