<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bakes781)</div><div class='quotemain'>The Steelers scare me more than the Jags did if that makes you happy.</div> and the Steelers don't scare me at all. So, playing the jags inspired you to be brave? They were so bad it made you feel even more "confident" about the Pats? 11-5 jacksonville = bump in road now? Or is this more disrespect for patriots opponents? I have a feeling if they win big this week, next week you wil be picking pats again saying how good they looked this week.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pats37)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bakes781)</div><div class='quotemain'>Are this year's Pats as good as last year's team? NO Are they better than they were from the 1st half of this season? YES</div> Nothing more true than that..lets just hope the second half pats can work some magic and be good enough.</div> I am not sure that is true. I think it was mostly a softer schedule that resulted in better record.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'>So, playing the jags inspired you to be brave? They were so bad it made you feel even more "confident" about the Pats? 11-5 jacksonville = bump in road now? Or is this more disrespect for patriots opponents? I have a feeling if they win big this week, next week you wil be picking pats again saying how good they looked this week.</div> No the outcome against Jacksonville had nothing to do with my saying the Steelers don't scare me. Let's remember this is the smack talk board & so that allows me to be a bit over the top IMO. I picked the Pats to win convinclingly & they did so. With that said why shouldn't a convincing win over a playoff opponent give me confidence?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'>I am not sure that is true. I think it was mostly a softer schedule that resulted in better record.</div> I C so when we bring up the tough schedule to start the season & the injuries we're accused of making excuses, but now you want to discredit the Pats turnaround for lack of quality opponents?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bakes781)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'>So, playing the jags inspired you to be brave? They were so bad it made you feel even more "confident" about the Pats? 11-5 jacksonville = bump in road now? Or is this more disrespect for patriots opponents? I have a feeling if they win big this week, next week you wil be picking pats again saying how good they looked this week.</div> No the outcome against Jacksonville had nothing to do with my saying the Steelers don't scare me. Let's remember this is the smack talk board & so that allows me to be a bit over the top IMO. I picked the Pats to win convinclingly & they did so. With that said why shouldn't a convincing win over a playoff opponent give me confidence?</div> Well, if you can go over the top, i certainly think i reserve the right to call you on it. Isnt that what talking smack is about?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bakes781)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'>I am not sure that is true. I think it was mostly a softer schedule that resulted in better record.</div> I C so when we bring up the tough schedule to start the season & the injuries we're accused of making excuses, but now you want to discredit the Pats turnaround for lack of quality opponents?</div> Tough opponents is excuse, it is they were better and won. Injuries is an excuse, every team has them. You beat bad teams but werent beating good teams.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bakes781)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'>I am not sure that is true. I think it was mostly a softer schedule that resulted in better record.</div> I C so when we bring up the tough schedule to start the season & the injuries we're accused of making excuses, but now you want to discredit the Pats turnaround for lack of quality opponents?</div> Tough opponents is excuse, it is they were better and won. Injuries is an excuse, every team has them. You beat bad teams but werent beating good teams.</div> Sorry, isnt excuse
