A dominant Pats team would have NEVER lost to AZ at home. And while leading the league in offense is great, it also gets you a 3-3 record. Thats like saying Brres has 14TD passes, so the Saints must be good. Not really. They have lost 3 games by 4 points, but a couple years ago, they wouldnt have lost those games. Its still a little early to call anything yet, but the Pats could win the rest of their games. They get the 49ers and Texans at home, but in back to back weeks.
Im not saying you gotta have 1st rounders, but you gotta have guys making plays and they don't right now. Assuming that because you did it before with a bunch of low round picks/no namers that you can just continue doing that is kind of arrogant. Now they've done it on offense and defense for a while, but eventually, it catches up with you.
Actually, the year they won their second SB the Pats only two losses were to shitty teams (Buffalo and Washington), so yes, dominant Pats teams can lose to lousy teams.
The Pats are vulnerable to great defenses and great passing offenses. It's all about keeping up with Brady on the scoreboard. The Broncos game probably would have played out differently if Thomas hadn't fumbled. Once the Patriots get a lead, they have been pretty good at controlling the game with their rushing attack, but they need to stay far enough ahead to account for the secondary fucking up.
E Tu D26? Stop hating on the Patriots. They're 3-3. Also, let's not act like those Replacement Ref games have ANY indication on how dominant this team is or is not. I'm not holding that Seahawks game against the Packers and I'm sure as hell not holding the Caridinals (or Baltimore) against against the Patriots. Bill Barnwell says football games have such randomness, games won/lost by a Touchdown or less are not to be taken as heavily as one won/lost by 7+ ponts. Also bringing in anecdotal about statements about At Home only apply to Seahawks and sometimes, just sometimes, dome teams. There is a slight factor of travel time in addition to that as well. With the resurgence of Welker, the return of Hernandez, and this new/beautiful running game, the Patriots are going to actually be better in these upcoming weeks than they have been in the past. This Sunday will make them 4-3. The games against the 49ers and Houston will be interesting, because Green Bay has definitely exposed the Houston secondary. I actually think their biggest weakness is Josh McDaniel's trying to get too fancy with play calling. How many times do End Arounds work? The second biggest weakness is the O-Line that needs to get situated. The reason Brady isn't getting sacked every 5 seconds is because of Gronkowski staying in and blocking. He might be their best blocker right now. Also in regards to Thomas Edward Patrick Brady Jr. I think he might be slightly concussed after that lone hit that was a little too close to the head. That's when his throws started getting erratic, and his passing wasn't on target. That will clear up over the week and he'll be able to get back to busisness. The team won't be going down when TEPB Jr. goes down, once I again, I present Matt Cassel, went 11-5 that year. Bill Belichick is a damn good coach, and can max out the potential in players. I will only concede any of these points until the Tom and Bill don't make it to an AFC Championship game. Until then. Fuck y'all haters.
Given that the Patriots are averaging 4.2 ypc (10th in the NFL) and 153 ypg (4th), versus their opponents 3.4 (4th) and 82.7 ypg (6th), I'm going to hazard a guess that you have misidentified the Patriots issues. You will also notice that Marshawn Lynch went into the game averaging over 100 yards a game, but was held to 41 yards on 15 carries. Ray Rice is the only running back to top 51 yards against New England, and he's pretty good. Jerrod Mayo, Chandler Jones, Brandon Spikes, and Vince Wilfork would take issue with that (those are also notably three first rounders and a second rounder). The Patriots front seven have been among the better third of NFL teams. Their actual problem is that they rank between 24th and 29th in opponents' QB Rating, Completion Percentage, Yards Per Game, and Yards Per Attempt. You can pretty much pass at will against McCourty and Chung, Arrington is merely OK, and Wilson is a rookie. No one knows what to make of Dowling, but he certainly isn't good. This has been a problem for years, and they haven't done much to fix it. You can stop the run all day, but if you can still consistently get 15 yard completions over McCourty (and another 5 to 10 yards because he can't tackle), it won't matter much. The "___ would never lose to _________" argument never holds up. Last year's Packers were dominant in the regular season... except when they played the venerable Kansas City Chiefs. Last year's three loss 49ers? Lost to Arizona. The three loss Saints team lost to St. Louis and Tampa Bay. Good teams lose to bad teams every year.
The last 3 seasons we've done the whole 'the pats aren't a great team anymore' thing after they lost a couple games. They still have a top offense, and they're getting better, not worse on defense. Shaky start aside, I'm going to have to see more before I believe they're fading out of the picture.
Moreover, which teams are clearly better in AFC? Houston and Baltimore seem to be the only contenders. Baltimore only won by two points at home (home field advantage is typically considered to be worth 2 to 3 points, in terms of spreads), and Baltimore is now decimated by injuries. Houston seems good overall, but they certainly didn't look very good last week. Denver's OK, but New England has already beat them. San Diego looks incompetent week after week. No one really believes in the other AFC East teams, not even Gator. Pittsburgh is but also have a losing record.
