Hello San Diego...

[richpats]

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.

Gee, can any Pats fans see where I am coming from? I mean, the Charger fan got it. I'm talking about BEFORE THE SAN DIEGO GAME, so this would be prior to:

*The Pats having a 'legit shot' at the Super Bowl (which I take to mean a competitive AFC title game)
*Beating the 'Super Bowl runners-up' (since the SB hadn't happened)
*The Colts winning the SB (ditto)

I don't know how your argument is strengthened by our victories over a couple of 8-8 teams or the 12-4 record (Jacksonville was 12-4 in '05).

Sure, the Pats were a good team in '06, but they weren't playing better football than SD or Baltimore down the stretch, and IMO it was arguable whether they could beat Indy on the road.

 

[jman924]

Gee, can any Pats fans see where I am coming from? I mean, the Charger fan got it. I'm talking about BEFORE THE SAN DIEGO GAME, so this would be prior to:

*The Pats having a 'legit shot' at the Super Bowl (which I take to mean a competitive AFC title game)
*Beating the 'Super Bowl runners-up' (since the SB hadn't happened)
*The Colts winning the SB (ditto)

I don't know how your argument is strengthened by our victories over a couple of 8-8 teams or the 12-4 record (Jacksonville was 12-4 in '05).

Sure, the Pats were a good team in '06, but they weren't playing better football than SD or Baltimore down the stretch, and IMO it was arguable whether they could beat Indy on the road.

I got it. I was talking about the same time frame.
We made the play-offs with a GOOD team. We had a good shot. I seem to remember a super bowl team in 2004 that dropped a game to the woeful 4-12 dolphins and then started the game against the (2-14?) 49ners with a fumble, an INT, and an early 7-0 deficit. Both those games were "down the stretch."
As far as 12-4 goes, Indy was 12-4 THIS season. I think they made out alright.
Do you get it?
Because your increasing negativity makes me wonder...

 

[richpats]

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

Using reputations is bad for analysis. A lot of critics thought a Jake Plummer-led team could never defeat a Tom Brady-led team in the playoffs.

 

[richpats]

I got it. I was talking about the same time frame.
We made the play-offs with a GOOD team. We had a good shot.
Do you get it?
Because your increasing negativity makes me wonder...

We had a good team last year. Some seasons good teams don't even make the playoffs. IMO a "good shot" would not have involved going into San Diego. That's why I thought we were "questionable" contenders. They were clearly a better team going into the game. They played consistently at a higher level than the Pats all season.

Don't confuse 'negativity' with 'objectivity'. Just because I conclude a team is better than the Pats doesn't mean I'm not a real fan or think that there is no way the Pats can win (hence the word QUESTIONABLE).

 

[Born_a_Patriot]

Great argument

Thanks..........

 

[jman924]

We had a good team last year. Some seasons good teams don't even make the playoffs. IMO a "good shot" would not have involved going into San Diego. That's why I thought we were "questionable" contenders. They were clearly a better team going into the game. They played consistently at a higher level than the Pats all season.

Don't confuse 'negativity' with 'objectivity'. Just because I conclude a team is better than the Pats doesn't mean I'm not a real fan or think that there is no way the Pats can win (hence the word QUESTIONABLE).

I disagree. Tomlinson had been playing at a high level, but Cry-me-a-Rivers and the rest of the team seemed to be underachieving (or cheating, Merriroid) and they also beat up on a bevy of 8-8 and 9-7 teams (NFC West AFC North andybody?) while playing a third place schedule and "earning" their number 1 spot.
I don't think they were THAT superior. I do think Brady and the running game had an off day. That happens. But both team played BAD and we won. Could both teams have played good and we won? I think so. Besides LT, did anyone on the Chargers really do anything positve that day? (You could say Turner, But it was LT that put him on the 1 yard line with 4 downs to score.)

 

[richpats]

I disagree. Tomlinson had been playing at a high level, but Cry-me-a-Rivers and the rest of the team seemed to be underachieving (or cheating, Merriroid) and they also beat up on a bevy of 8-8 and 9-7 teams (NFC West AFC North andybody?) while playing a third place schedule and "earning" their number 1 spot.

10 of our 12 victories were against teams 8-8 or worse. If we were on par with SD, why didn't we "earn" the #1 spot ourselves? Or at least a bye?

 

[Born_a_Patriot]

10 of our 12 victories were against teams 8-8 or worse. If we were on par with SD, why didn't we "earn" the #1 spot ourselves? Or at least a bye?

Because than we would not have had a chance to call the next DVD 4 Games to 4 Championships. That's why.

 

[jman924]

10 of our 12 victories were against teams 8-8 or worse. If we were on par with SD, why didn't we "earn" the #1 spot ourselves? Or at least a bye?

