PDA

View Full Version : New England Patriots - Not one win over a better than .500 team


Hervoyel
01-03-2012, 12:00 AM
Someone told me this today and I'll be damned if it isn't true. They didn't beat a single team this year that finished over .500

Paper tiger? May just be.

TexanSam
01-03-2012, 12:06 AM
That's pretty crazy. Hard to discount them though because they are the Pats but their D has been very suspect all year. It's amazing that they played 13 teams who weren't at least 9-7.

hookinreds
01-03-2012, 12:07 AM
Interesting indeed

Hervoyel
01-03-2012, 12:16 AM
Pete Rozelle is smiling somewhere. He loved him some 8-8's

edo783
01-03-2012, 12:18 AM
if and that is one MAJOR if we get by the Ravens, we can take these guys.

Texecutioner
01-03-2012, 12:27 AM
Yeah, but when you go 26-6 in the last two seasons combined up to this point, it's kind of hard to take that into to much consideration.


The thing that worries me about the Patriots is their consistency in starting out really slow in games especially defensively. The Patriots need to start having much better first quarters and starting out games better.

ThaShark316
01-03-2012, 02:23 AM
Vs. Cincy (if they get by us, of course), I think they'd be OK down early. Same goes for vs. Denver.

But HOU, PIT, BAL...you pull that 21-0 bullshit and you'll be dead. Teams like that don't blow 3 score leads.

ObsiWan
01-03-2012, 11:32 AM
Someone told me this today and I'll be damned if it isn't true. They didn't beat a single team this year that finished over .500

Paper tiger? May just be.
Fascinating. I see it as they did what they were supposed to do; beat up mediocre teams.

I find it even more interesting that one can only end up with two teams out of the 13 on your schedule that have winning records

infantrycak
01-03-2012, 11:37 AM
But wait, I thought good coaches regularly win against winning teams on the road.

Mr teX
01-03-2012, 11:44 AM
yeah, but with their history it doesn't mean anything. what's more is that if someone is going to beat them, they're going to have to go into foxboro to do it &:

#1 & although brady's last couple of forays there in the playoffs haven't been great, He still doesn't lose very often there....period.

#2 the crowd will be amped & as poor as their defense has been, they'll feed off of that & likely be playing over their heads a little.

#3 After slow starts, the defense has usually stiffened late in the games when they've had to.

Texecutioner
01-03-2012, 11:56 AM
yeah, but with their history it doesn't mean anything. what's more is that if someone is going to beat them, they're going to have to go into foxboro to do it &:

#1 & although brady's last couple of forays there in the playoffs haven't been great, He still doesn't lose very often there....period.

#2 the crowd will be amped & as poor as their defense has been, they'll feed off of that & likely be playing over their heads a little.

#3 After slow starts, the defense has usually stiffened late in the games when they've had to.

Exactly, and like I said when you look at last season and this season combined, they've got a record of 26-6. That's from only two losses last season in which they smacked the Steelers and the Jets in that regular season and barely lost to the Jets in the playoffs giving them 3 losses last season out of 17 games. This season they lose one more game going 13-3. I think they've gone beyond proving that they're an elite team that can beat top teams. It's an interesting stat on the forefront, but like you say when it's the Patriots and Tom Brady who have an entire decade of history where they have beaten top teams, this stat doesn't mean much.

Hervoyel
01-03-2012, 12:03 PM
Exactly, and like I said when you look at last season and this season combined, they've got a record of 26-6. That's from only two losses last season in which they smacked the Steelers and the Jets in that regular season and barely lost to the Jets in the playoffs giving them 3 losses last season out of 17 games. This season they lose one more game going 13-3. I think they've gone beyond proving that they're an elite team that can beat top teams. It's an interesting stat on the forefront, but like you say when it's the Patriots and Tom Brady who have an entire decade of history where they have beaten top teams, this stat doesn't mean much.


I agree. I just find it interesting that their season went down like that. I would have thought in 16 games you would have to run into at least one opponent who finished better than .500 (and beat them) but I guess I would have thought wrong.

Texecutioner
01-03-2012, 12:07 PM
I agree. I just find it interesting that their season went down like that. I would have thought in 16 games you would have to run into at least one opponent who finished better than .500 but I guess I would have thought wrong.

Yeah, that's some strange luck right there. I definitely wouldn't have realized it unless I heard it being mentioned on ESPN. I think the Steelers have the best chance going into the playoffs this year if Ben is standing tall, but if Ben's ankle keeps hurting him, I think Brady can do enough this year to take the AFC since they'll have both games at home at Foxborough.

gary
01-03-2012, 12:26 PM
All starts a new in the playoffs.

Dutchrudder
01-03-2012, 02:56 PM
They beat a whole lot of 8-8 teams - Jets x2, Raiders, Cowboys, Denver, Philly, San Diego. The two teams they played with winning records were the Giants and Steelers. It's kind of hard to improve that stat if your opponents aren't very good.

