In response to PATSthebest's comment:

Now we are a few days out from Sundays game. I've read hundreds of posts for and against, Brady, Welker, BB, Offense, Defense etc.. So after I've digested this I can only come with are we in it to win it, or just be real good?

So if everyone can agree BB is in charge I feel he should say to Mr. Kraft the following:

"Boss I run the team as coach, D coord, GM, I picked every coach, player, & ball boy. I have maybe the best QB of all time, but  just can't seem to win the big one without that D I inherited 10+ years ago.  With that said is being a really good team good enough?"

your post would be valid if the offense could actually score in the big postseason games....in their last 5 playoff losses the pats offense has scored 13, 17, 21, 14, and 14 respectively....now you're trying to tell me the defense has been the problem? the numbers dont lie.

i would agree with you if it were "occasionally". it just hasnt been. all of their recent playoff losses, with the exception of the jets game, they have scored less than 20 points....that is far from occasional. it has become a pattern. the pats offense has become the indy colts offense circa 01-05. great during the regular season, and then sheet the bed in the playoffs.

In response to WeDerrWEBACK's comment:

In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

well obviously this is a big offseason....if the pats go out and get the big receiver that everyone has been hoping for, than i think we can all infer that they knew a change was needed to get them farther in the postseason.

How is your own cap/FA situation?  Serious question because you only have 4 draft picks this year if I am not mistaken.  Going to be hard picking so late in the rounds with those little number of picks not being able to move up.  How do you make a big splash in the offseason?

/notroll

Fantastic. Absolutely fantastic.  If they choose to walk from Welker, they'll be in a better spot.

Youngest D in the league, a good offense, superb base continuity on the roster on both sides of the ball, so if they walk from complementary players, new bodies won't hurt this aspect.

"ESPN.com senior NFL writer John Clayton noted that the Patriots project to have $18.6 million in cap space (link here), which would seem to set them up nicely as they build the roster."

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4739136/patriots-and-salary-cap-space

In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

In response to PATSthebest's comment:

Now we are a few days out from Sundays game. I've read hundreds of posts for and against, Brady, Welker, BB, Offense, Defense etc.. So after I've digested this I can only come with are we in it to win it, or just be real good?

So if everyone can agree BB is in charge I feel he should say to Mr. Kraft the following:

"Boss I run the team as coach, D coord, GM, I picked every coach, player, & ball boy. I have maybe the best QB of all time, but  just can't seem to win the big one without that D I inherited 10+ years ago.  With that said is being a really good team good enough?"

your post would be valid if the offense could actually score in the big postseason games....in their last 5 playoff losses the pats offense has scored 13, 17, 21, 14, and 14 respectively....now you're trying to tell me the defense has been the problem? the numbers dont lie.

Your post would be valid if you realized teams don't always score over 20 points.

Of course scoring More is better, but when you look at it, half the games in the NFL are under 20 points.  That also means in all those games that are won with teams scoring under 20, the Defenses are responsible for that.

How on earth did the Ravens win 7-6, they only scored on one possession in the whole game?

Do you know that the Pats are 1/9 in games that they scores under 20 in the past 5 years?

The problem is NOT the scoring under 20, ALL teams (including the great ones) do it!

The problem is that it takes a Defense to win those games.   You know, those guys on the other half of the TEAM!!!  You know... those guys who have also LOST games when the O was scoring 30+ points.

So, what's more realistic?  A team that always has to score more than the league average to win or a D that hold up their part of the bargain in more than 1 of 9 games, over the course of YEARS, when the O can't?

Stop saying the O has to score more to win when it's more likely that the D has to allow less to win.

In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

i would agree with you if it were "occasionally". it just hasnt been. all of their recent playoff losses, with the exception of the jets game, they have scored less than 20 points....that is far from occasional. it has become a pattern. the pats offense has become the indy colts offense circa 01-05. great during the regular season, and then sheet the bed in the playoffs.

But, it has been occasionally.

