Health vs. No. 1

[patfanken]

You know I'm getting tired of hearing how if the Pats had home field we would have gone to the superbowl last year. Absolutely playing at home makes life easier for the home team and harder for the away team, BUT we didn't lose that game last January because it was in Denver. We lost that game because our OL was battered with at least 3 of those guys playing hurt and our C was tipping the snap. We lost because we didn't kick an extra point. We lost because we couldn't execute a 2 point conversion. We lost because Denver got most of the calls.

If that kind of crap happens at Gillette this year we are going to lose THAT game too. Regardless of what injuries we get the rest of the year, it will be hard to think that it will be worse than last season. Frankly if we get the bye I don't care where we play the games after the first one. If we deserve to be champions it won't matter where we play them.

Like I said, you'd always prefer to play at home, but all this hand wringing is just another media creation. Believe me, the actual team isn't going to go through the same angst if they have to play on the road. They will go into that game prepared to win with 2 great game plans, and if they execute them they will win, if they don't; they won't. It is as simple as that. Every team is good and every game is more likely to be tight. The team with the best mental discipline, fewest mistakes and a good call and/or bounce will win the game.

Bottom Line: Home field IS an advantage, but its become overblown, like it's a necessity or you can't win a superbowl. That simply ISN'T the case. BTW- my guess is that the #1 seed only reaches the superbowl about half the time. Is it even that high? Enlighten me.

 

[supafly]

You know I'm getting tired of hearing how if the Pats had home field we would have gone to the superbowl last year. Absolutely playing at home makes life easier for the home team and harder for the away team, BUT we didn't lose that game last January because it was in Denver. We lost that game because our OL was battered with at least 3 of those guys playing hurt and our C was tipping the snap. We lost because we didn't kick an extra point. We lost because we couldn't execute a 2 point conversion. We lost because Denver got most of the calls.

If that kind of crap happens at Gillette this year we are going to lose THAT game too. Regardless of what injuries we get the rest of the year, it will be hard to think that it will be worse than last season. Frankly if we get the bye I don't care where we play the games after the first one. If we deserve to be champions it won't matter where we play them.

Like I said, you'd always prefer to play at home, but all this hand wringing is just another media creation. Believe me, the actual team isn't going to go through the same angst if they have to play on the road. They will go into that game prepared to win with 2 great game plans, and if they execute them they will win, if they don't; they won't. It is as simple as that. Every team is good and every game is more likely to be tight. The team with the best mental discipline, fewest mistakes and a good call and/or bounce will win the game.

Bottom Line: Home field IS an advantage, but its become overblown, like it's a necessity or you can't win a superbowl. That simply ISN'T the case. BTW- my guess is that the #1 seed only reaches the superbowl about half the time. Is it even that high? Enlighten me.

I think that idea comes from the center/OL tipping the Denver defense off. Overall, I agree with your point, though.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

You know I'm getting tired of hearing how if the Pats had home field we would have gone to the superbowl last year. Absolutely playing at home makes life easier for the home team and harder for the away team, BUT we didn't lose that game last January because it was in Denver. We lost that game because our OL was battered with at least 3 of those guys playing hurt and our C was tipping the snap. We lost because we didn't kick an extra point. We lost because we couldn't execute a 2 point conversion. We lost because Denver got most of the calls.

If that kind of crap happens at Gillette this year we are going to lose THAT game too. Regardless of what injuries we get the rest of the year, it will be hard to think that it will be worse than last season. Frankly if we get the bye I don't care where we play the games after the first one. If we deserve to be champions it won't matter where we play them.

Like I said, you'd always prefer to play at home, but all this hand wringing is just another media creation. Believe me, the actual team isn't going to go through the same angst if they have to play on the road. They will go into that game prepared to win with 2 great game plans, and if they execute them they will win, if they don't; they won't. It is as simple as that. Every team is good and every game is more likely to be tight. The team with the best mental discipline, fewest mistakes and a good call and/or bounce will win the game.

Bottom Line: Home field IS an advantage, but its become overblown, like it's a necessity or you can't win a superbowl. That simply ISN'T the case. BTW- my guess is that the #1 seed only reaches the superbowl about half the time. Is it even that high? Enlighten me.

Are you suggesting that our offense, even though injured, would not have been able to execute better in Foxborough, minus all the crowd noise and high altitude levels?

And keep in mind, Denver hasnt played all the well at Gilette either ( as we know, it's been quie the House of Horrors for Peyton Manning's career). And correct me if I'm wrong, but havent the Donkeys lost by an even greater margin in Gilette than the Pats have at Mile High?

