Wo! Slow down there Mr. King - Patriots #1 in latest Power Ranking?!

[Deus Irae]

This is like Alamo's guess the score contest: As it stands today with McGahee done and concussions all over the place, I'd take Denver over the 49ers, Saints, Bears, Eli and the Giants, Baltimore, Charlie Batch, Pittsburgh and those hideous uniforms, Tampa Bay and Pete Carroll's Seahawks away from home.

In other words the only teams I like against the Broncos are the Patriots, Texans, Packers and Falcons. Interesting - each has a QB who can keep his team in a 30 point game. The Giants could easily return to favor if Eli starts playing like he has a clue - schizo.

We just see the Denver team much differently. On my whole list, I'd probably favor Denver against Tampa Bay, Seattle and New Orleans, but probably none of the other teams. There's no way in hell I'd be taking Denver over the 49ers or Giants, and I'd pick the Bears and Ravens on a neutral field, although I'd be pointing out that both Cutler and Flacco would have a real shot of absolutely crapping their pants and blowing those games, and I'd take Pittsburgh on a neutral field as long as Roethlisberger is back.

Of course, these power rankings are fluid, and mine could change by next week.

 

[goheels22002]

The trend can be broken this year because of two reasons: the Pats have an outside receiving threat and a running game. In previous years, the Pats have had dominant offenses with obvious weaknesses. The last few years, the Pats lacked an outside or deep threat and had a mediocre running game. You flood the center of the field and you have a shot of shutting down the Pats. Prior to that they over-relied on Moss and Welker and Moss slumped in the playoffs.

This year, the Pats lead the league in rushing TDs, third in rushing attempts, and 5th in rushing yards. The Pats can keep pressure off of Brady with the running game and play action this year making the Giants' style of defense less effective against him.

Also, Lloyd and Edelman are providing outside threats which is spreading out defenses and not allowing them to flood the route lanes for Gronk and Welker (and eventually Hernandez).

It could all fall apart in the playoffs, but this year's offense is different than recent Pats' offense. There is no clear weakness you can point to unlike the last few years.

I agree with this line of thinking. The running attack and Lloyd make things quite different than last year. Lloyd is not a dominant player, but he is a steady five receptions/game receiver that you have to dedicate a CB to at all times.

The running game concerns me if Mankins and Connolly are out for an extended period. The running game vanished against the Colts. If the starting OL is in there, I like this team against anybody on any given day.

 

[wistahpatsfan]

The trend can be broken this year because of two reasons: the Pats have an outside receiving threat and a running game. In previous years, the Pats have had dominant offenses with obvious weaknesses. The last few years, the Pats lacked an outside or deep threat and had a mediocre running game. You flood the center of the field and you have a shot of shutting down the Pats. Prior to that they over-relied on Moss and Welker and Moss slumped in the playoffs.

This year, the Pats lead the league in rushing TDs, third in rushing attempts, and 5th in rushing yards. The Pats can keep pressure off of Brady with the running game and play action this year making the Giants' style of defense less effective against him.

Also, Lloyd and Edelman are providing outside threats which is spreading out defenses and not allowing them to flood the route lanes for Gronk and Welker (and eventually Hernandez).

It could all fall apart in the playoffs, but this year's offense is different than recent Pats' offense. There is no clear weakness you can point to unlike the last few years.

 

[goheels22002]

From your list, there's no way in hell I'd be taking Denver over the 49ers, Giants, Bears or Ravens on a neutral field, although I'd be pointing out that both Cutler and Flacco would have a real shot of absolutely crapping their pants and blowing those games, and I'd take Pittsburgh on a neutral field as long as Roethlisberger is back. We just see the Denver team much differently.

I'm just going with what we have to work with - Alex Smith replaced by Colin Kaepernick in SF, Cutler replaced by Jason Campbell in Chicago, Charlie Batch in Pittsburgh (?!?), the Giants are just awful right now on both sides of the ball, Baltimore can't score points and their defense is a mediocrity. Stopping Pittsburgh without Roethlisberger was no big accomplishment. Charlie Batch? How old is he? Wasn't Charlie Batch like the backup for Norm Snead?

I am not wild about Denver at all, I just see them with fewer glaring flaws than the teams you listed. Denver has an above average defense (11th in points allowed) and can sustain drives on offense. Losing McGahee may be a bigger blow than we might think.

The Giants is the real mystery. The storm devastated the living situations of a lot of those guys, so maybe the bye will help them restore focus on football, but that is a good team that is underperforming by a lot. At their most effective, I like the Giants over the Broncos. Just not right now.

 

[supafly]

I'm just going with what we have to work with - Alex Smith replaced by Colin Kaepernick in SF, Cutler replaced by Jason Campbell in Chicago, Charlie Batch in Pittsburgh (?!?), the Giants are just awful right now on both sides of the ball, Baltimore can't score points and their defense is a mediocrity. Stopping Pittsburgh without Roethlisberger was no big accomplishment. Charlie Batch? How old is he? Wasn't Charlie Batch like the backup for Norm Snead?

