WhiZa
Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,041
- Reaction score
- 0
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I know this is all computer generated stuff,but when you predict the Celtics,Steelers,Red Wings as champs and you predict the Giants in 2007 and the Lakers in 2009 (looks like it will be) - Then you have my respect of being pretty damn good at predicting .... just my 2 cents.
If the Pats do go 11-5 it still could make them the #2 seed or #3 in a very competitive AFC this year.
I will go out on a limb and say they will predict San Diego with the most wins in the conference (which I would agree with if the Chargers stay healthy) but with less of an absolute score
As usual the Jets are overhyped and Miami is underhyped. Is there any reason to believe Miami won't be better then last year? The Jets are going to have growing pains, I don't care how good they look on paper or in the media.
Did they predict that? Where is the link? And WHEN did they do so?
I cannot understand how 11-5 could be a reasonable prediction for a team that just went 11-5 with Matt Cassel and now has Tom Brady.
Are people really saying Brady won't make the team any better?
I cannot understand how 11-5 could be a reasonable prediction for a team that just went 11-5 with Matt Cassel and now has Tom Brady.
Are people really saying Brady won't make the team any better?
This computer generated system presented by Fox Sports has been incredible for the past few years predicting all 3 major sports champions last year and has amazing accuracy rate thus far in its history.
They have ties in the NFL?
Different schedule,Different players,Different game plans,Different situations
Comparing one season to the next is simply stupid - too many variables happen during a season
Tom Brady makes the QB situation better - What the f#ck does that have to do with the other 52 players? - Brady does not play defense and last time I looked we have garbage as pass rushers which will play a role in a loss or two this season.
Then again do I expect homers to think this team will ever lose more than 1 or 2 games a season ever again in our lifetime? - How dumb of me
I wish we could someday have a little objectivity here,not so much negativeness but more objectivity - This is very likely going to be a dogfight of a division,this is NOT 2007 nor will it likely come close to it - This division is more likely to be decided by one game,maybe two IMO
11-5 or 12-4 is the BEST you can hope for in June with this schedule and an unproven defense
Self proclaimed by fox but I have seen this on other sites as well in claiming they have
WhatIfSports simulation reveals Super Bowl winner - FOX Sports on MSN
Clearly the 11-5 is based upon a predicted worse than 2008 performance by the 2009 re-vamped, yet 'aged' defense. If that is so, it's not gonna be fun to watch the Pats D give up 3rd and longs consistently. Color me sceptical of the D being worse and optimisticly predicting a better 2009 defense, especially later in the season as folks get used to each other.
Our 'vulnerability' should be most apparent early in the season as Brady re-adapts to the game at full speed and the re-vamped D is just learning.
I dont consider the D 'revamped'. I think we have the same DL, a healthier group of LBs (a good chunk of our season was starting retired, street FAs last year) a safety group that added a 2nd round choice (Harrison was gone befire the end of last year) and a corner unit that has a draft picks, 2 2nd year players, and 2 new corners who IMO are obvious upgrades to the 2 that are gone.
On offense, we added upgrades at the #3 and #4 WR spots, TE, and depth at RB.
I think looking at the changes, you would have to not look objectively to think there is more than modest decline, and really overall there seems to be improvement in the roster.
I know there are a lot of fans who are afraid of expecting anything, but its just ludicrous IMO to expect this team will do no better than 2008 which was IMO the biggest disaster that could ever happen to the BB-led Patriots.
Its not like we were an 11-5 team that is in decline.
We were a 14-2 to 16-0 team that lost more games because Brady wasn't there, and we have either stayed the same, or gained or regress a small amount in roster changes depeding on your judgment of the players and optimism or pessimism.
I guess the question to the naysayers is what do you think the 11-5 record last year would have been if Brady didn't get injured.
I dont consider the D 'revamped'. I think we have the same DL, a healthier group of LBs (a good chunk of our season was starting retired, street FAs last year) a safety group that added a 2nd round choice (Harrison was gone befire the end of last year) and a corner unit that has a draft picks, 2 2nd year players, and 2 new corners who IMO are obvious upgrades to the 2 that are gone.
On offense, we added upgrades at the #3 and #4 WR spots, TE, and depth at RB.
I think looking at the changes, you would have to not look objectively to think there is more than modest decline, and really overall there seems to be improvement in the roster.
I know there are a lot of fans who are afraid of expecting anything, but its just ludicrous IMO to expect this team will do no better than 2008 which was IMO the biggest disaster that could ever happen to the BB-led Patriots.
Its not like we were an 11-5 team that is in decline.
We were a 14-2 to 16-0 team that lost more games because Brady wasn't there, and we have either stayed the same, or gained or regress a small amount in roster changes depeding on your judgment of the players and optimism or pessimism.
I guess the question to the naysayers is what do you think the 11-5 record last year would have been if Brady didn't get injured.
WhatIfSports.com: Football Boxscore
Apparently, Chad Jackson would score twice in last years Super Bowl . . .