I still say health is the bigger priority, but it helps to factor in how well we macthup against certain teams. If Denver, Pittsburgh, or Kansas City arent the teams we need to contend with for the No. 1 seed, then I like our chances against any team in AFC.

 

[TennisBallHead]

Denver quit in 2014 so they wouldn't have to come to NE. They absolutely lost that game because it was in Denver.

I feel like the Pats have a reputation that they can win anywhere, and it's not the case. They're an average road team at best while being all-universe at home.

15-3 home playoff record
3-4 road, including 3 straight losses

 

[MainePatsFan26]

We lost that game because our OL was battered with at least 3 of those guys playing hurt and our C was tipping the snap.

Von Miller was on fire last year and would have beaten a line of pro bowlers, let alone our patchwork quilt of a line that even Betsy Ross couldn't have kept knit together.

Well, I've officially brought up knitting, so I guess it is time for bed.

 

[PScottman]

Provided we can contain Khalil Mack (and that's a big if)

How many superstar rushers have singlehandedly bested the Pats this year (or other years where Scar has coached the line or the whole line was playing 4th stringers)? C. Jones? Watt? Wake? Wilkerson? Donald? Avril? Atkins? Hughes? (and some teams even have two like Dunlap, Mercilus, Suh, etc). Yeah, some of these guys were hurt this year, but the "one guy tearing us up" does not happen all that often.

So it's not the "big" if. It's just an if.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

Denver quit in 2014 so they wouldn't have to come to NE. They absolutely lost that game because it was in Denver.

I feel like the Pats have a reputation that they can win anywhere, and it's not the case. They're an average road team at best while being all-universe at home.

15-3 home playoff record
3-4 road, including 3 straight losses

I think it's a little misleading to call their road record average. Statistically, winning on the road in the NFL has always been difficult, even for good teams. In fact, if you look at every recent Super Bowl winner and compare their regular season records, most of them seldom win 2 road games against teams with winning records.

If memory serves me right, the Patriots of the Belichick and Brady era, are at or slightly above .500 when facing teams on the road with winning records - which would actually make them among the best in NFL regular season.

Their playoff record on the road, while below .500, is still pretty impressive, especially when you consider monumental games like the 2004 AFC Championship game in Pittsburgh.

 

[A man named Brady]

This team has sucked outside of Gillette in the playoffs since since 2004 SB run so HFA is all that matters

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, sir. I don't remember too many seasons where luck didn't help/hurt us in some capacity.

In regards to last year, I think that Belichick still went after HFA. I just think that he had his hands tied a bit due to the injury situation.

He all but tanked the Miami game. He handed the ball to 94 year old Steven Jackson for 4 straight failed drives and wouldn't calls pass. It was almost as if he was losing in purpose.

 

[RIpats88]

I point you to last year, where our 2 point loss to denver was 100% because they played in denver instead of home.

without that crowd noise, the OL doesnt have stork bobbing his head giving away the snap count to von miller to destroy the pats OL

 

[PatsDeb]

We tried the health route last year and it did not work out, in a big way in my mind. Just have to go for broke and hope for the best.

 

[jimnance]

Keeping your edge is key. Injuries either happen or they don't. I dont want the Pats to wrap up HFA until game 16-so they go full tilt vs fins. There's only 3 key injuries right now: Danny high ankle sprain likely out til playoffs- hopefully back by then; Rowe's hammy- tricky stuff- they can recur- you don't want him back til its close to 100%-too bad, bb had finally found the right rotation with Malcolm Rowe Ryan 1-2-3; and Bennett(ankle shoulder)-imo this is the toughest to manage- they need him in there at even 75% with no gronk- but he's not going to heal enough to get his down field explosion back w/o resting/healing that ankle. My guess is he toughs it out and they hope the 2 week bye helps. He'll be needed in playoffs.

 

[Kontradiction]

If they secure the #1 seed by or after Week 16, Belichick will probably do what he tends to do in Week 17 in that situation which is rest the key pieces on both side of the ball save Brady who will probably want the work for a half or so. I hope they do get it because Miami is a very dirty football team. If they don't, then they absolutely need to go for the #1 seed.

 

[Uptown]

 

[QuantumMechanic]

You know I'm getting tired of hearing how if the Pats had home field we would have gone to the superbowl last year. Absolutely playing at home makes life easier for the home team and harder for the away team, BUT we didn't lose that game last January because it was in Denver. We lost that game because our OL was battered with at least 3 of those guys playing hurt and our C was tipping the snap. We lost because we didn't kick an extra point. We lost because we couldn't execute a 2 point conversion. We lost because Denver got most of the calls.

