PromoTheRobot Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 Maybe you should try reversing that. Everyone on this board thinks our first two picks can step in day 1 as starters but want to pretend no one else drafted anyone worthwhile. The Pats got better on defense. Brady and his WRs will be fine even with a makeshift line. Keep dreaming. I'm sure the the players the Pats* drafted are terrific, but it's a rarity that a rookie can step in and make a team better. While I know hopes are high with Gilmore I don't recall anyone voting Cordy Glenn to the pro Bowl just yet. Your argument is the Pats* got instantly better because of two defensive draft picks while tip-toeing around the fact that their offensive line is in shambles. Brady is great and so are Gronk, Hernandez and Welker, but that's 4 players out of 11. How is Brady supposed to make throws when his pocket is collapsing immediately? PTR
paintmyhouse Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 I'm sure the the players the Pats* drafted are terrific, but it's a rarity that a rookie can step in and make a team better. While I know hopes are high with Gilmore I don't recall anyone voting Cordy Glenn to the pro Bowl just yet. Your argument is the Pats* got instantly better because of two defensive draft picks while tip-toeing around the fact that their offensive line is in shambles. Brady is great and so are Gronk, Hernandez and Welker, but that's 4 players out of 11. How is Brady supposed to make throws when his pocket is collapsing immediately? PTR It is crazy how little respect you give to a team who has had so much success. As already pointed out, they have drafted several OLINE the past two seasons, 2 of them will be 8 year starters BTW. I hope they fail, but to not consider the history and fact they do have some OLINE in recent drafts is delusional fandom.
biglukes Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 It is crazy how little respect you give to a team who has had so much success. As already pointed out, they have drafted several OLINE the past two seasons, 2 of them will be 8 year starters BTW. I hope they fail, but to not consider the history and fact they do have some OLINE in recent drafts is delusional fandom. Because there is any way possible for you to know how long those guys will start for, right? That's some crystal ball you've got there.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 (edited) their home games are a benefit to them. How good are the Titans supposed to be? @Titans 18th in defense last season and 19.8ppg - @Bills @Ravens Texans Broncos @Jets @Dolphins I could see 5 to 7 losses. Edited August 7, 2012 by BillsFan-4-Ever
Wayne Cubed Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 The Pats got better on defense. That's a funny statement. They finished 31st overall in defense last year. Unless they did absolutely nothing, of course they will most likely get better. But the way you state it, makes it seem you believe they are top a top 10 defense now because of 2/3 rookies. How about we let these rookies play a down first?
Alphadawg7 Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 Pardon me... I can't tell if you are serious or not. A fluke? Did you forget that the Putrids STILL have a terrible defense? Did you forget that Fitz LOST us the game by throwing a game ending lame duck 10 yards short to the endzone for an INT but got bailed out from a penalty that did not affect the outcome of the play? Without that penalty, that terrible throw is an INT and pretty much certainly lose that game. But he was bailed out and we wound up advancing the ball and getting the go ahead TD. So, as much as people want to hang their hat on that game, we actually would have LOST that game even after picking off Brady 4 times if it were not for a lucky break on a penalty (that had no affect on the INT) over turning his mistake and giving the Bills O a second chance which they did capitalize on. So, I can see why people see that game as more of a fluke. When an opposing QB turns the ball over with 4 INT's, it should not be a close game. Yet we literally barely held on and actually saw Fitz give the game away but was bailed out by a penalty. FWIW, we also barely beat Philly with 4 INT's too. Funny, once the obscene amount of turnovers our D was getting in the first part of the year stopped, so did our winning. When you need a very high defensive turnover rate to win a game, you are going to struggle to win in the NFL...which we did. Again, love the offseason, and I think we are going to be a double digit win team, maybe even 12 wins this year and can make some real noise (assuming the D is as good as we believe now and Fitz can figure for the first time in his career how to create consistency). But, based on NE's dominance for more than a decade, there is no reason at this point to think anyone but them should be the favorites to win our division. We have not EARNED the right to be favorites yet. We are a paper team until proven otherwise (and I do think we WILL prove it this year, but that is only done ON THE FIELD).
eball Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 Wow, over eight pages in this thread? I'm still wondering why anyone wouldn't pick the Pats* to win the division. They just went to the friggin' Super Bowl, and nobody else in the division even made the playoffs. I'm the most optimistic SOB around here and even I think it would be ridiculous to assume differently, RIGHT NOW. Talk to me in a couple of months.
