Pats are going 19-0 this year.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from PhllyPhn1967. Show PhllyPhn1967's posts

    Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.

    LOL. Yes, you guys are right, Pats fans are not delusional.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from fatsam72. Show fatsam72's posts

    Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.

    PhllyPhn1967,
    I'm planning to get tickets to the Philly game.  Any advice on best sections?  (You know, real advice, not advice that will get me hospitalized)

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from PhllyPhn1967. Show PhllyPhn1967's posts

    Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.

    In Response to Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.:
    [QUOTE]PhllyPhn1967, I'm planning to get tickets to the Philly game.  Any advice on best sections?  (You know, real advice, not advice that will get me hospitalized)
    Posted by fatsam72[/QUOTE]

    There really is not a bad seat, nice place, even the upper deck is not too far up. End zone seats tend to be a little rough at times. Best seats are the 1st or second level in the upper deck.
     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from hardright. Show hardright's posts

    Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.

    2007 became too stressful a fan experience for me as the year wore on.

    EVERYONE in the country was rooting against the Pats and it seemed as though the entire media contingent was piling on every week.

    First there was the Spygate nonsense, which they never dropped (and some still haven't dropped it---Easter-turd wrote a particularly idiotic thing about it, AGAIN, today).

    Then there was the "classless, running up the score" nonsense.

    Then there was the saturation coverage of their attempt to go undefeated, complete with Mercury Morris and his idiotic, near-weekly ravings on national TV.

    It was all too much.

    Losing the Super Bowl was brutal, but at that point I was just glad to have the season over, because the media made that what Bruce Allen correctly deemed "The Most Miserable 18-1 Season in NFL History."

    This season I'll take a nice, dominant, 13-14-15 win regular season followed by three easy post-season victories and a 4th Lombardi.

    Let the overrated '72 Dolphins (weak, weak, weak schedule, and deep down they know it) continue to gloat; they still only won 1 other title after that 17-0 season was over.
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BelichickforPresident. Show BelichickforPresident's posts

    Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.

    My "sipping the Koolaid" projection: 14-2.  Which is great.
    19 and zip is so very, very unlikely.  Statistically speaking.  Say your odds of winning each Sunday are 90%.  Week after week.  Your chances of stringing 19 wins in a row are very low.  Less than 25%.  Even with a truly great team.  A team that is likely to beat any other team 9 times out of ten.  (Giant's SB loss, anyone?)  As much as we fans of good teams may hate to admit it, a team can't fully control their fate.  Some of it is just dumb fortune, good and bad.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from hardright. Show hardright's posts

    Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.

    In Response to Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.:
    [QUOTE]It was also far easier in that era than today, as we know (minus Patsman3 and Phat Rex, which are essentially the same person). lol Thata Eastertool guy is such a geek, isn't he?  When you see his photo all I can think of is pedophile. The geek in high school who wasn't an athlete and now it's time for any successful person or team to pay for it. I love how he calls NE's 2009 regular season "fabulous".  How was it fabulous?  Brady didn't look 100% right, Welker was hurt for the playoffs, NE had dealt Seymour and Vrabel prior to the season and NE had no 1st rd pick. Come again? Easterdoosche is going to be sorely disappointed when NE makes runs the next 3-5 years and very likely is staring down more legit shots at Lombardis. This is another example of a different standard held for NE and the other 31 NFL teams get another barometer for judgement. As if NE didn't have a right to get their books straight, sell off assets and rebuild so they'd be in a good spot out of the lockout? I mean, why is Belichick not allowed to do his best?  The reason why NE hasn't faded during this and hasn't looked great in the postseason is because they WERE REBUILDING.  My god. Just because you see Brady and BB out there it doesn't means they are in position, loaded for bear.  Easterdrip is a really bitter, really LEFT pseudo-intellectual type, that comes off like he knows what he is talking about, but when challenged, wouldn't know what to do: New England: "In 2010, the Flying Elvii had the league's top regular-season record. They hung 152 points in the second quarter, best quarter by any team -- the Pats were putting opponents away by halftime. They were the only NFL team to score at least 100 points in every quarter. New England had nine return touchdowns, a fantastic number. Most importantly, New England's plus-28 for turnovers was the second-best turnover number ever posted by an NFL team. But then the Patriots wheezed out at home in their first and only game of the playoffs. It was the second consecutive year New England had been fabulous in the regular season, then looked awful at home in the postseason. The year before that, the Patriots finished 11-5 but didn't make the postseason owing to a standings quirk. Here's the deal: The New England Patriots have not won a playoff game since Spygate broke. Bill Belichick continues to refuse to say, "I cheated and I apologize." Until he does, the football gods will torment this team by allowing the Patriots to play very well during the regular season, then denying them in money time." How about Belichick had rookies or 2nd year players all over the starting roster last year and the year before had no Welker and an injured Moss The fact is, Baltimore and NY smelled blood and took advantage. Congrats to them because that's all you're getting.  Not anymore. Not anymore. I like CHB's article a lot better than this snippet for Easterdork.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing[/QUOTE]

