Jerry Jabber Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Beat only one team with a winning record when they played? Or based on their opponents final record? Seems like the former since that makes a weak argument seem stronger and make it seem like thye beta a bunch of 2-14 teams. The three NFC East teams sans the Redskins were 9-7, 8-8, 8-8. Oakland and Denevr were 8-8. Jets were 8-8. They beats the teams they should beat and obviously are better than an 8-8 team if they beat them all. Still sticking with what I said in a forum a couple months ago... Pats represent the AFC in the Super Bowl. Many here proclaimed them at best the 4th best in the conference. Our hatred (I'm with everyone) of the Pats can be blinding sometimes as people refuse to see them still as a powerhouse. We hate them so much we talk ourselves into the belief they're not that good as opposed to watching them and seeing how good they really still are. Regardless of who they played, they dismantled their opponents over the last games by an average score of 36-20. So any questions about them beating bad opponents is erased by how handily they did it (on average, there were a few close ones in there as happens week to week in the NFL). I thought they'd be challenged in the Supoer Bowl by Green Bay but if the Giants get there, that is the only way the Pats lose. Anyone who thinks Brady will lose to Flacco or Smith is a joker. Brady is going to lose to Lewis, Reed, Ngata and the rest of the Ravens D.
BuffaloWest Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Can we use that rationale for the Bills? If so, then the Bills lost 5 games by 7 points or less: BUF 20/CIN 23 BUF 24/NYG 27 BUF 24/NYJ 28 BUF 17/TEN 23 BUF 23/MIA 30 The Bills lost 5 games by 23 points. I will give credit where credit is due, the Pats are a very good team with a great offense. But they have a bad defense and had a weak schedule this year. Damnit we really should have won those 5 games...If things had just been a little bit different we would have. I dont know what positives you take away from this season because we should have been good enough to get in the playoffs this year. Ugh!
Heels20X6 Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Beat only one team with a winning record when they played? Or based on their opponents final record? Seems like the former since that makes a weak argument seem stronger and make it seem like thye beta a bunch of 2-14 teams. The three NFC East teams sans the Redskins were 9-7, 8-8, 8-8. Oakland and Denevr were 8-8. Jets were 8-8. They beats the teams they should beat and obviously are better than an 8-8 team if they beat them all. Still sticking with what I said in a forum a couple months ago... Pats represent the AFC in the Super Bowl. Many here proclaimed them at best the 4th best in the conference. Our hatred (I'm with everyone) of the Pats can be blinding sometimes as people refuse to see them still as a powerhouse. We hate them so much we talk ourselves into the belief they're not that good as opposed to watching them and seeing how good they really still are. Regardless of who they played, they dismantled their opponents over the last games by an average score of 36-20. So any questions about them beating bad opponents is erased by how handily they did it (on average, there were a few close ones in there as happens week to week in the NFL). I thought they'd be challenged in the Supoer Bowl by Green Bay but if the Giants get there, that is the only way the Pats lose. Anyone who thinks Brady will lose to Flacco or Smith is a joker. Yeah, you're right...the Ravens have never walked into Foxsborough and punched the Pats in the mouth in the playoffs. Oh wait... http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=300110017
Mark Vader Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Beat only one team with a winning record when they played? Or based on their opponents final record? Seems like the former since that makes a weak argument seem stronger and make it seem like thye beta a bunch of 2-14 teams. The three NFC East teams sans the Redskins were 9-7, 8-8, 8-8. Oakland and Denevr were 8-8. Jets were 8-8. They beats the teams they should beat and obviously are better than an 8-8 team if they beat them all. Still sticking with what I said in a forum a couple months ago... Pats represent the AFC in the Super Bowl. Many here proclaimed them at best the 4th best in the conference. Our hatred (I'm with everyone) of the Pats can be blinding sometimes as people refuse to see them still as a powerhouse. We hate them so much we talk ourselves into the belief they're not that good as opposed to watching them and seeing how good they really still are. Regardless of who they played, they dismantled their opponents over the last games by an average score of 36-20. So any questions about them beating bad opponents is erased by how handily they did it (on average, there were a few close ones in there as happens week to week in the NFL). I thought they'd be challenged in the Supoer Bowl by Green Bay but if the Giants get there, that is the only way the Pats lose. Anyone who thinks Brady will lose to Flacco or Smith is a joker. I can not speak for everyone here, but I do still see the Patriots as a strong team. Having said that, I did pick the Ravens to go to the Super Bowl this year, because I think they are the best in the AFC. The Patriots have a strong offense and a poor defense. I think nearly every playoff team in the AFC could have taken the Pats in a game. The Pats struggled against teams that have a good defense, and that's why I think the Ravens will beat them.
