Hello San Diego...

[richpats]

No way. I still don't understand why fans were so intimidated by the Chargers beforehand, and for some reason still are. The Chargers were marginally a better team than the Patriots last year.

Sorry, but the Pats were still a questionable SB-contender going into the game. They were shutout by the Dolphins a month before. They had only 3 quality victories (2 against the Jets).

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

Sorry, but the Pats were still a questionable SB-contender going into the game. They were shutout by the Dolphins a month before. They had only 3 quality victories (2 against the Jets).

You're calling the Pats a "questionable Super Bowl contender" playing against a team that went 14 - 2 against a bevy of .500 clubs?

Give me a break!

 

[richpats]

You're calling the Pats a "questionable Super Bowl contender" playing against a team that went 14 - 2 against a bevy of .500 clubs?

Give me a break!

They overcame a 17-point 2nd half deficit IN Denver, then blew out the Broncos at home. We crapped the bed at home against Denver, Indy and the Jets, and nearly let the Chicago game get away. SB-contenders don't lose 21-0 to 6-10 teams the month before the playoffs.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

They overcame a 17-point 2nd half deficit IN Denver, then blew out the Broncos at home. We crapped the bed at home against Denver, Indy and the Jets, and nearly let the Chicago game get away. SB-contenders don't lose 21-0 to 6-10 teams the month before the playoffs.

Well, then, who competed in the AFCCG last year? Who was 1:39 and 4 yards from going to their 4th Super Bowl in 6 years?

San Diego had the fabulous good fortune of facing a Denver team in a state of total collapse. Had we faced Denver in game 10 rather than game 3, I have no doubt we would have won that one.

The Indy game was a tough loss, but the Jets' game loss I simply write off as a collective brain fart.

The Chicago game was probably the best game of the year on the entire NFL schedule. Make no mistake - that one was played on Mt. Olympus.

Until I see San Diego, a team without a playoff win since '94, actually wins a playoff game, I'd much rather label them as the "suspect Super Bowl contender".

 

[richpats]

Well, then, who competed in the AFCCG last year? Who was 1:39 and 4 yards from going to their 4th Super Bowl in 6 years?

I'm talking about the 2006 Pats, not the 'Belichick-era' Pats. They were clearly the 4th-best team in the AFC going into the playoffs.

You're missing the point because I said they were questionable GOING INTO THE GAME. The 2001 Pats were questionable SB-contenders going into the playoffs too. They won the SB, but it didn't change the fact that there was some doubt going into the postseason (like how they hadn't beaten a team as good as Oakland or Pittsburgh all season).

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

I'm talking about the 2006 Pats, not the 'Belichick-era' Pats. They were clearly the 4th-best team in the AFC going into the playoffs.

You're missing the point because I said they were questionable GOING INTO THE GAME. The 2001 Pats were questionable SB-contenders going into the playoffs too. They won the SB, but it didn't change the fact that there was some doubt going into the postseason (like how they hadn't beaten a team as good as Oakland or Pittsburgh all season).

That line you quote me on was the '06 Pats!

There's always a doubt about teams in the post season. But apart from that, you seem to have missed my point. Even looking past pedigree, anointing a team with a good record against mundane opposition the Super Bowl favorite is not particularly insightful prognosticating, especially one that hadn't demonstrated anything beyond believing their own press clippings, and especially given their coach's infamous playoff record.

The playoffs are not merely a continuation of the regular season. Everyone who makes it starts anew, and there is a completely different dynamic at work. Sometimes extrapolation from the regular season gives insight, yes, but not usually.

You had the Ravens rated higher than the Pats? Gadzooks! That's a good one!

 

[richpats]

That line you quote me on was the '06 Pats!

There's always a doubt about teams in the post season. But apart from that, you seem to have missed my point. Even looking past pedigree, anointing a team with a good record against mundane opposition the Super Bowl favorite is not particularly insightful prognosticating, especially one that hadn't demonstrated anything beyond believing their own press clippings, and especially given their coach's infamous playoff record.

The playoffs are not merely a continuation of the regular season. Everyone who makes it starts anew, and there is a completely different dynamic at work. Sometimes extrapolation from the regular season gives insight, yes, but not usually.

You had the Ravens rated higher than the Pats? Gadzooks! That's a good one!

You said '4 SBs in 6 years' - that's not solely the 2006 Pats.

I didn't even say SD was the SB-favorite. You seemed to have missed MY point. I said NE was a questionable SB-contender.

If you want to get into 'infamous playoff records', how did that work out for Dungy and Manning?

Yeah I had the Ravens over the Pats going into the playoffs - the Ravens were playing better football than NE all season long (as was San Diego). Just because both of them choked in the playoffs doesn't mean they weren't better teams going into the playoffs.