In contrast, the Texans were 4-3 against teams over .500 - Wins Pitt, Cincy, Titans, Falcons - Loss Saints, Ravens, Titans

Texecutioner
01-03-2012, 02:59 PM
They beat a whole lot of 8-8 teams - Jets x2, Raiders, Cowboys, Denver, Philly, San Diego. The two teams they played with winning records were the Giants and Steelers. It's kind of hard to improve that stat if your opponents aren't very good.

In contrast, the Texans were 4-3 against teams over .500 - Wins Pitt, Cincy, Titans, Falcons - Loss Saints, Ravens, Titans

Stylistically the Patriots are an awful match up for the Texans. That would be the toughest match up for the Texans in the AFC in my eyes with our offense looking the way it is. You've got to keep Tom Brady off the field to beat the Patriots.

Mr teX
01-03-2012, 03:24 PM
Stylistically the Patriots are an awful match up for the Texans. That would be the toughest match up for the Texans in the AFC in my eyes with our offense looking the way it is. You've got to keep Tom Brady off the field to beat the Patriots.

I agree it would be a total nightmare just trying to cover those 2 TE's. none of our LB's including cushing could cover either 1 of them & unless we're getting to Brady that'd be easy pickings. Welker, would be abusing McCain/Jackson at will & our offense just couldn't keep up with them.

Texecutioner
01-03-2012, 03:35 PM
I agree it would be a total nightmare just trying to cover those 2 TE's. none of our LB's including cushing could cover either 1 of them & unless we're getting to Brady that'd be easy pickings. Welker, would be abusing McCain/Jackson at will & our offense just couldn't keep up with them.

That's exactly how I see it. The current Texans just aren't built well to compete with how the Patriots play right now. Tom Brady would put up points on us, and I don't see the Texans staying on the field long when the Patriots would know that we're needing to throw the ball and can game plan for it with the advantage of having to stop Yates or Delhomme.

ObsiWan
01-04-2012, 12:18 PM
That's exactly how I see it. The current Texans just aren't built well to compete with how the Patriots play right now. Tom Brady would put up points on us, and I don't see the Texans staying on the field long when the Patriots would know that we're needing to throw the ball and can game plan for it with the advantage of having to stop Yates or Delhomme.

I think Wade will send the kitchen sink at Brady. He can be vunerable to heavy pressure. If we jam those WRs and TEs at the line while sending Cushing and/or DeMeco on blitzes, we can disrupt that offense. There's a reason their losses came at the hands of teams with good pass rushes.

On offense, I wonder if the Pats can deal with our running attack. If they can't (and I know that may be a big IF), we can keep Brady on the sidelines with steady doses of Foster & Tate - and thereby resting our defense - we can stay with them. That's how we beat Manning. That's how we can possibly beat Brady.

Dread-Head
01-04-2012, 12:32 PM
if and that is one MAJOR if we get by the Ravens, we can take these guys.


"Hold on now. Let's not start sucking each other's (bleep)s just yet."

Winston Wolf

They have to beat Cincinati FIRST.

Texecutioner
01-04-2012, 12:50 PM
I think Wade will send the kitchen sink at Brady. He can be vunerable to heavy pressure. If we jam those WRs and TEs at the line while sending Cushing and/or DeMeco on blitzes, we can disrupt that offense. There's a reason their losses came at the hands of teams with good pass rushes.

On offense, I wonder if the Pats can deal with our running attack. If they can't (and I know that may be a big IF), we can keep Brady on the sidelines with steady doses of Foster & Tate - and thereby resting our defense - we can stay with them. That's how we beat Manning. That's how we can possibly beat Brady.

If we're talking about the Texans when Schaub and company were still playing, than I can see what you're saying and we'd match up okay with them. I agree.

Bur right now it's nothing but forced optimism to think that we match up well with the Pats. They've been scoring machines pretty much every week. Our pass rush hasn't been nearly as dominant in the last few weeks and neither has our running game. OUr passing game hasn't even been existent, and that isn't going to just turn on all of a sudden because AJ returns with Delhomme or Yates in there. Brady would have way to many opportunities to see the field and would torch us. All of these young guys on our team have never been in the post season either before. The Patriots D isn't that good, but I'm fairly confident that they'd create some TO's on this offense.

THe Pats are the last team I'd want to face in the post season right now. Give me the Steelers any day with a banged up Ben and Mendenhall. The Texans could hang with them in a close game possibly and come out with a W.

Really the only team in the playoffs that we match up well against right now is the Broncos, because their offense is about as good as ours is.

What people fail to realize about our "great defense" now is that they're not as great. They can be, but a huge reason why they were doing so well in that stretch of games is because we were playing with a lead and were able to game plan for other team's offenses easier knowing they had to pass. When we're not playing with a lead, it's a lot harder to know what teams are going to do from play to play. It makes a big difference.

The Pencil Neck
01-04-2012, 01:06 PM
What people fail to realize about our "great defense" now is that they're not as great. They can be, but a huge reason why they were doing so well in that stretch of games is because we were playing with a lead and were able to game plan for other team's offenses easier knowing they had to pass. When we're not playing with a lead, it's a lot harder to know what teams are going to do from play to play. It makes a big difference.