Jerry Jabber Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Damnit we really should have won those 5 games...If things had just been a little bit different we would have. I dont know what positives you take away from this season because we should have been good enough to get in the playoffs this year. Ugh! If we won those 5 games, then we would have been 11-5 and in the playoffs. That would have been great.
NoSaint Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Can we use that rationale for the Bills? If so, then the Bills lost 5 games by 7 points or less: BUF 20/CIN 23 BUF 24/NYG 27 BUF 24/NYJ 28 BUF 17/TEN 23 BUF 23/MIA 30 The Bills lost 5 games by 23 points. I will give credit where credit is due, the Pats are a very good team with a great offense. But they have a bad defense and had a weak schedule this year. And our other 5? They had three TOTAL. 1 at home vs a fellow final 4 team 1 road vs a playoff team (steelers, healthy) 1 road in the division - with a 28 point win makeup game to follow. That's ALL their losses in 17 games, not the cherry picking you did.
RyanC883 Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 The hate for the Pats on here is getting a bit to the sick side. Not hate, pointing out an interesting fact. I can not speak for everyone here, but I do still see the Patriots as a strong team. Having said that, I did pick the Ravens to go to the Super Bowl this year, because I think they are the best in the AFC. The Patriots have a strong offense and a poor defense. I think nearly every playoff team in the AFC could have taken the Pats in a game. The Pats struggled against teams that have a good defense, and that's why I think the Ravens will beat them. I think Ray Rice will beat them. I think your right, the Pats have a good offense. They'll score on the Ravens. But Rice will run all over them and keep the ball away from Brady.
Jerry Jabber Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 And our other 5? They had three TOTAL. 1 at home vs a fellow final 4 team 1 road vs a playoff team (steelers, healthy) 1 road in the division - with a 28 point win makeup game to follow. That's ALL their losses in 17 games, not the cherry picking you did. Are you a Patriots fan? Stats don't lie, the Pats haven't beaten anyone with a winning record this year. Yes, they've beaten several .500 teams (including Denver on Saturday, which made them 9-9), and hung in there with teams with "winning records", but I don't see the Pats winning on Sunday. The Bills beat the Pats before half the team went on IR.
Mr. WEO Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Too bad for Brady that Flacco won't be in coverage, eh? Why oh why do people see every game as QB vs. QB??? The Ravens D has a good chance of dismantling Brady. Their offense should be able to handle the Pats sorry defense. No gaurantees - but I actually think the Ravens will dismember them. Remember the AFC North was 4-0 vs. the AFC East this year. Not sure why you don't think the Giants can match up - they have the exact matchup the Pats can't handle - same as the Packers. That front 4 will make your pretty QB look really bad if you don't have a serious run game to keep them honest. He actually said the opposite:"if the Giants get there, that is the only way the Pats lose." He's probably right. Baltimore struggled to put down Yates yesterday. They won because of some simply awful passes/ints and a boneheaded muffed return. On the other hand, Balt's offense is pretty bad. Flacco gets plenty of protection, yet he took sack after sack yesterday--no pocket awareness. That offense has no deep threat--only 44 passes over 20 yards all year. Maybe the Ravens D will pick it up a notch, who knows? The other "great D vs. great O" game in these playoffs turned into a shootout (in which entire quarters, including both teams in the 4th, featured very little defense at all) of which Alex Smith was the unlikely winner. If there's a shootout v. the pats, no indication Flacco can keep up. Edited January 16, 2012 by Mr. WEO
CardinalScotts Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Can only beat who you play. the entire league works out to your a product of your schedule. Easy schedule with an exception = playoff teams, tough schedule = missing the playoffs. Yes even the "good" teams, that is why there are always 6 new playoff teams every year. Buffalo Bills look on paper like an easy schedule next year, with improved play do I expect them in the playoffs ? Yep.