Percentage of games Pats have scored 13-20 points:

2001-2004: Regular season: 25%, Postseason: 30%

2005-2012: Regular season: 21%, Postseason: 27%

They're having these off offensive performances at almost exactly the same clip in the postseason as the regular season!  The difference is that they are not WINNING these games in the postseason at the same clip.

ravens defense making plays = 3 turnovers

pasts defense not making plays = 0 turnovers

To be clear, I am not BLAMING the defense.  I am just not BLAMING the offense.  The offense shoulders too much of the load.  And no matter how good they are, they WILL NOT PERFORM AT THEIR REGULAR SEASON AVERAGE for 3 straight games in the playoffs, against the best teams in the league.  It just won't happen, for any team.  If you're relying on them to do so, you're going to be pretty sad in January and February every year.

4 out of their past 5 playoff losses, they have scored 13, 14, 14, and 17.....that is NOT occasional.

if they arent going to perform well in january and february, why pay them such a huge portion of the money then? explain why we should be ok with them crapping the bed every year when the stage is biggest, just because teams have pretty good defenses.

In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

4 out of their past 5 playoff losses, they have scored 13, 14, 14, and 17.....that is NOT occasional.

Do you realize that only picking out the losses is like saying "The Patriots have been shut out in 100% of the games that they have not scored a point!  That is not occasional, it is a pattern!"

I've given you the overall numbers for the team, you choose to close your eyes, block your ears, and scream "PATTERN!  PATTERN!  PATTERN!"

In response to pezz4pats's comment:

In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

In response to PATSthebest's comment:

Now we are a few days out from Sundays game. I've read hundreds of posts for and against, Brady, Welker, BB, Offense, Defense etc.. So after I've digested this I can only come with are we in it to win it, or just be real good?

So if everyone can agree BB is in charge I feel he should say to Mr. Kraft the following:

"Boss I run the team as coach, D coord, GM, I picked every coach, player, & ball boy. I have maybe the best QB of all time, but  just can't seem to win the big one without that D I inherited 10+ years ago.  With that said is being a really good team good enough?"

your post would be valid if the offense could actually score in the big postseason games....in their last 5 playoff losses the pats offense has scored 13, 17, 21, 14, and 14 respectively....now you're trying to tell me the defense has been the problem? the numbers dont lie.

Your post would be valid if you realized teams don't always score over 20 points.

Of course scoring More is better, but when you look at it, half the games in the NFL are under 20 points.  That also means in all those games that are won with teams scoring under 20, the Defenses are responsible for that.

How on earth did the Ravens win 7-6, they only scored on one possession in the whole game?

Do you know that the Pats are 1/9 in games that they scores under 20 in the past 5 years?

The problem is NOT the scoring under 20, ALL teams (including the great ones) do it!

The problem is that it takes a Defense to win those games.   You know, those guys on the other half of the TEAM!!!  You know... those guys who have also LOST games when the O was scoring 30+ points.

So, what's more realistic?  A team that always has to score more than the league average to win or a D that hold up their part of the bargain in more than 1 of 9 games, over the course of YEARS, when the O can't?

Stop saying the O has to score more to win when it's more likely that the D has to allow less to win.

right, so we should blame the defense that kept it a game throughout the game. a defense that also is full of young inexperienced players who played their hearts out to keep it a game. lets ignore the fact that our high caliber offense sheet the bed yet again in the playoffs. if brady and the offensive players are going to be paid as well as they are, they need to start playing like it in the playoffs. pats dont pay brady so much money to see him put up a pathetic 13 points against an aging ravens defense, and in foxboro no less. the defense did what they had done all season, keep it relatively low scoring and keep giving the pats offense a chance to score and put pressure on the other team. the ravens were very good at holding on to the ball, you would think that an away team would make more mistakes with the ball, but NOPE! the pats offense turned the ball over three times and it cost them. enough of the excuses for the offense, it is getting pathetic. brady is a great player, and he will be missed when he retires. but just blaming the defense for everything isnt going to change the fact that him and that offense have been flat out awful in every playoff game since 2007 that wasnt a divisional game.