I don't think it was so much that we were playing with the lead but that were playing a great ball-control style of offense that dominated time of possession and limited the amount of time the defense had to spend on the field.

Wade even said something similar about his defense looking so great because of the offense.

But now, the problem is... I think... with Brisiel being out. Caldwell has not maintained the same level of play or consistency. This has allowed the rush to get to TJ from right up the gut on many occasions and allowed people to penetrate and disrupt our running game. We don't put together the long, time consuming drives that we were able to cobble together prior to Brisiel's injury because of that inconsistency at guard. And that puts our defense on the field more and allows the other team to put up more points while limiting the points we're scoring.

At least, that's my view on it.

It will be interesting to see how we play against the Bengals. Hopefully, we can get a big game from Brisiel and from Andre. That should help to fix a lot of the problems we've had the past 3 weeks.

Texecutioner
01-04-2012, 01:10 PM
I don't think it was so much that we were playing with the lead but that were playing a great ball-control style of offense that dominated time of possession and limited the amount of time the defense had to spend on the field.

Wade even said something similar about his defense looking so great because of the offense.



And why do you think that is?? Teams don't fear the pass from us with yates and especially without AJ being in there. We'll have either Yates or Delhomme in the game this weekend and when teams can stack the box a lot easier because they know that your coach won't let the QB throw down the field nearly as much, and that they're not that great at it any way, they don't have to play for the pass nearly as much and they can stop the running game a lot easier. It gets us off the field a lot easier and you're right that it stops the time of possession for us. That also results in us not playing with a comfortable lead to where other teams "don't have to pass" against us, and our defensive unit has to be a lot more honest. We can't expect other teams to have to throw as much. It's a cyclical situation that we're going to be effected by until we get a QB that can put up points in this offense.

The Pencil Neck
01-04-2012, 05:39 PM
And why do you think that is?? Teams don't fear the pass from us with yates and especially without AJ being in there. We'll have either Yates or Delhomme in the game this weekend and when teams can stack the box a lot easier because they know that your coach won't let the QB throw down the field nearly as much, and that they're not that great at it any way, they don't have to play for the pass nearly as much and they can stop the running game a lot easier. It gets us off the field a lot easier and you're right that it stops the time of possession for us. That also results in us not playing with a comfortable lead to where other teams "don't have to pass" against us, and our defensive unit has to be a lot more honest. We can't expect other teams to have to throw as much. It's a cyclical situation that we're going to be effected by until we get a QB that can put up points in this offense.

We had good, long, time consuming drives with Yates against the Bengals. That fumble at the 1 wasted one of them.

I don't think Yates was the big problem the past few weeks. I think Yates keeps the defense honest enough for us to be effective. The problem was Caldwell. If Caldwell gets a lot of playing time, we're in trouble.

Lucky
01-04-2012, 06:42 PM
But wait, I thought good coaches regularly win against winning teams on the road.
The Pats only played one game on the road against a winning team (Pittsburgh). Who knows how they would have fared had they faced the Texans schedule (4 road games vs winning teams). The 2010 Pats were 3-0 on the road vs. winning teams.

If you had looked at New England's schedule when released, it would have seemed formidable. Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, San Diego, The Jets twice, the NFC East. But it played out as Charmin soft. The Pats took advantage of it. Just goes to show that you can't always judge a schedule prior to playing it.

Stylistically the Patriots are an awful match up for the Texans. That would be the toughest match up for the Texans in the AFC in my eyes with our offense looking the way it is. You've got to keep Tom Brady off the field to beat the Patriots.
What team would be better prepared to control the ball in bad weather than the Texans and their running game? And while no team wants to face Tom Brady in the playoffs, who relishes playing the league's #2 defense? The Dolphins, Colts, Skins, and Broncos moved the ball on the Patriots' #31 defense. I'm not sure that TJ Yates and the Texans couldn't.

Kaiser Toro
01-04-2012, 07:15 PM
The Pats only played one game on the road against a winning team (Pittsburgh). Who knows how they would have fared had they faced the Texans schedule (4 road games vs winning teams). The 2010 Pats were 3-0 on the road vs. winning teams.

If you had looked at New England's schedule when released, it would have seemed formidable. Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, San Diego, The Jets twice, the NFC East. But it played out as Charmin soft. The Pats took advantage of it. Just goes to show that you can't always judge a schedule prior to playing it.


What team would be better prepared to control the ball in bad weather than the Texans and their running game? And while no team wants to face Tom Brady in the playoffs, who relishes playing the league's #2 defense? The Dolphins, Colts, Skins, and Broncos moved the ball on the Patriots' #31 defense. I'm not sure that TJ Yates and the Texans couldn't.

That's nothing but authentic frontier gibberish :kitten:

Lucky
01-04-2012, 07:43 PM
That's nothing but authentic frontier gibberish :kitten:
I'm just glad the children were here to witness it.