They didn't just lose to Buffalo, they got blown the fuck out, 31-0, right after letting go of Lawyer Milloy. This. Brady has dragged a shitty pass D to the Super Bowl before, but I really don't think you can win one that way. At the very least, it's nerve-racking. That said, the rookies on D (Wilson, Jones, Hightower) are all cause for hope.
Wow. I feel like people don't actually read my posts. I didn't say the Patriots were awful, I said they weren't dominant anymore. I said they'd end up winning 9 or 10 games, which means they'd lose 3 to 4 more games this season. I also said that would be enough to get them into the playoffs, either in a wild card or winning their pretty bad division. Does that seem completely unreasonable?
I was speaking in more general terms, but even then stats do not a good defense make. Are those stats because the Patriots have a good run defense or is it because teams dont need to run on them? On the other side, in the Pats loses, they have given up 4thQ leads, which means teams have been passing, not running, to get back in the game. And they havent rushed for 100yds in any of 3 loses. It's tough when Brady has to pass 60x a game. How do you define better? Their defense is allowing a 3rd down conversion rate of over 42%. Thats in the bottom 3rd. What is interesting is that the Pats are tied for the league lead in giveaway/takeaway. Thats not always surprising considering they dont turn the ball over very much, but they are near the top of the league in takeaways, so they are making "big plays". The issue looks to be pass defense and getting the other team off the field. Of course any team can win on any given Sunday. The Patriots have been so good over the past decade that a loss at home sends people into a panic. I said I could see the Pats running the table and nobody will ever remember they were 3-3. But they still dont look like the dominant Pats teams from the early 2000's.
They got shellacked, 31-0, against a Buffalo team that they turned that same score around on later in the season. Then they lost to a team that only won 5 games all season. Who cares what field it was on?
Because theres a difference in losing to a team on the road vs at home. On average. home teams win between 55-59% of the time. Im gonna guess the over on that for the Pats since 2000. Now it turns out AZ is a slightly better team than people suspected, but I know that game knocked out 22 out of 25 players in our suicide pool. When was the last time NE lost at home when favored by 13.5pts? Go stat guys.
I understand that there's a home field advantage. Vegas tends to rate that advantage as around 3 points. I'm saying a 31-0 murder by a team that then lost 31-0 later in the season, has nothing to do with home field advantage.
Then I dont understand why you have to go back 9 years to 1 game where the Pats went 14-2 to try and prove a point. Since thats the game youre using, how many points were the Pats favored by in that game? Was it more than 13.5? So both losing to a team by 31 at home and beating them by 31 on the road is an aberration, and not the norm. I agree. How does that help to show that it was unusual for the Pats to lose at home when favored by almost 2 TD? Have there been any games since the 2003 season or is that it?
Are you drunk? Point: a dominant Pats team dropped a couple games to some extremely crappy opponents, and one of them by a margin that was completely outside of home field advantage. This is not limited to the Pats. Heavily favored and dominant teams drop games sometimes. It's an aberration and not the norm. You said "never." Unless there is some other definition of the world never, of which I am unaware, then I am agreeing with others indicating it was a dumb comment.
There is still a chance that Denver or New England catches fire, but if I had to put my money down right now I would bet that any of the NFC division winners will be better than the AFC champion this year.
Jesus Christ, it's an expression not an absolute. Of course every team loses some games its not supposed to lose, and win games its not supposed to win. And I bet after that first loss of the season in 2003, people thought the Pats weren't going to win the SB either. But I bet Pats fans thought they were going to win it all after they went 16-0 in the regular season. Shit happens. The original point was "Are the Pats slipping from dominance because they are 3-3?" And while I have repeatedly said that 6 games is a little too early to tell, but that losing to AZ at home was not a good sign. And it was so dumb, people had to go back 9 years to pick 2 examples to harp at it. I love how people think that throwing out statistics and name calling will change people's opinions. If the Pats go 13-3 and win the SB then my opinion was incorrect. Every year, 31 teams and their fans are wrong. But until then, im gonna stick with "I dont think the Patriots are as dominant as they were in the early 2000's, partially because of their pass defense, partially because of their running game, partially because of Belichicks douchebag cutoff sweatshirts, but mostly because they havent won any SuperBowls lately."
Losing any game isn't a good sign. But AZ is 4-2 in a division with 2 other 4-2 teams and one 3-3 team. They lost to a good team. By no means a "slipping" from dominance. They have only slipped when they don't make it to the AFC twice in a row. Until then, they've been in 5 superbowls and a few more AFC games. Consistently in the playoffs. It's okay Chicken Little, the sky isn't falling in New England.