Parcells is an idiot for making that comment. The Pats are a perfect example because they had so many key players injured during the season and now the vast majority of those key players are back. In my eyes, that means that the Patriots' record doesn't mean shit right now. If they can beat Denver then they are definitely for real this year, just as they were a year ago and the year before that.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'>Well, if you can go over the top, i certainly think i reserve the right to call you on it. Isnt that what talking smack is about?</div> You should worry about your own team. The weather is expected to be unseasonably warm so you're home field advantage is out the window.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pats37)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bakes781)</div><div class='quotemain'>Are this year's Pats as good as last year's team? NO Are they better than they were from the 1st half of this season? YES</div> Nothing more true than that..lets just hope the second half pats can work some magic and be good enough.</div> I am not sure that is true. I think it was mostly a softer schedule that resulted in better record.</div> No it is true...When we lost to KC on the road and our offense looked like crap that day our Defense kept us in that ball game by playing very tough in the redzone regardless of the poor field postiion they were given a number of times and we kept Larry Johnson (119 yds 3.8ypc 1 TD) relatively quite compared to what he did to the likes of Den (140 4.7 2), Dal (143 5.5 3), NYG (167 5.4 2), and SD (131 4.1 1 w/1 rec TD). Had our offense performed to their capabilities and protected the ball the defense may have looked better that day. Had that been when we played Denver they would have put up 5 TD's that day with ease. That game started a big turnaround in our run defense and just defense in general. We went on to surrender 3,7,0,21(14 w/ game out of reach no first downs for jets till 3rd qtr), 28 (while resting starters), and 3 ( in the playoffs). I can understand the soft schedule argument but we did dominate these weaker teams on the defensive side of the ball not just squeak by.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pats37)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pats37)</div><div class='quotemain'> Nothing more true than that..lets just hope the second half pats can work some magic and be good enough.</div> I am not sure that is true. I think it was mostly a softer schedule that resulted in better record.</div> No it is true...When we lost to KC on the road and our offense looked like crap that day our Defense kept us in that ball game by playing very tough in the redzone regardless of the poor field postiion they were given a number of times and we kept Larry Johnson (119 yds 3.8ypc 1 TD) relatively quite compared to what he did to the likes of Den (140 4.7 2), Dal (143 5.5 3), NYG (167 5.4 2), and SD (131 4.1 1 w/1 rec TD). Had our offense performed to their capabilities and protected the ball the defense may have looked better that day. Had that been when we played Denver they would have put up 5 TD's that day with ease. That game started a big turnaround in our run defense and just defense in general. We went on to surrender 3,7,0,21(14 w/ game out of reach no first downs for jets till 3rd qtr), 28 (while resting starters), and 3 ( in the playoffs). I can understand the soft schedule argument but we did dominate these weaker teams on the defensive side of the ball not just squeak by.</div> Sep 8 Oakland Won 30-20 Sep 18 @Carolina Lost 17-27 Sep 25 @Pittsburgh Won 23-20 Oct 2 San Diego Lost 17-41 Oct 9 @Atlanta Won 31-28 Oct 16 @Denver Lost 20-28 Week 7 BYE Oct 30 Buffalo Won 21-16 Nov 7 Indianapolis Lost 21-40 Nov 13 @Miami Won 23-16 Nov 20 New Orleans Won 24-17 Nov 27 @Kansas City Lost 16-26 Dec 4 N.Y. Jets Won 16-3 Dec 11 @Buffalo Won 35-7 Dec 17 Tampa Bay Won 28-0 Dec 26 @N.Y. Jets Won 31-21 Vs losing teams 6-0. Vs Winning teams 4-5 I didnt count miami game to end season cuz that would be ridiculous. Your record vs winning teams in last 6 weeks was 1-1 in first 9 3-4. Not much of a difference, except you play 66% of your last 6 vs losing teams, and only 22% of your first 9. Say what you will, but soft schedule = reason for turnaround.