NoSaint Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 (edited) their home games are a benefit to them. How good are the Titans supposed to be? @Titans 18th in defense last season and 19.8ppg - @Bills @Ravens Texans Broncos @Jets @Dolphins I could see 5 to 7 losses. the problem is, often, when someone says "I could see 5 to 7 losses" they usually mean that they only see that many games that are tough on the schedule, and odds are not all of them will be lost. on paper i cant put them at less then even on pretty much any of their games. if they are an underdog, its very close in any single game. that means unless you consider them to be huge under dogs in some games that you must have them to be almost 50-50 on all their games, 7 losses would be a pretty bold prediction by that standard. Edited August 7, 2012 by NoSaint
Jerry Jabber Posted August 7, 2012 Author Posted August 7, 2012 Alpha, IMO, you can't say that Brady's 4 INT's were a fluke. By saying that, you mean that the defense had no involvement in causing those INT's & those were just errant throws on Brady's part. I don't know about the first 3 INT's (as I don't have access to the highlights from that game), but the 4th INT was caused by Dareus as he perfectly timed his jump when Brady threw the ball, which nailed Dareus & caught I believe by Florence who went in for the TD. I am interested in finding out how many of the first INT's were deflections from the Bills D or was Brady under pressure.
ChasBB Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 1996 AFC East Champions: New England Patriots 1997 AFC East Champions: New England Patriots 2001 AFC East Champions: New England Patriots 2003 AFC East Champions: New England Patriots 2004 AFC East Champions: New England Patriots 2005 AFC East Champions: New England Patriots 2006 AFC East Champions: New England Patriots 2007 AFC East Champions: New England Patriots 2009 AFC East Champions: New England Patriots 2010 AFC East Champions: New England Patriots 2011 AFC East Champions: New England Patriots Ya think maybe, just maybe, this is why? Ya think?!!
K-9 Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 Alpha, IMO, you can't say that Brady's 4 INT's were a fluke. By saying that, you mean that the defense had no involvement in causing those INT's & those were just errant throws on Brady's part. I don't know about the first 3 INT's (as I don't have access to the highlights from that game), but the 4th INT was caused by Dareus as he perfectly timed his jump when Brady threw the ball, which nailed Dareus & caught I believe by Florence who went in for the TD. I am interested in finding out how many of the first INT's were deflections from the Bills D or was Brady under pressure. The first INT bounced off of Woodhead's hands and right to our guy. Wilson's pick was a nice play but Brady had all the time in the world. The pick by McKelvin was also a good play on a slightly underthrown ball but Brady had time in the pocket as well. GO BILLS!!!
Alphadawg7 Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 Alpha, IMO, you can't say that Brady's 4 INT's were a fluke. By saying that, you mean that the defense had no involvement in causing those INT's & those were just errant throws on Brady's part. I don't know about the first 3 INT's (as I don't have access to the highlights from that game), but the 4th INT was caused by Dareus as he perfectly timed his jump when Brady threw the ball, which nailed Dareus & caught I believe by Florence who went in for the TD. I am interested in finding out how many of the first INT's were deflections from the Bills D or was Brady under pressure. I didnt say any of Brady's INT's were a fluke. I said that Fitz threw an INT that essentially would have sealed a loss for us late in the game that was a horrible pass and 10 yards under thrown bomb to the endzone that was picked off. It was overturned due to a penalty that had no impact on the INT itself. Without the penalty we lose DESPITE picking off Brady 4 times. So I said I can see why some see it as a fluke as it took a miracle penalty to prevent the loss despite picking Brady off 4 times. Again, we barely beat a team (and should have lost that game without the penalty) who we picked off 4 times. How many times are we going to pick Brady off 4 times? We needed all 4 of those plus a bail out of Fitz's ugly INT late to beat them. Those are not things I bank on happening every game...in other words, we did not decisively beat them. So that win does not all of a sudden signal we are the new favorites to win the division just because we added 2 guys in FA and had a good draft on paper (who have to play a single snap in the NFL) and managed to squeak out a win once last year against them. I think we CAN beat them...this isnt about whats possible, its about what is favored to happen and they are clearly favorites to win the crown until we PROVE IT ON THE FIELD (not yelling, just emphasizing).
eme123 Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 The Pats are media darlings for sure. Tom Brady and a large Boston market will do that.