If the game is in NE the C isn't tipping the snap because there's no crowd noise. If the game is in NE we likely get more calls (officials' bias in favor of home teams is well-known, statistically proven, and exists across all sports).

 

[PatsDeb]

You know I'm getting tired of hearing how if the Pats had home field we would have gone to the superbowl last year. Absolutely playing at home makes life easier for the home team and harder for the away team, BUT we didn't lose that game last January because it was in Denver. We lost that game because our OL was battered with at least 3 of those guys playing hurt and our C was tipping the snap. We lost because we didn't kick an extra point. We lost because we couldn't execute a 2 point conversion. We lost because Denver got most of the calls.

If that kind of crap happens at Gillette this year we are going to lose THAT game too. Regardless of what injuries we get the rest of the year, it will be hard to think that it will be worse than last season. Frankly if we get the bye I don't care where we play the games after the first one. If we deserve to be champions it won't matter where we play them.

Like I said, you'd always prefer to play at home, but all this hand wringing is just another media creation. Believe me, the actual team isn't going to go through the same angst if they have to play on the road. They will go into that game prepared to win with 2 great game plans, and if they execute them they will win, if they don't; they won't. It is as simple as that. Every team is good and every game is more likely to be tight. The team with the best mental discipline, fewest mistakes and a good call and/or bounce will win the game.

Bottom Line: Home field IS an advantage, but its become overblown, like it's a necessity or you can't win a superbowl. That simply ISN'T the case. BTW- my guess is that the #1 seed only reaches the superbowl about half the time. Is it even that high? Enlighten me.

I'm not even sure it's any away game. More like our personal Armageddon, Mile High Stadium, or whatever it's called these days. We absolutely should have tried to avoid a trip there last year, but BB seemingly went your way - let's be content with the 2nd seed and rest the guys who need it, then see what happens. Lots of people thought that was the wrong choice (me included), and the results seem to bear that out. What's wrong with trying it the other way this time, and going for broke for the No. 1 seed? I think it's a bigger advantage than you're saying, particularly if we can avoid a trip to Mile High. I'd say the same about KC, and maybe Oakland, just because of the travel time.

 

[Ring 6]

You know I'm getting tired of hearing how if the Pats had home field we would have gone to the superbowl last year. Absolutely playing at home makes life easier for the home team and harder for the away team, BUT we didn't lose that game last January because it was in Denver. We lost that game because our OL was battered with at least 3 of those guys playing hurt and our C was tipping the snap. We lost because we didn't kick an extra point. We lost because we couldn't execute a 2 point conversion. We lost because Denver got most of the calls.

If that kind of crap happens at Gillette this year we are going to lose THAT game too. Regardless of what injuries we get the rest of the year, it will be hard to think that it will be worse than last season. Frankly if we get the bye I don't care where we play the games after the first one. If we deserve to be champions it won't matter where we play them.

Like I said, you'd always prefer to play at home, but all this hand wringing is just another media creation. Believe me, the actual team isn't going to go through the same angst if they have to play on the road. They will go into that game prepared to win with 2 great game plans, and if they execute them they will win, if they don't; they won't. It is as simple as that. Every team is good and every game is more likely to be tight. The team with the best mental discipline, fewest mistakes and a good call and/or bounce will win the game.

Bottom Line: Home field IS an advantage, but its become overblown, like it's a necessity or you can't win a superbowl. That simply ISN'T the case. BTW- my guess is that the #1 seed only reaches the superbowl about half the time. Is it even that high? Enlighten me.

This is exactly the point. You don't go on a silent count at home, so the center doesn't tip the snap count.
He tipped it because the silent snap count is x beats after he lifts his head, and they never changed x. At home, Brady is calling the cadence and the snap count, and that doesn't happen.
Not to mention, it was Denver, and if you don't think the altitude affects road teams, I'm not sure what to tell you.

 

[IllegalContact]

the Pats have had the **** beaten out of them at home by the jets, the ravens (twice)......

I don't have an issue with the idea of the Pats having to go to Oakland or KC to stomp the **** out of those frauds

 

[A Defiant Goose]

Last year we had the bye in, what, week 4 or 5? This year the bye was perfect at week 9. Finish the second half of the season strong and worry about rest during the wildcard week. I was in the "rest to make sure we're healthy" crowd last year and playing in Denver was the difference

 

[A Defiant Goose]

You know I'm getting tired of hearing how if the Pats had home field we would have gone to the superbowl last year. Absolutely playing at home makes life easier for the home team and harder for the away team, BUT we didn't lose that game last January because it was in Denver. We lost that game because our OL was battered with at least 3 of those guys playing hurt and our C was tipping the snap.

Which may or may not have been caused largely by playing in Denver for the AFCCG instead of at home