Don Banks: Patriots haven't been tested.

[TheBostonStraggler]

Don Banks? Among other things, he's the reporter who back in 2008 had the scoop that the Patriots planned to trade back in the draft and take Jerod Mayo, the one true scoop I can recall in the BB era.

Everybody, do you think the Patriots have been "tested"? Truly? Banks wasn't saying that being untested makes them frauds, just that their biggest challenges by far lie ahead. IMO that's true.

It's not just who they haven't faced yet. It's that the current Patriots team did not exist until the late stretch of the season. It took them a while to incorporate the many new pieces and adjust for the absence of Collins and then Gronk. Think about how this board shifted dramatically on the defensive "eye test." The Patriots are a different team now than earlier in the season.

They're not alone. Dak Prescott is no longer a true rookie, which makes the Cowboys a different team. The Carr-less Raiders are certainly "untested." Etc. This is a year when teams have been built as much during the season as before it. I love the way the Pats are coming together, I think they deserve to be favored to win it all, but I have no problem with the "untested" assessment.

I get your calm, rational look at it PChick but even if that is the point Banks was making, it still is lame.
I did a quick check and here is a sample of playoff teams "testing":

In the last 10 games the Cowboys have faced 4 playoff teams. 1 of them a division winner
In the last 10 games the Steelers have faced 3 playoff team. 2 of them division winners
In the last 10 games the Seahawks have faced 2 playoff teams. 2 of them division winners
In the last 10 games the Falcons have faced 2 playoff teams. 2 of them division winners
In the last 10 games the Chiefs have faced 2 playoff teams. 2 of them division winners
In the last 10 games the Patriots have faced 3 playoff teams. 2 of them division winners ((the Patriots have also played 2 other games against just barely below playoff caliber - Den and Balt))

What team in the playoffs doesn't see the upcoming 3 or 4 games in a row against playoff teams as their toughest by far schedule?
I realize just looking at playoff teams versus non playoff teams does not tell the whole story about a team's schedule/"testing". But it does provide a sufficient enough part of the picture that none of those teams has played some sort of meat grinder schedule that tested and prepared them soooo much better than the Patriots.

 

[brdmaverick]

It's tough to play the 'tough teams' when people consider very few teams worthy.

As someone mentioned, Denver and Baltimore should have sufficed but now don't seem to.

Oh, you need a playoff team? Well the Pats beat the Dolphins twice, the Steelers, and the Texans.

Obviously you can poke holes all you want, but the Pats don't control the scheduling.

The 2011 Pats went 13-3 without beating a winning team in the regular season and came a Welker catch of winning the Super Bowl.

The 2010 Pats were probably the most tested team in the regular season and couldn't win a game in the playoffs.

 

[Rob0729]

I know will be the phone in guest for Felger and Mazz tomorrow.

 

[TBR]

I don't really care about the narrative. I think it's somewhat a valid question to raise though.

I am happy with the way the defense has played so far this year. It's not like they made bad offenses look like great ones (aside from SEA game) unlike what a truly mediocre or bad defense would be susceptible to do often. That's a good sign.

Look back to 2014 and the number of high end offenses that defense faced throughout the regular season. They were definitely tested and did very well, especially in the 2nd half or 4th quarters of games.

Then in the playoffs they gave up 31 to Baltimore and 24 vs Seattle (a yard away from 31 at the end).

I guess we'll see what happens. As long as they keep forcing turnovers, I think they will be fine.

 

[brdmaverick]

What team in the playoffs doesn't see the upcoming 3 or 4 games in a row against playoff teams as their toughest by far schedule?

.....and this is the winning statement. It doens't mean there is no merit to the article just that it essentially applies to everyone. Just like right before every playoff game someone could say "I think this game will come down to turnovers."

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

.....and this is the winning statement. It doens't mean there is no merit to the article just that it essentially applies to everyone. Just like right before every playoff game someone could say "I think this game will come down to turnovers."

Reminds me of a post game presser some years ago where Belichick responded to a question on what the team did to get the win. It was some sort of BB-classic answer of 'we were able to put more points on the board than they did'. Yet that statement is just as resoundingly profound as the Patriots have their toughest by far schedule ahead of them, the playoffs.

 

[n1997y]

Really? Started first 4 games without the goat and still went 14-2. That's some mental toughness to me. F these stupid mediots

Yep. That's the problem. Gotta distract from that or folks might start thinking positively about the Patriots. Blow some more smoke Don...

 

[Deus Irae]

I get your calm, rational look at it PChick but even if that is the point Banks was making, it still is lame.
I did a quick check and here is a sample of playoff teams "testing":

In the last 10 games the Cowboys have faced 4 playoff teams. 1 of them a division winner
In the last 10 games the Steelers have faced 3 playoff team. 2 of them division winners
In the last 10 games the Seahawks have faced 2 playoff teams. 2 of them division winners
In the last 10 games the Falcons have faced 2 playoff teams. 2 of them division winners
In the last 10 games the Chiefs have faced 2 playoff teams. 2 of them division winners
In the last 10 games the Patriots have faced 3 playoff teams. 2 of them division winners ((the Patriots have also played 2 other games against just barely below playoff caliber - Den and Balt))

What team in the playoffs doesn't see the upcoming 3 or 4 games in a row against playoff teams as their toughest by far schedule?
I realize just looking at playoff teams versus non playoff teams does not tell the whole story about a team's schedule/"testing". But it does provide a sufficient enough part of the picture that none of those teams has played some sort of meat grinder schedule that tested and prepared them soooo much better than the Patriots.