I am not wild about Denver at all, I just see them with fewer glaring flaws than the teams you listed. Denver has an above average defense (11th in points allowed) and can sustain drives on offense. Losing McGahee may be a bigger blow than we might think.

The Giants is the real mystery. The storm devastated the living situations of a lot of those guys, so maybe the bye will help them restore focus on football, but that is a good team that is underperforming by a lot. At their most effective, I like the Giants over the Broncos. Just not right now.

Charlie Batch is much, much more capable than Byron Leftwich ever was, and is very comfortable running their offense.

For a team that relies so heavily on their smothering defense and run game, Batch is certainly good enough to complete enough passes to get a win for a few weeks in Roethlisberger's absence.

It was really the best thing that Steeler fans could hope for, because Leftwich was more than pathetic and is now 0-8 in his last 8 starting games.

You are not giving Batch the respect that he has earned there. His age is irrelevant. No one is expecting him to carry them for the rest of the season, just a few more games. Leftwich couldn't hit the side of a barn last week or last night.

 

[supafly]

And personally, I do not want to have to face Denver again. I think the odds of beating Manning 2x in this season are not too great. They are a team that I would like to avoid at all costs.

Manning takes those losses very seriously vs Brady/Belichick, and I do not think that anything really favors us that much in a repeat matchup. We got out of there alive and should not want to give them a 2nd chance at a much more meaningful game.

It's like the PIT/NE matchups in the Brady era...the winner of the regular season game has lost everytime during a playoff rematch. The odds of either team going 2-0 against that kind of even matchup drop a lot in my opinion.

 

[ivanvamp]

look, I'm sorry that your data was misleading because of its incompleteness, but it was. There's no need to get all sandy in your privates. I never claimed that the Patriots offense was a juggernaut in the playoffs. I just noted some obvious reasons as to why those offenses were limited, regardless of the score.

Goodness, Deus, sometimes you can be really obtuse. That's putting it kindly. My data wasn't "misleading". Every team has injuries. Every team has "reasons" why they don't play up to their normal standards. You didn't seem to even consider that other teams may have been missing key players in those games too. It is what it is. The Pats had to play the games with what they had, and the fact is, compared to their regular season offensive output, their playoff output the past 4 playoff seasons has been FAR worse. It's not debatable. I don't even understand why you're taking a contrarian view of something so patently obvious.

For you to then say that we shouldn't look at other teams' success because they had one or two huge scoring games, but ignore the Pats' own huge scoring games is disingenuous.

You're on the losing side of this argument if you are somehow trying to make the case that the Pats' playoff offense from 2007-2011 has not been markedly worse than it was during those same years during the regular season. You're just plain wrong.

And since you always insist on having the last word, feel free to take it here.

 

[groundgame]

King is a consensus writer (as the winds blow).

For example: (1)When Peyton Manning was at the apex of his career and undisputed NFL best QB: Who is Manning's biggest friend in the media? PK; (2) The 2001-2006 Patriot Way winning in NFL: What national media scribe is a leading apostle championing (brown-nose) everything that is New England Patriot? PK; (3) 2007 New England Patriots Spygate Scandal: What national media scribe was especially noteworthy of their severe criticism of the NEP when everyone else also bailed on the Patriots? PK.

 

[Ring 6]

I'd rather be more than one game removed from that torrid Bills performance before I start thinking about the Pats being the best in the NFL. Last nights much improved defensive performance gives me some optimism, but it was just one game against a rookie QB.

None of the other contenders are more than one game removed from a thoroughly worse performance.

 

[Deus Irae]

Goodness, Deus, sometimes you can be really obtuse. That's putting it kindly. My data wasn't "misleading". Every team has injuries. Every team has "reasons" why they don't play up to their normal standards. You didn't seem to even consider that other teams may have been missing key players in those games too. It is what it is. The Pats had to play the games with what they had, and the fact is, compared to their regular season offensive output, their playoff output the past 4 playoff seasons has been FAR worse. It's not debatable. I don't even understand why you're taking a contrarian view of something so patently obvious.

For you to then say that we shouldn't look at other teams' success because they had one or two huge scoring games, but ignore the Pats' own huge scoring games is disingenuous.

You're on the losing side of this argument if you are somehow trying to make the case that the Pats' playoff offense from 2007-2011 has not been markedly worse than it was during those same years during the regular season. You're just plain wrong.

And since you always insist on having the last word, feel free to take it here.

Your data was misleading, because of the claim that preceeded it:

I was responding to the idea that the only ing that can stop (or slow) the Pats' offense is the Pats themselves. Quite clearly, good defenses have found a way to stop/slow the Pats' offense in the playoffs.

It's pretty simple: If the offense isn't a healthy offense, particularly at QB, that's not the Pats offense that people are talking about. You know that, but you chose to toss in incomplete data in order to refute something that wasn't in question. Nobody doubts that an injured Patriots team can be slowed/stopped. We've seen proof of that many times in recent years.

You've since merged that with a second issue, which is the scoring of other teams in the playoffs, and you chose to ignore the obvious problem that I pointed out about your data there. As I said, I'm sorry that your data was misleading, but it was. You getting all sandy over it doesn't change that simple truth.