    Easter-turd has lost all credibility, and he lost it long ago.

    This is the guy who actually compared Spygate to the 1919 Black Sox scandal.

    You heard that right: he compared violating an obscure, and some would say unnecessary rule to a group of 8 baseball players taking bribe money from known and violent underworld figures in return for throwing a World Series.

    When a professional "journalist" makes an idiotic comparison like that, all you can do is laugh, shake your head, and never read them again, because they clearly have absolutely no clue and don't even realize how moronic they sound.

    Agendas are ugly things, especially when they're fully exposed for all to see.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.

    Not gonna happen. Bill certainly will try, as he always does, but it's nearly impossible to do in today's NFL. A game like the one in Cleveland last year will happen no matter how focused the team is.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.

    Someone needs to shut up those old cocky dolphin players who have enjoyed their success much too long.  And nobody better then the Patriots to do it!!  Scared them the last time, do it for real this time!


     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.

    i'd be happy going 10-6, but winning the superbowl.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sveltics. Show Sveltics's posts

    Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.

    19-0? OK dummy.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.

    Sounds about right

     
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.

    Here's the deal:  The New England Patriots have not won a playoff game since Spygate broke.
    What's wrong with this statement?  Moron
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from pats-fan-2007. Show pats-fan-2007's posts

    Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.

    I'm a fanatic. I'm rooting for them to win every game.....therefore, I'm rooting for them to go 19-0.

    I can't see myself watching a game, and hoping the Pats lose......just so we don't have the pressure of an undefeated season.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.

    In Response to Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.:
    [QUOTE]i'd be happy going 10-6, but winning the superbowl.
    Posted by anonymis[/QUOTE]

    yeah, i like winning the super bowl. but no way they end up 10-6
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reloadedagent31. Show Reloadedagent31's posts

    Re: Devil's Advocate

    I'll play devil's advocate:

    For starters, the season began when 'Spygate' began in New Jersey Week 1. As the season wore on, it seemed 'Spygate' became a bigger distraction w/o all the facts coming out. Had the Patriots went 19-0, I'm sure that the record would have been tarnished because of speculations.

    As the season progressed, the team was becoming one dimensional. Ironically, the last two times they had a balanced attack on offense that season resulted in Laurence Maroney having 100 yard games. Teams figured out their gameplan and were losing steam in the process. They were blowing out opponents, but were struggling against the upper-tier of the Eagles, Cowboys, Ravens, Colts, and Giants. There were too many spread formations and not enough power formations. Eventually, they lived and died by the big play. The Giants exploited the flaw at the worst possible time. It actually showed how the OL couldn't really a 4-man rush anymore. In addition, the top two corners were Asante Samuel and Ellis Hobbs neither of whom I'd trust as their either gamblers or play off the line.