His point was, and is, fine. Listen to the audio.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Another tomato can thread, awesome.

 

[supafly]

The average record for the AFC is .506. For the NFC it is .494 (obviously). So the AFC was actually better than the NFC in inter-conference play. Not sure where they are getting the idea that the NFC is stronger.

The top 3 of NE, KC, and PIT match up to the NFC just fine. The difference is in the bottom 3.

GB, NYG, and DET are clearly much better than the HOU, OAK, and MIA teams.

 

[Brick27]

KC and Pitt haven't played NE on the road this year, therefore, they haven't been tested.

 

[Uptown]

3-1 without Brady, THIS SEASON:
7-0 without Gronk:
#1 ranked Defense
BB said that this team is mentally & physically tough
...Nuff said

 

[patchick]

I get your calm, rational look at it PChick but even if that is the point Banks was making, it still is lame.
I did a quick check and here is a sample of playoff teams "testing":

In the last 10 games the Cowboys have faced 4 playoff teams. 1 of them a division winner
In the last 10 games the Steelers have faced 3 playoff team. 2 of them division winners
In the last 10 games the Seahawks have faced 2 playoff teams. 2 of them division winners
In the last 10 games the Falcons have faced 2 playoff teams. 2 of them division winners
In the last 10 games the Chiefs have faced 2 playoff teams. 2 of them division winners
In the last 10 games the Patriots have faced 3 playoff teams. 2 of them division winners ((the Patriots have also played 2 other games against just barely below playoff caliber - Den and Balt))

What team in the playoffs doesn't see the upcoming 3 or 4 games in a row against playoff teams as their toughest by far schedule?

I agree with all of that, and I'll add another point: The Patriots' schedule often looks weak -- because they don't have to play the Patriots, and all of their opponents do!

But again, Banks wasn't bashing the Patriots. He was just stating the plain fact that they have yet to face and beat ANY of the other teams that have looked legitimately strong for long stretches this year:

Chiefs
Cowboys
Falcons
Giants
Packers
Raiders, with Carr
Seahawks
Steelers, with Ben

The question is, who has? Which of the contenders do have multiple victories against quality opponents? The answer turns out to be most of them:

Chiefs (Raiders x2, Falcons)
Falcons (Packers, Raiders)
Giants (Cowboys x2)
Packers (Giants, Seahawks)
Seahawks (Falcons, Patriots)
Steelers (Chiefs, Giants)

IMO the Chiefs are the most "tested" team in the playoffs. The Cowboys and Raiders cruised on their losers' schedules based on 2015 and deserve the "untested" label along with the Patriots. [EDIT: Actually I take it back, the Cowboys did beat the Packers + Steelers]

Of course, none of this changes the fact that Pats were the most dominant team in the league over the whole season, or the fact that they look like the most complete team and should be favored to win it all. It just is what it is.

 

[mgcolby]

I'm sorry when the Number 1 seed in the NFC has a rookie at QB and RB....Who in the NFC has been tested? The NFC has the big name QB's. But the NFC has not been an unbeatable force. AFC is 33-30-1 against the NFC. Fairly even but lets not act like the NFC is some juggernaut that the AFC can't compete with.

Why can't national writers actually look up basic facts?

 

[1960Pats]

The average record for the AFC is .506. For the NFC it is .494 (obviously). So the AFC was actually better than the NFC in inter-conference play. Not sure where they are getting the idea that the NFC is stronger.

I was waiting for someone to point that out. Thanks. The media's myth about the stronger NFC seems to work on some people. It's been that way forever. The truth is that the AFC owns the NFC.

 

[PatsDeb]

The Patriots played 4 games vs. AFC playoff teams, 2 of them without Brady. Their record was 4-0 in those games with the average score 30-13. They lost their only game vs. an NFC playoff team, Seattle 31-24, and were in that one right to the end.

Yes, you wonder if we had faced Seattle at the end of the season rather than when we did (wasn't it the first game without Collins?), whether the outcome would have been different. That and handing off 3 times to Large Blunt at the end of the game might have made it a different game.

 

[50-yard-line]

The point made by Banks is perfectly valid and logical. People here are embarrassing themselves over nothing.

That's fine and no argument. My point runs alongside that: given the way the league stands now and the way the schedule is put together, it's almost impossible to consider a team "tested."

 

[TinhWoodhead]

Don Banks needs to be tested

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Yes, you wonder if we had faced Seattle at the end of the season rather than when we did (wasn't it the first game without Collins?), whether the outcome would have been different. That and handing off 3 times to Large Blunt at the end of the game might have made it a different game.

I was confused as you are on that goal line play. I'm guessing belichick didn't want to show the seahawks anything in case they meet again.

 

[mgcolby]

Only one team in the NFL is excellent in all three phases of the game and has a SB winning Coach and QB.

I like our chances.