The Ringer:We don't know how the good the patriots really are

[Vindicate]

It seems as if, any time it comes to criticism of the Patriots, it's always executed in a vacuum. I'm a journalist and sports journalism seems to outright ignore contextual details when critiquing other teams to an almost blatant level.

We don't know how good any team is operating under these principles but yet it seems most appropriate to subtly accost every minutia of bull honkey detail against the Patriots.

I hate the media, including myself.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

Anyone who has been paying attention knows they're the best and most complete team in the league.

I agree. The Patriots are one of the more balanced teams in the NFL. They happen to have one of the weakest schedules in the NFL but they are dominating teams on both sides of the ball. The Patriots are the only team (besides Arizona) to have both a Top 10-ranked defense and Top 10-ranked offense.

Points scored: 26.07 per game ( 6th in the NFL )
Points allowed: 16.64 per game ( 1st in the NFL )
Combined point differential: +132 or an average of +9.43 per game (1st in the NFL)

I don't care what anyone says....when you have #1 ranked scoring defense and #6 scoring offense through Week 15 - you cannot dismiss that as an anomoly

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

So just ignore the ravens game, right? Because all I heard the week leading up is how that defense was Brady's kryptonite and Flacco always plays great against the Pats.

I agree. Has any other team been able to hold Denver to only 3 points on their own home turf?

But hey...how can we really know they're that good, right?

 

[BobDigital]

It could be argued come playoff time the Pats might have the best D left in the hunt by the time the final 8 comes around

Denver will likely be out
Seahawks without Thomas is not as threatening
KC missing Derrick Johnson is a big loss.
Giants are just good all around so we will see... Probably the only D I take over ours right now but with their O i see them potentially 1 and done.

 

[Joey007]

I do think there was a case for this a couple weeks ago. But if now, if you've watched the Patriots last two games on defense, you'll understand that they are passing the smell test.

Say what you will about Simien, but name to me any other team that's held him and the whole Denver team to 3 points this season, at HOME for that matter. Not one.

There comes a certain point where you can tell that a unit is performing at a high level, no matter what their competition is.

The Seattle game was due to Wilson and that offense having one of their unpredictable games where they perform really, really well. And also remember it was their first game without Collins. We had yet to make the full proper adjustments, and BB had yet to figure out what personnel he was going to use defensively.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I agree. The Patriots are one of the more balanced teams in the NFL. They happen to have one of the weakest schedules in the NFL but they are dominating teams on both sides of the ball. The Patriots are the only team (besides Arizona) to have both a Top 10-ranked defense and Top 10-ranked offense.

Points scored: 26.07 per game ( 6th in the NFL )
Points allowed: 16.64 per game ( 1st in the NFL )
Combined point differential: +132 or an average of +9.43 per game (1st in the NFL)

I don't care what anyone says....when you have #1 ranked scoring defense and #6 scoring offense through Week 15 - you cannot dismiss that as an anomoly

If you want to look at life after Gronk since the SEA game the O has averaged 25ppg and the D allowed 14ppg.

In 2013, including playoff games they averaged 25ppg w/o Gronk. In 2012 they averaged 30ppg w/o him.

In both seasons the D was not as good as it is now.

 

[RobertWeathers]

It could be argued come playoff time the Pats might have the best D left in the hunt by the time the final 8 comes around

Denver will likely be out
Seahawks without Thomas is not as threatening
KC missing Derrick Johnson is a big loss.
Giants are just good all around so we will see... Probably the only D I take over ours right now but with their O i see them potentially 1 and done.

Giants offense is brutal. I was afraid of them before but not anymore. In previous years they were a 25-26 ppg offense.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Well, I guess finding out "How good the Patriots really are" is "Why they play the games" in January.

 

[patfanken]

Well I had no problem with what Kelly wrote. Everything he put forth was the truth. It HAS been an easier schedule this season, no doubt. We did get lucky when we didn't see Rothlessberger. And the defense slow to develop after the Collins trade and still seems to give up a lot of yard even when its playing well. Plus when the Pats played a good QB like Wilson (over 30 pts) and Flacco (288 passing yds) they had good statistical games. Can't argue that those things happened.

However if I had Kelly in front of me, I'd make a lot of the same comments I've seen so far and attempt to educate him. But Kelly is a product of a football age where individual performace is the most important aspect of the game. The more great individual performers you have the better team you are....in the eyes of the mediots. Well now that Gronk is gone for the year, the Pats only have Brady and a LOT of guys that are good, but not elite, so in a league where so called "superstars" are king, you have question a team that has only one star on it.

BTW- even the the Pats have had an easy schedule, the fact remains that 3 of their last 4 games will come against teams that had winning records. I bet a vast majority of NFL teams can't say that.

 

[AtomicDawg]

The byline is "what will happen when they play an ELITE QB???"

There are only a handful of "Elite" QBs IMO:

1. Big Ben (we own Pittsburgh at Gillette)
2. Aaron Rodgers (won't play until SB)
3. Russell Wilson (already faced, won't play until SB)
4. Derek Carr (only unknown quantity this year)
5. Dak Prescott/Eli Manning (meh I'm iffy on putting them here as it is....won't see until SB)

There is no one in the AFC that NE should worry about. In the SB, all bets are off.