 

[Jacky Roberts]

SB-contenders don't lose 21-0 to 6-10 teams the month before the playoffs.

Didn't a Super Bowl team lose at home to those 6-10 Dolphins? Didn't the 2004 Patriots lost to that horrible Dolphins team?

 

[PaulNEPats]

You said '4 SBs in 6 years' - that's not solely the 2006 Pats.

I didn't even say SD was the SB-favorite. You seemed to have missed MY point. I said NE was a questionable SB-contender.

If you want to get into 'infamous playoff records', how did that work out for Dungy and Manning?

Yeah I had the Ravens over the Pats going into the playoffs - the Ravens were playing better football than NE all season long (as was San Diego). Just because both of them choked in the playoffs doesn't mean they weren't better teams going into the playoffs.

Uhhh didn't the Colts lose to the Texans, Jags, and Titans? Were they considered questionable SB contenders?

 

[richpats]

Uhhh didn't the Colts lose to the Texans, Jags, and Titans? Were they considered questionable SB contenders?

Yeah, they were. Sure proved me wrong. Still missing the point about THE 2006 NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS being questionable SB contenders.

 

[richpats]

Didn't a Super Bowl team lose at home to those 6-10 Dolphins? Didn't the 2004 Patriots lost to that horrible Dolphins team?

Chicago lost 13-31. The 2004 Pats lost 28-29 to those Dolphins. Those teams remembered to score points. Those teams didn't get nearly the beating we took last December.

 

[patriotspride]

Yeah, they were. Sure proved me wrong. Still missing the point about THE 2006 NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS being questionable SB contenders.

the point is the pats were legit sb contenders and anything but questionable.

 

[richpats]

the point is the pats were legit sb contenders and anything but questionable.

To each their own. I just never could imagine that team going through the Chargers AND the Colts/Ravens (on the road no less) on the way to the SB.

 

[patriotspride]

To each their own. I just never could imagine that team going through the Chargers AND the Colts/Ravens (on the road no less) on the way to the SB.

i bet you felt the same way in 01 .i cant imagine why you would fell that way after everything we have seen from this team over the years .

 

[richpats]

i bet you felt the same way in 01 .i cant imagine why you would fell that way after everything we have seen from this team over the years .

"over the years".....again, the Belichick-era Pats are not being judged, it's the 2006 Patriots. The team that played some awful games at home against quality opponents. The team that laid a goose-egg in Miami. Less than half the roster was on the last SB-winning squad. We had a serious lack of talent at WR, and Rodney Harrison was out for the postseason. Yeah, I had some doubts going into the playoffs, and even if the Pats had gone on to win it all, I would still label them as a 'questionable SB contender' going into the postseason.

 

[BoltsFan]

"over the years".....again, the Belichick-era Pats are not being judged, it's the 2006 Patriots. The team that played some awful games at home against quality opponents. The team that laid a goose-egg in Miami. Less than half the roster was on the last SB-winning squad. We had a serious lack of talent at WR, and Rodney Harrison was out for the postseason. Yeah, I had some doubts going into the playoffs, and even if the Pats had gone on to win it all, I would still label them as a 'questionable SB contender' going into the postseason.

Yep, agreed. I understand exactly what you're saying and SD was the best team going into the post season. Obviously that didn't mean a lot in the end but it was like that.

 

[Born_a_Patriot]

"over the years".....again, the Belichick-era Pats are not being judged, it's the 2006 Patriots. The team that played some awful games at home against quality opponents. The team that laid a goose-egg in Miami. Less than half the roster was on the last SB-winning squad. We had a serious lack of talent at WR, and Rodney Harrison was out for the postseason. Yeah, I had some doubts going into the playoffs, and even if the Pats had gone on to win it all, I would still label them as a 'questionable SB contender' going into the postseason.

Whatever...

 

[richpats]

Whatever...

Great argument

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

Whenever a team enters the playoffs sporting names like Belichick and Brady, you underestimate them at your own peril...

 

[jman924]

The 2006 Pats were a good team.
They had a legit shot at the Super Bowl.
There was nothing questionable about them.
The beat the Super Bowl runners-up Bears in the regular season.
They torched the Bengals, strangled the Jags (those same Jags that CRUSHED the super bowl winning Colts earlier), and they went 12-4, second best record in team history beat only by those two 14-2 seasons.
The 2006 Pats were GOOD.
Calling them questionable is silly.:bricks:
Are you saying that had they made and won the Super Bowl, everyone would have said, "yeah,they're ok I guess."
And I know it can be hard to imagine a team getting to the super bowl by winning all their games on the road. I mean, that hasn't happened recently or anything.