Jerry Jabber Posted August 7, 2012 Author Posted August 7, 2012 I have to chalk up the bad pass interference call under should of, could of, would of. The Pats would have won if it wasn't for that bad call, The Bills could have beat the Pats if McKelvin took a knee, The Bills should have beat the Pats if Jauron went for a FG instead of running the ball on 4th & 1 and got stuffed. IMO, the Bills got the biggest screw job in 1998 when Flutie overheard the Ref say "just give it to them", even though the Pats player was short of the first down marker & landed out of bounds, then the Bills get a bogus Pass Interference penalty on a Hail Mary pass (which never gets called on a Hail Mary). But, as far as the offseason acquisitions go, plus promoting Wanny to DC, we all have to wait & see how it turns out on the field.
SoFFacet Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 They are the super bowl runners up, they win the division nearly every year, they got a lot better this the offseason. I don't know if any analysts are guaranteeing that NE will win. But you'd be be pretty brave not to pick them to win.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 http://www.cbssports...two-bills-drive "Now let's get something straight: I'm not saying the Bills are going to the top of the AFC East, because they're not. New England is." The media in general tends to assume that last year's successful teams will become this year's successful teams, then chooses a couple teams that were "on the bubble" to move up. Last year it was the Rams (Ha!) and the 'Boys to move up with the Colts picked as perennial contenders on the strength of Manning (Ha! Ha!)
paintmyhouse Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 I have to chalk up the bad pass interference call under should of, could of, would of. The Pats would have won if it wasn't for that bad call, The Bills could have beat the Pats if McKelvin took a knee, The Bills should have beat the Pats if Jauron went for a FG instead of running the ball on 4th & 1 and got stuffed. IMO, the Bills got the biggest screw job in 1998 when Flutie overheard the Ref say "just give it to them", even though the Pats player was short of the first down marker & landed out of bounds, then the Bills get a bogus Pass Interference penalty on a Hail Mary pass (which never gets called on a Hail Mary). But, as far as the offseason acquisitions go, plus promoting Wanny to DC, we all have to wait & see how it turns out on the field. You really don't know sports then. It is widely considered that if a good team wins a tight game it is because they just find a way to win during a lackluster effort. If a bad team just finds a way to win, it is an upset, or a fluke, especially considering the most successful QB in the NFL since he became starter threw 4 INTs (for the just 5th time ever and his team lost all those games) and the true bad pass interference call. Bad teams usually don't get those. This was a fluke.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 Did you forget that Fitz LOST us the game by throwing a game ending lame duck 10 yards short to the endzone for an INT but got bailed out from a penalty that did not affect the outcome of the play? Without that penalty, that terrible throw is an INT and pretty much certainly lose that game. But he was bailed out and we wound up advancing the ball and getting the go ahead TD. So, as much as people want to hang their hat on that game, we actually would have LOST that game even after picking off Brady 4 times if it were not for a lucky break on a penalty (that had no affect on the INT) over turning his mistake and giving the Bills O a second chance which they did capitalize on. So, I can see why people see that game as more of a fluke. When an opposing QB turns the ball over with 4 INT's, it should not be a close game. Yet we literally barely held on and actually saw Fitz give the game away but was bailed out by a penalty. FWIW, we also barely beat Philly with 4 INT's too. Funny, once the obscene amount of turnovers our D was getting in the first part of the year stopped, so did our winning. When you need a very high defensive turnover rate to win a game, you are going to struggle to win in the NFL...which we did. Again, love the offseason, and I think we are going to be a double digit win team, maybe even 12 wins this year and can make some real noise (assuming the D is as good as we believe now and Fitz can figure for the first time in his career how to create consistency). But, based on NE's dominance for more than a decade, there is no reason at this point to think anyone but them should be the favorites to win our division. We have not EARNED the right to be favorites yet. We are a paper team until proven otherwise (and I do think we WILL prove it this year, but that is only done ON THE FIELD). I'm not one of the FITZ fanatics. but I will say this - the Bills had a crappy defense and half of the O was on IR. all of the masked man (Robin) Avatars is throwing me off. I don't k now who the hell I'm talking to!!!! the problem is, often, when someone says "I could see 5 to 7 losses" they usually mean that they only see that many games that are tough on the schedule, and odds are not all of them will be lost. OK , then let me say it this way. I WANT them to lose 7 games!!! If I could predict the easy games I'd be loaded.
KD in CA Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 The Pats are media darlings for sure. Tom Brady and a large Boston market will do that. Being the league's best team over the past decade helps too.
Recommended Posts