http://www.superbowl.com/news/story/9156860 Well, at least Collinsworth favors the Pats. NE picks seem to be few and far between.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pats37)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'> I am not sure that is true. I think it was mostly a softer schedule that resulted in better record.</div> No it is true...When we lost to KC on the road and our offense looked like crap that day our Defense kept us in that ball game by playing very tough in the redzone regardless of the poor field postiion they were given a number of times and we kept Larry Johnson (119 yds 3.8ypc 1 TD) relatively quite compared to what he did to the likes of Den (140 4.7 2), Dal (143 5.5 3), NYG (167 5.4 2), and SD (131 4.1 1 w/1 rec TD). Had our offense performed to their capabilities and protected the ball the defense may have looked better that day. Had that been when we played Denver they would have put up 5 TD's that day with ease. That game started a big turnaround in our run defense and just defense in general. We went on to surrender 3,7,0,21(14 w/ game out of reach no first downs for jets till 3rd qtr), 28 (while resting starters), and 3 ( in the playoffs). I can understand the soft schedule argument but we did dominate these weaker teams on the defensive side of the ball not just squeak by.</div> Sep 8 Oakland Won 30-20 Sep 18 @Carolina Lost 17-27 Sep 25 @Pittsburgh Won 23-20 Oct 2 San Diego Lost 17-41 Oct 9 @Atlanta Won 31-28 Oct 16 @Denver Lost 20-28 Week 7 BYE Oct 30 Buffalo Won 21-16 Nov 7 Indianapolis Lost 21-40 Nov 13 @Miami Won 23-16 Nov 20 New Orleans Won 24-17 Nov 27 @Kansas City Lost 16-26 Dec 4 N.Y. Jets Won 16-3 Dec 11 @Buffalo Won 35-7 Dec 17 Tampa Bay Won 28-0 Dec 26 @N.Y. Jets Won 31-21 Vs losing teams 6-0. Vs Winning teams 4-5 I didnt count miami game to end season cuz that would be ridiculous. Your record vs winning teams in last 6 weeks was 1-1 in first 9 3-4. Not much of a difference, except you play 66% of your last 6 vs losing teams, and only 22% of your first 9. Say what you will, but soft schedule = reason for turnaround.</div> All this says is you didn't watch every pats game this season because regardless of schedule..which they couldn't help...you could plainly see that they played better on the defensive side of the ball and were just much better as a team in the second half regardless of schedule...also you can make it in the last 7 weeks (including playoffs) and we are 2-1 vs teams with a winning record....
I think the KC game is an excellent example of when the team started to gel on D. If there had been no improvement than realistically the score should have resembled that of the Chargers game in week 4. Since then they have yet to lose a game of meaning. The outstanding rookie Cadillac Williams was held to 23 yds on 14 carries.
It kills me to say this because the Patriots are our worst rival of recent seasons, but what makes them so dangerous is their ability to beat any team in the NFL at any given time. 10-6 is a reflection of their season, but unless you watched and broke down every game, there's no way to determine how good of a 10-6 team the Patriots were. New England is coached well enough and has enough talent to beat anyone remaining in the playoffs and to win another Super Bowl. I'm just hoping they don't.
Well you're being too kind SF. I'd say the Pats are good enough to beat anyone BUT the Colts. I hope they prove me wrong but I'm being realistic.
Why isn't it realistic? Indy has been proven mortal and the Pats are healthy again. I think they have a damn good shot, especially with Belichick planning game strategies. He'll know exactly what Manning needs to get him to choke, and Plummer as well. Thin air, home crowd, home record, etc. doesn't scare Belichick I bet.
Oops, I would edit my above post but the submit button is non-functional. I guess its just there to look pretty, lol. I meant to say IF Manning and the Colts get past the Steelers, Belichick will have something waiting for him.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pats_Fan420)</div><div class='quotemain'>Why isn't it realistic? Indy has been proven mortal and the Pats are healthy again. I think they have a damn good shot, especially with Belichick planning game strategies. He'll know exactly what Manning needs to get him to choke, and Plummer as well. Thin air, home crowd, home record, etc. doesn't scare Belichick I bet.</div> Last I checked Belichick doesn't play the games. You said he plans the games.. Now I'm not saying the Patriots players are scared of Indy that they are not.. I'll say this though 2003 New England is better than 2003 Colts.. 2004 New England is better than 2004 Colts.. 2005 New England vs 2005 Colts. Well the last time I checked Indy spanked you in your house..
We are healthier now so we'll just have to see what happens I guess. I'd love to see the Pats get 3 in a row but they've got to get past Denver first and win the next 2 after that. I'm excited either way though, there are a lot of teams I like that are in the playoffs this year. NE just happens to be my favorite.