In response to FrnkBnhm's comment:

In response to RockScully's comment:

In response to WeDerrWEBACK's comment:

In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

well obviously this is a big offseason....if the pats go out and get the big receiver that everyone has been hoping for, than i think we can all infer that they knew a change was needed to get them farther in the postseason.

How is your own cap/FA situation?  Serious question because you only have 4 draft picks this year if I am not mistaken.  Going to be hard picking so late in the rounds with those little number of picks not being able to move up.  How do you make a big splash in the offseason?

/notroll

Fantastic. Absolutely fantastic.  If they choose to walk from Welker, they'll be in a better spot.

Youngest D in the league, a good offense, superb base continuity on the roster on both sides of the ball, so if they walk from complementary players, new bodies won't hurt this aspect.

"ESPN.com senior NFL writer John Clayton noted that the Patriots project to have $18.6 million in cap space (link here), which would seem to set them up nicely as they build the roster."

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4739136/patriots-and-salary-cap-space

The issue is more than just cap space. It is players under contract. If you actually read the article:

• "The take-home message was not to read too much into available cap space figures, as it doesn't necessarily paint an accurate picture. Furthermore, teams with more cap space in the offseason aren't necessarily in better shape than those with less space; it's about having a complete team while also managing the salary cap."

They were $18.6 M under the cap when the season ended, but that was with only 33 players under contract (after signing Armstead it is more like $18M and 34 players). That $18 M needs to get spread over 19 players. With minimum salaries ranging from $405k to $940k depending on length of service that actually does not leave a lot of room for error.

Even if they let Welker go, but manage to keep Vollmer and Talib they will talk up more than $10M easily. That will leave room for only minimum contract players to fill out the roster. That is without Branch, Woodhead, Edelman, Arrington, Chung, Cole, Fletcher, Hoomanawanui, Pryor, Scott, Thomas, and Tracy White on the team. Granted, most of those guys I can live without (and some are restricted) but they will need players to take all that playing time and roster spots.

I read the whole article. 

BB has a very young roster, key players locked up, which gives him leverage with other directions they want to go.

They have about 15 million to play with. 4 or 5 mil for rookies, 10 or 11 mil to spread out for FAs. 

Also, Vollmer and Talib won't be making 10 million combined in 2013. If the base of this team hadn't been built, your sky is falling analysis might make sense.

In response to MattC05's comment:

To be clear, I am not BLAMING the defense.  I am just not BLAMING the offense.  The offense shoulders too much of the load.  And no matter how good they are, they WILL NOT PERFORM AT THEIR REGULAR SEASON AVERAGE for 3 straight games in the playoffs, against the best teams in the league.  It just won't happen, for any team.  If you're relying on them to do so, you're going to be pretty sad in January and February every year.

I think you're missing the point.  It's about spreading the ball around and balance.  The play balance on paper shows up, not the personnel.  Welker and Hernandez were targeted literally over 25 times combined. That's absolutely absurd.

No one is asking them to score 42 points, 35 points or even 28 points.  We're asking for no turnovers and to hit on TDs as much as possible once in the red zone.

I don't think this is a lot to ask for a team with a Bye week at home, hosting an AFC title game.

13 points, dude? Really? You say you're not blaming the D, but you're going out of your way to spin why 13 points at home is acceptable?

Basically, if this game was to be won, NE needed a pick 6 from the D or multiple INTs and or/fumble recoveries, and even if they got those, we may not have scored.

In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

if they arent going to perform well in january and february, why pay them such a huge portion of the money then? explain why we should be ok with them crapping the bed every year when the stage is biggest, just because teams have pretty good defenses.

We shouldn't be ok with it.  If anything, my point has been that the defense needs to be better even if the offense gets worse.  Because the offense WON'T perform to the same level in the playoffs as they do in the regular season, no matter how it's tweaked.