Will you next be arguing that beating the 90's Bulls without Michael Jordan was the same as beating the 90's Bulls with Jordan?

 

[Fixit]

I'm WAY proud thank you! Also reported.

So you send a guy's personal number to a website that spreads it around so said guy gets a ton of unwanted calls/texts and has to change his number, yet you report me for calling it a douche move. Wow.

 

[ALP]

there is no offense in the NFL that can keep up with us

there is no defense in the NFL that can stop us

our defense is improving drastically, while most other teams are showing weaknesses


injuries not withstanding, yes, the Pats are #1

 

[wistahpatsfan]

And personally, I do not want to have to face Denver again. I think the odds of beating Manning 2x in this season are not too great. They are a team that I would like to avoid at all costs.

Manning takes those losses very seriously vs Brady/Belichick, and I do not think that anything really favors us that much in a repeat matchup. We got out of there alive and should not want to give them a 2nd chance at a much more meaningful game.

It's like the PIT/NE matchups in the Brady era...the winner of the regular season game has lost everytime during a playoff rematch. The odds of either team going 2-0 against that kind of even matchup drop a lot in my opinion.

Actually, those odds are reversed. Every time Brady and Manning have played in the playoffs, the winner of the regular season matchup has also won.

Winning Teams Pats vs Colts when playing regular and post season:
2003: Pats regular season; Pats post season.
2004: Pats regular season; Pats post season.
2006: Colts regular season; Colts post season. .

 

[supafly]

Actually, those odds are reversed. Every time Brady and Manning have played in the playoffs, the winner of the regular season matchup has also won.

Winning Teams Pats vs Colts when playing regular and post season:
2003: Pats regular season; Pats post season.
2004: Pats regular season; Pats post season.
2006: Colts regular season; Colts post season. .

Well that certainly has worked out well for them then in the past, thank you for pointing that out.

As I stated in the PIT/NE matchups, it's been the opposite, but apparently this particular matchup trends the other way.

I still feel that the chances of this particular team beating Manning twice in two games this year goes down, but that's just my opinion.

I would much rather face many other teams. The problem is that you just don't get to choose, so we'll have to face whatever is thrown at the team in the playoffs.

Personally though, I am rooting for someone to knock DEN out before we'd play them again, but everyone will have their own opinion of who they don't want to play.

 

[wistahpatsfan]

Well that certainly has worked out well for them then in the past, thank you for pointing that out.

As I stated in the PIT/NE matchups, it's been the opposite, but apparently this particular matchup trends the other way.

I still feel that the chances of this particular team beating Manning twice in two games this year goes down, but that's just my opinion.

I would much rather face many other teams. The problem is that you just don't get to choose, so we'll have to face whatever is thrown at the team in the playoffs.

Personally though, I am rooting for someone to knock DEN out before we'd play them again, but everyone will have their own opinion of who they don't want to play.

I think we'd beat them in a shootout...like 68-38.:rocker:

 

[supafly]

Actually, those odds are reversed. Every time Brady and Manning have played in the playoffs, the winner of the regular season matchup has also won.

Winning Teams Pats vs Colts when playing regular and post season:
2003: Pats regular season; Pats post season.
2004: Pats regular season; Pats post season.
2006: Colts regular season; Colts post season. .

You may actually even be able to say that every single year (in the current era of Brady/Belichick) that the Patriots have gone to the SB they have beaten the Indy Colts in the regular season, so that helps too. Of course Manning plays for Denver now, but they still beat Indy yesterday nonetheless. Will the trend continue in 2012?

2001
2003
2004
2007
2011

 

[supafly]

I think we'd beat them in a shootout...like 68-38.:rocker:

Obviously realizing Manning's overall record vs Belichick and NE, I still have some fear...

I suppose that I worry about the pass defense the most, and I wouldn't want to get into that kind of game with them because anything could happen.

 

[wistahpatsfan]

You may actually even be able to say that every single year (in the current era of Brady/Belichick) that the Patriots have gone to the SB they have beaten the Indy Colts in the regular season, so that helps too. Of course Manning plays for Denver now, but they still beat Indy yesterday nonetheless. Will the trend continue in 2012?

2001
2003
2004
2007
2011

Damn! I look at those numbers and can't hardly believe how many times we've gone to the SB!

My first game was @ Harvard Stadium when I was 7- opening day to see them beat the Fish for one of two wins that year. So many aweful teams, some great ones. I remember freezing on the aluminum benches in Sullivan...to see those dates all bunched up is stunning to me. Even though I was here witnessing them, it's still amazing.

 

[wistahpatsfan]

Obviously realizing Manning's overall record vs Belichick and NE, I still have some fear...

I suppose that I worry about the pass defense the most, and I wouldn't want to get into that kind of game with them because anything could happen.

You worry too much, supafly!

 

[supafly]

You worry too much, supafly!

Yes, sir. I would certainly agree with that.

I take my football seriously, those losses are painstaking and I worry more about teams that have the capacity to score big numbers against us vs teams with better defenses.

Something about the "forehead" (or five-head in his case) that does it to me. The funny thing is that he actually has a horrible record vs Belichick and Brady overall.