    Now it's 4 years later, after a shortened offseason and an extensive lockout. While teams are using more spread offenses, Belichick is focusing on multiple TE sets. It helped BenJarvus Green-Ellis get 1000 yards and Danny Woodhead 900 from scrimmage. Word has it that Will Yeatman can catch and block. How can teams focus on two blocking/pass catching TEs? Have they found an answer for Rob Gronkowski yet? Plus. by year's end the Patriots may be a center away from having a squad that will at least on paper keep Tom Brady upright until 2014. I can see Nate Solder, Logan Mankins, Sebastian Vollmer, and hope to see Marcus Cannon as the starters.  

    Bill Belichick has corners in Devin McCourty & Leigh Bodden who can play press coverage and do not need consistent help over the top with suitable nickels like Kyle Arrington, Darius Butler and Jonathan Wilhite. He paired that with a dictative pass rush something we've not seen since 2004. That alone should get people excited for 3rd and longs this season. You give the offense more 3 & outs and turnovers, the more likely the team will score and chew clock. They are capable of becoming a balanced attack on offense, but the key to silencing Mercury Morris is to run successfully when the defense is expecting the run. 

    From last year, the team was young and still managed 14 wins. They blew out teams in top 10 defense like Miami twice, New York Jets, Chicago, Pittsburgh and Minnesota. The Jets figured out New England, but it's a different story with Shane Vereen and Stevan Ridley. Ridley can run, catch & pass block. #1 offense with an aggressive defense in 2011 w/o any distractions. They have to take this one game at a time.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from GadisRKO. Show GadisRKO's posts

    Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.

    19-0 is very doable. I wouldn't put too much money on it but as a die hard pats fan, I think we can do it.

    Being realistic, 14-2 or even 15-1 is more like it.

    In reality, I would be more then happy to go 10-6 and win the Superbowl.

    Can we go 19-0? Yes. Will we? Im sure we will try.
    Is 13-3, 14-2, 15-1 more realistic? Yes.


     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.

    In Response to Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.:
    [QUOTE]18 - 1 again.  But this time the loss will be in the regular season!!  :)
    Posted by jalvis[/QUOTE]

    I'm 15-1.  The playoffs are, as always, dependent on who is healthy.  With 12 teams all trying to win, with occasional crooked refs, players and owners, and with funny bounces of the ball, it's hard for the Patriots to win the SB consistently.  However, I like their odds.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ednlou01. Show ednlou01's posts

    Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.

    20-0
    Breakdown
    16-0 Regular Season
    2-0 Playoffs
    1-0 ProBowl (since most Patriot Players make probowl this year they vote to play game as a practice for the SuperBowl)
    1-0 Super Bowl

    If could actually be 24-0 if we include the pre-season... Cool
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patriots1970. Show Patriots1970's posts

    Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.

    I don't care how many games they win in 2011 as long as the last winning game is the Super Bowl.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from LittleTimmy31. Show LittleTimmy31's posts

    Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.

    12 - 4 with a SB win would be fine w me!
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from hardright. Show hardright's posts

    Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.

    In Response to Re: Pats are going 19-0 this year.:
    [QUOTE]Here's the deal:  The New England Patriots have not won a playoff game  since Spygate broke. What's wrong with this statement?  Moron
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    Good catch.

    All of us missed that.

    Proves my point that Easter-Turd has zero credibility.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from hardright. Show hardright's posts