In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

In response to pezz4pats's comment:

In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

In response to PATSthebest's comment:

Now we are a few days out from Sundays game. I've read hundreds of posts for and against, Brady, Welker, BB, Offense, Defense etc.. So after I've digested this I can only come with are we in it to win it, or just be real good?

So if everyone can agree BB is in charge I feel he should say to Mr. Kraft the following:

"Boss I run the team as coach, D coord, GM, I picked every coach, player, & ball boy. I have maybe the best QB of all time, but  just can't seem to win the big one without that D I inherited 10+ years ago.  With that said is being a really good team good enough?"

your post would be valid if the offense could actually score in the big postseason games....in their last 5 playoff losses the pats offense has scored 13, 17, 21, 14, and 14 respectively....now you're trying to tell me the defense has been the problem? the numbers dont lie.

Your post would be valid if you realized teams don't always score over 20 points.

Of course scoring More is better, but when you look at it, half the games in the NFL are under 20 points.  That also means in all those games that are won with teams scoring under 20, the Defenses are responsible for that.

How on earth did the Ravens win 7-6, they only scored on one possession in the whole game?

Do you know that the Pats are 1/9 in games that they scores under 20 in the past 5 years?

The problem is NOT the scoring under 20, ALL teams (including the great ones) do it!

The problem is that it takes a Defense to win those games.   You know, those guys on the other half of the TEAM!!!  You know... those guys who have also LOST games when the O was scoring 30+ points.

So, what's more realistic?  A team that always has to score more than the league average to win or a D that hold up their part of the bargain in more than 1 of 9 games, over the course of YEARS, when the O can't?

Stop saying the O has to score more to win when it's more likely that the D has to allow less to win.

right, so we should blame the defense that kept it a game throughout the game. a defense that also is full of young inexperienced players who played their hearts out to keep it a game. lets ignore the fact that our high caliber offense sheet the bed yet again in the playoffs. if brady and the offensive players are going to be paid as well as they are, they need to start playing like it in the playoffs. pats dont pay brady so much money to see him put up a pathetic 13 points against an aging ravens defense, and in foxboro no less. the defense did what they had done all season, keep it relatively low scoring and keep giving the pats offense a chance to score and put pressure on the other team. the ravens were very good at holding on to the ball, you would think that an away team would make more mistakes with the ball, but NOPE! the pats offense turned the ball over three times and it cost them. enough of the excuses for the offense, it is getting pathetic. brady is a great player, and he will be missed when he retires. but just blaming the defense for everything isnt going to change the fact that him and that offense have been flat out awful in every playoff game since 2007 that wasnt a divisional game.

Not ignoring the offense low scoring game.  Yes, they could have done better.

But the fact is when you rely or have to rely on half a team to win, YOU LOSE!

The Pats D did not keep the game close unless you call  allowing 21 points  in the second half keepin it close. 

AGAIN!  no turn overs (their supposed strength) and no RZ stops (their only other strenth) means game over!

ALL TEAMS SCORE UNDER 21,  That shouldn't mean an automatic loss.  (not if the other half steps up )  They didn't in the SB's they didn't Sunday and they didn't for 8 of 9 RZ losses  and they didn't for all losses when the O was putting up plenty of points.

Half can't beat whole.  In the play-offs they generally play whole teams.

This is not a whole team and hasn't been for years!!!!!!

they are losing games that they would win in the regular season with their offense producing at even an average rate.

In response to WeDerrWEBACK's comment:

ravens defense making plays = 3 turnovers

pasts defense not making plays = 0 turnovers

the ravens had scored 7 points at halftime and were having a hard time scoring on the pats. its no coincidence that once the pats offense stalled and kept giving the ravens good starting position, the pats defense started allowing points. the talib injury obviously didnt help either. flacco played very well and brady didnt. see here is another time where the yards statistic proves to mean absolutely NOTHING! brady passes for 320, combined offense goes for 400+ yards, and they score only 13 points!....flacco throws for 240, yet he leads his team to 4 td drives and 28 points!