 

[Brandon_Cox]

The byline is "what will happen when they play an ELITE QB???"

There are only a handful of "Elite" QBs IMO:

1. Big Ben (we own Pittsburgh at Gillette)
2. Aaron Rodgers (won't play until SB)
3. Russell Wilson (already faced, won't play until SB)
4. Derek Carr (only unknown quantity this year)
5. Dak Prescott/Eli Manning (meh I'm iffy on putting them here as it is....won't see until SB)

There is no one in the AFC that NE should worry about. In the SB, all bets are off.

For this year at least, I'd definitely add Matt Ryan to your list.

 

[sb1]

The stats might not show a huge gap in run defense from last year but the eye test does. Loving how well we are stopping the run this year and especially lately.

 

[Nikolai]

So just ignore the ravens game, right? Because all I heard the week leading up is how that defense was Brady's kryptonite and Flacco always plays great against the Pats.

Flacco got gifted two very short fields because of ST f**k ups, other than that he did nothing in that game and it's not like Ravens don't have weapons on offense. And save me the "no run game" skews it ********, if you are SB winning QB you should be able to win without a running game.

Before the Ravens and Broncos games, we were told it would be a true test of who the Pats are. Then they handle both with aplomb and the argument is....well, those teams must suck

Wasn't that the argument against Denver last year...that they had the perfect schedule and would falter in the playoffs.

Yeah...

 

[50-yard-line]

"cupcake schedule..."

Dolphins, Ravens, Steelers, Broncos, Texans - five of the 9 teams who might make the playoffs in the AFC this year (Oakland, KC, Tennessee, Indy, other four).

Buffalo twice, Cincinnati?

So who had the tough schedules? AFC West with those three good teams played the AFC South and the NFC South (and played them mostly early in the year, before the Bucs got decent)?

Where are all these good teams? Who's playing these superteams to show how great they are?

I don't think there's a team in football who could have gone into Denver and done to them what the Pats did - 82 plays to 52? That game was a spanking. So was Baltimore, where the score could have been mid-30's to 3 or 10 except for a Brady brain-fart and two ST flukes.

Bob's got it right up-thread. A-, maybe bordering on A because they're such a complete team.

This team is as good or better than any team they'll line up against in the playoffs. Better than any but MAYBE the Cowboys, Seahawks.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

I remember reading an old F.O. article and they said something that always stuck with me.

The Patriots have always had 3 types of teams.

1)All time Great.

2)Great.

3)Really good.

I think this team has everything you need and then some to win THIS year.

We're more balanced, well coached and consistent than anyone out there.

 

[ausbacker]

Well, we do know how good the Patriots are. Right now, they're 12-2 good.

 

[Richard Camembert]

A- Solidly Superbowl caliber team but not exceptional. Examples: 2003 Patriots

I would give the Pats this year an A- grade.

That team won 21 straight, I think that was at the all time great level...if this team can do that, they are a wagon and then some!

 

[Danger Zone]

Well what are we grading them against? The league? History?

Here is how good i think they are. First how i grade

A+ All time great team. Examples: 1985 Bears/1989 49ers
A Clearly a "wagon" very strong with almost no question marks. Examples: 1997 Broncos/2013 Seahawks
A- Solidly Superbowl caliber team but not exceptional. Examples: 2003 Patriots/2010 Packers
B+ Only super bowl caliber in particularly weak years. Examples: 2006 Indy/2009 Saints
B Just a good contender that MIGHT upset in a weak year. (various teams this year fit that so no need to list examples).

I would give the Pats this year an A- grade. Maybe the only team I would give it too right now to be honest.

A fair evaluation I'd say.

 

[Gronk]

'You are what your record says you are' has always been the only Parcells quote I genuinely believed. It doesn't guarantee anything, but you play the schedule as best you can and it washes out how it does.

Nobody seems to believe Bill or Tom when they go up on their stage every week and say things like "it's hard to win in this league" or "every team can win any game in this league". They assume they're being coy, or arrogant, or just 'saying the right thing' to not ruffle feathers. In reality, they mean it, they approach each week that way, and that unmatched and almost superhuman refusal to take any of it for granted is a very big reason they have been more successful than anyone ever at winning games in the NFL.

Whether they win the 3 playoff games and Super Bowl this year remains to be seen. But when they do or don't do it, either way it won't be because they didn't play up to expectations against some ****ty QB in week 8. The extreme level to which media (at-large) would require the Pats to play to in order to justify their record or status as SB favorites would never be levied on any other team. It comes with the territory, paid the cost to be the boss and all that, but it's still ridiculous to write an article to try to rationalize being 12-2. If soft/lucky scheduling made 12-14 win seasons for teams, it would happen more frequently.

 

[ChessToCheckers]

I do think there was a case for this a couple weeks ago. But if now, if you've watched the Patriots last two games on defense, you'll understand that they are passing the smell test.

Wait a minute! There's a "smell test"? AND an "eye test"!

How about the 12-2 test!

Seriously, we all know that Football is a "harsh mistress". Winning it all is ridiculously difficult, requiring talent, coaching, good health, and good fortune to name a few things.

For me, I'd take this year's Pats team over any other team in the league heading into January.

Go Pats!