    Re: Devil's Advocate

    In Response to Re: Devil's Advocate:
    [QUOTE]I'll play devil's advocate: For starters, the season began when 'Spygate' began in New Jersey Week 1. As the season wore on, it seemed 'Spygate' became a bigger distraction w/o all the facts coming out. Had the Patriots went 19-0, I'm sure that the record would have been tarnished because of speculations. As the season progressed, the team was becoming one dimensional. Ironically, the last two times they had a balanced attack on offense that season resulted in Laurence Maroney having 100 yard games. Teams figured out their gameplan and were losing steam in the process. They were blowing out opponents, but were struggling against the upper-tier of the Eagles, Cowboys, Ravens, Colts, and Giants. There were too many spread formations and not enough power formations. Eventually, they lived and died by the big play. The Giants exploited the flaw at the worst possible time. It actually showed how the OL couldn't really a 4-man rush anymore. In addition, the top two corners were Asante Samuel and Ellis Hobbs neither of whom I'd trust as their either gamblers or play off the line. Now it's 4 years later, after a shortened offseason and an extensive lockout. While teams are using more spread offenses, Belichick is focusing on multiple TE sets. It helped BenJarvus Green-Ellis get 1000 yards and Danny Woodhead 900 from scrimmage. Word has it that Will Yeatman can catch and block. How can teams focus on two blocking/pass catching TEs? Have they found an answer for Rob Gronkowski yet? Plus. by year's end the Patriots may be a center away from having a squad that will at least on paper keep Tom Brady upright until 2014. I can see Nate Solder, Logan Mankins, Sebastian Vollmer, and hope to see Marcus Cannon as the starters.   Bill Belichick has corners in Devin McCourty & Leigh Bodden who can play press coverage and do not need consistent help over the top with suitable nickels like Kyle Arrington, Darius Butler and Jonathan Wilhite. He paired that with a dictative pass rush something we've not seen since 2004. That alone should get people excited for 3rd and longs this season. You give the offense more 3 & outs and turnovers, the more likely the team will score and chew clock. They are capable of becoming a balanced attack on offense, but the key to silencing Mercury Morris is to run successfully when the defense is expecting the run.  From last year, the team was young and still managed 14 wins. They blew out teams in top 10 defense like Miami twice, New York Jets, Chicago, Pittsburgh and Minnesota. The Jets figured out New England, but it's a different story with Shane Vereen and Stevan Ridley. Ridley can run, catch & pass block. #1 offense with an aggressive defense in 2011 w/o any distractions. They have to take this one game at a time.
    Posted by Reloadedagent31[/QUOTE]

    I agree with your assessment of the 2007 team. As much as I enjoyed watching them score a billion points, I never felt comfortable that entire season with the WAY they were scoring, and with the WAY they were winning games.

    I didn't like all of the points the defense was allowing, for one thing. There were those back-to-back blowout wins in Miami and Dallas where the Pats nearly scored 50 but the defense nearly allowed 30 in each game. During each of those games I said allowed to anyone who would listen: "this is not Patriots football that they're playing."

    It was only a matter of time before defensive coordinators would figure out a way to slow them down, if not stop them completely...no one really stopped them completely in the regular season, but the Eagles, Ravens and a couple other teams figured out how to slow them down, at least.

    In the playoffs, San Diego really made them earn every point they scored, and then the Giants, who had the personnel up front to execute a certain type of game plan, became the first team to totally shut them down.

    And what are you left with when you rely almost 100% on your offense to win games? You're left with a defense that's "good enough" if your offense is putting up 28+ points every week, but that might not be good enough if you find yourself in a close, low-scoring dogfight: Super Bowl XLII becomes the result of that scenario.

    This year they may very well have a better team than they had in 2007 because they've got a younger, deeper, more aggressive defense with, as you say, better cover corners--guys who don't gamble as much as Asante and Hobbs. And the balanced approach on offense (a return to hopefully a more 2004-like approach) also takes away their heavy reliance on the passing game.

    I mean, there's a reason why Peyton Manning has all of those yards, TDs, MVPs and records, and has only one Super Bowl ring (a ring that his defense largely won for him--along with a big assist from the zebras). The Pats, for a couple of years, tried to emulate the Colts' formula, and it worked out about as well for them in the post-season as it has for Indy all these years.

    Hopefully that experiment is dead and buried.

    That said, going 19-0 is well-nigh impossible. It really is, no matter how good you are.

    Heck, I think we can all agree as Pats fans that even in 2007 they won a couple of games on the road to 16-0 that they probably should have lost (certainly the Ravens game on the road, and the Eagles game at home, to name a couple of examples). You not only have to be a great team, but you've got to have some luck, too.

    Just win another Lombardi or two, and let the '72 Dolphins continue to revel in their overrated (very weak schedule) accomplishment that happened when more than half of the football-watching public was either in diapers or not even born yet.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share