Talley56 Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Anyone who thinks Brady will lose to Flacco or Smith is a joker. I'm not big on Flacco but I really believe he is better than Sanchez and look what happened last year.
Chris in Syracuse Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 The hate for the Pats on here is getting a bit to the sick side. My two favorite teams are the Buffalo Bills and who ever is playing the Patriots. I have an unhealthy dislike for Tom Brady. I don't know why.
MaineMoxie Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 My two favorite teams are the Buffalo Bills and who ever is playing the Patriots. I have an unhealthy dislike for Tom Brady. I don't know why. Maybe because he's an arrogant whiner?
Pneumonic Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Ravens D is going to have to get turnovers in order to have a chance of beating the Pats. And, then only if Flacco doesn't choke away. I keep hearing people referring to the '09 Pats/Ravens game where the Ravens D dominated the Pats O and expecting a similar outcome. What those same people aren't (seemingly) aware of is that Welker, Gronkowski, Hernandez and Branch didn't play for the Pats in that game.
FrankReichComeback Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Good points about Welker and he TE's..... Branch? The guy is a jabroni. Yeah he scored a TD against Denver but Buffalo (a bad team) scored 40 points against Denver too. A former shell of what he once was. Bad argument there.. That's like saying "Baltimore didnt have Lee Evans in '09." Brady would much rather have Jabar Gaffney than old Deion Branch. Ravens D is going to have to get turnovers in order to have a chance of beating the Pats. And, then only if Flacco doesn't choke away. I keep hearing people referring to the '09 Pats/Ravens game where the Ravens D dominated the Pats O and expecting a similar outcome. What those same people aren't (seemingly) aware of is that Welker, Gronkowski, Hernandez and Branch didn't play for the Pats in that game.
Pneumonic Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Good points about Welker and he TE's..... Branch? The guy is a jabroni. Yeah he scored a TD against Denver but Buffalo (a bad team) scored 40 points against Denver too. A former shell of what he once was. Bad argument there.. That's like saying "Baltimore didnt have Lee Evans in '09." Brady would much rather have Jabar Gaffney than old Deion Branch. Branch may not be the player he once was but not only can he still make a defense pay but he and Brady are always on the same page. As for Gaffney ..... even when he was Brady's 2nd receiving option he never could crack 40 catches in a season. In comparison, Branch, as Brady's 4th receiving option behind Welker, Gronk and Hernandez, still caught over 50 balls for more than 700 yds and 5 TD's this season.
dave mcbride Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Actually, the pats didn't defeat any team with a winning record -- the broncos ended up 9-9, not 9-8. However, they beat the eagles relatively late in the season, and by the end of the season the eagles were playing like one of the five best teams in the league. They also beat the jets twice, the chargers, and the cowboys, all of which are basically upper echelon in terms of talent. So this story line is a bit deceiving.
NoSaint Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 My two favorite teams are the Buffalo Bills and who ever is playing the Patriots. I have an unhealthy dislike for Tom Brady. I don't know why. Maybe you find him attractive?
San Jose Bills Fan Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 The NFC is so superior to the AFC this year… but the irony would be a scenario where all the NFC's great teams (and I'm including Green Bay and New Orleans here) beat the crap out of each other and the survivor is upset in the Super Bowl by a fairly unchallenged AFC representative. That would suck but I could actually see it happening.
Chandler#81 Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 A 1326760622[/url]' post='2364802']The NFC is so superior to the AFC this year… but the irony would be a scenario where all the NFC's great teams (and I'm including Green Bay and New Orleans here) beat the crap out of each other and the survivor is upset in the Super Bowl by a fairly unchallenged AFC representative. That would suck but I could actually see it happening. Sad, really, but I agree. Sad, from the point of view of a pre-Super Bowl old timer. One of my favorite aspects of the NFL throughout the years has been that the best team in a comparatively short season almost always wins or represents in the SB. Not any more. MLB, NHL for sure and NBA allow too many unworthy teams into their playoff tournaments and routinely some chump team gets hot and runs the table. Supporters of these leagues claim that's the best part. I just don't agree. I'm sad, but I'll just get drunk and get over it.
Recommended Posts