First place team San Diego-playing a third place schedule and NFC West. Record of best team defeated: 9-7 (you could argue which of these teams was the best, the 9-7 Seahawks, the 9-7 Chiefs, or the 9-7 Broncos.
Second place team Baltimore-playing a third place team and the NFC South. Record of best team defeated: 14-2, the Chargers the first place team. Next best, the 10-6 Saints.
So 10 of the Chargers 14 wins were also against teams that were 8-8 or worse. The other four were all 9-7.
You could actually make a case for the Ravens being the best team if not for the Choke job they pulled against the Bengals or the Panthers.

When you've got two teams who have about 20 games between them against teams that finish with a record 8-8 or worse, and have a third place schedule, it hard to get a better record playing better oppenents.

 

[richpats]

When you've got two teams who have about 20 games between them against teams that finish with a record 8-8 or worse, and have a third place schedule, it hard to get a better record playing better oppenents.

SD played 10 games against teams 8-8 or worse, going 10-0. NE played 11 games against teams 8-8 or worse, going 10-1. SD went 4-2 against quality teams. NE went 2-3.

 

[BoltsFan]

First place team San Diego-playing a third place schedule and NFC West. Record of best team defeated: 9-7 (you could argue which of these teams was the best, the 9-7 Seahawks, the 9-7 Chiefs, or the 9-7 Broncos.
Second place team Baltimore-playing a third place team and the NFC South. Record of best team defeated: 14-2, the Chargers the first place team. Next best, the 10-6 Saints.
So 10 of the Chargers 14 wins were also against teams that were 8-8 or worse. The other four were all 9-7.
You could actually make a case for the Ravens being the best team if not for the Choke job they pulled against the Bengals or the Panthers.

When you've got two teams who have about 20 games between them against teams that finish with a record 8-8 or worse, and have a third place schedule, it hard to get a better record playing better oppenents.

This is what you want to look at. This reflects the facts going into the playoffs.

Sorted.

 

[363839]

Would San Diego even make the playoffs without LT?

 

[richpats]

Would San Diego even make the playoffs without LT?

Would New England make the playoffs without Tom Brady?

 

[jman924]

This is what you want to look at. This reflects the facts going into the playoffs.

Sorted.

Those quality oppenent stats would have changed after that final week though, since a bunch of teams dropped games in week 17 to finish at 8-8. (Bengals, Titans, Jags, all come to mind.)

 

[BoltsFan]

Those quality oppenent stats would have changed after that final week though, since a bunch of teams dropped games in week 17 to finish at 8-8. (Bengals, Titans, Jags, all come to mind.)

Sorted again.

 

[jman924]

Would New England make the playoffs without Tom Brady?

In the 30 years since the merger and before LT joined the team the Chargers made the playoffs 7 times. In the six years since they have made it twice.
In the 30 years before Tom Brady took the reigns, that Patriots made the playoffs 9 times. In the six years since they have gone five times.

The conslusion:...you know what, their is no conclusion because we wouldn't actually be dealing with actual occurances, because both players ARE on their respective teams. The facts can only show that since both players joined the league, their respective teams have gone to the playoffs a greater percentage of times then they did before they arrived, and therefore, must be important to the team they play on.
To speculate whether a team could win with or without a certain player in a situation in which they both played is asinine.

 

[NEPatriot]

I was at this game but didn't get to see the TV broadcast until this past weekend. Having watched it again we were very lucky in this one. Brady did not play well. Tomlinson was pretty much unstoppable. The only thing that saved us was that for every dumb play we made the Chargers made one more. They bailed us out on a few occasions - the Troy Brown strip after Brady INT, the unnecessary roughness that gave us a first down. Their receivers couldn't hold on to the ball and Rivers played just okay. NE stars for the game - Caldwell (the 49 yard catch that sealed it), Gaffney - (number of tough catches), Matt Light - (handled Meriman), Samuel - (key 3rd down pass breakup in the 4th quarter), Hobbs - (prevented at least one touchdown, got burned once, but played solid), Gostkowski (made em all), Colvin (all over the place, INT).

All in all a classic Pats win... didn't play that great but made the palys when they had to and made just a few less mental mistakes. I think it's clear that the Chargers will see a MUCH better team in Sept than the one the faced in January.

Agreed. I was also at the game. We were outplayed and were very lucky to come out with a victory. People can talk smack, but the reality is that no one knows what type of team we, the Charages or anyone else has untill November. I personally have a lot of respect for the SD and think we're going to have a tough game on our hands.

 

[jman924]

Sorted again.

Just like I said. Four 9-7 teams.
Team with the best quality opponent record was the Colts, surprisingly, or not surprisingly, depending on who's looking.