Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?

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

    Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?

    Or was Bengals that bad?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from gmbill. Show gmbill's posts

    Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?


    Obviously you did not watch the game. So why make the quote?
    I know this, the Jets will s--k tonight....
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?

    Nobody knows after 1 game.  There is a reason they don't hand out the Lombardi in the offseason, a reason they don't hand it out after the preseason, and a reason they don't hand it out after 1 game.  Were we that bad after getting blown out by the Bills 31-0 in 2003?  Were the Bills that good?  We like to talk about that game a lot around here, but there are countless other examples to be found.  

    I'll take the win and be happy about.  We won't know the answer to your question until mores games have been played.  Even that isn't always accurate.  Didn't the Broncos start off 6-0 last year?  Were they that good?
     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from whodeawhodat. Show whodeawhodat's posts

    Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?

    In Response to Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?:
    Obviously you did not watch the game. So why make the quote? I know this, the Jets will s--k tonight....
    Posted by gmbill


    Easy bud, you have 6 days until your beating.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?

    No. The Pats were that good. 

    The massive lead was built, not on the Bengals shooting themselves in the foot, but on fundamental football. NE's number ones played faster and stronger. Period.

    When the defense dropped into simple Cover-2 in the second half, the Bengals started moving the ball. Outside of that, the defense dominated the Bengals' offense. T.O.s comments after eat t the game were telling, when he basically said they had trouble getting off the Pat's jams, and had trouble dealing with the inside zones in the first half, but in the second NE dropped back and gave them some room. Carson Palmer said they "figured it out" by the second half, but that was simply figuring out a version of prevent defense meant to prevent the Bengals from getting any quick scores at the expense of giving up steady yardage. The Bengals essentially were forced to eat their own clock ...


    The Pats' new look offense simply dominated. They dominated on the ground and dominated in the air. They dominated with two TEs and dominated with four wide. Special teams (outside of two missed FGs) dominated all phases. Especially masterful was the fourteen play drive by NE right when they needed to chew some time off the clock. And (something NE simply couldn't do last season) the final clock killing drive.  

    The key for such a young team will be duplicating this effort weekly. Although I expect some inconsistency, this is a fine start.

    As far as the Bengals go? When they play weaker teams they score points and prevent scores as they are accustomed to doing. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoPinkHatPatsFans. Show NoPinkHatPatsFans's posts

    Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?

    Were that Pats that good in Week 1 and Week 2 against NOs and Atlanta's #1s?

    Pitt barely beat Atlanta yesterday at home.

    NE demolished Atlanta's first team. NE beat the Saints 1st team.

    Based on the troll work since Week 3 in preseason, I can see why people are surprised NE looked that good yesterday, but I am not.

    I would suggest you Pats troll types, that is, if you are really a loyal Pats fan, stop reading Albert Breer, Shalise and Chris Gasper.

    They don't know football and are very unprofessional to boot.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?

    I'd have to agree with Z.

    You can pick nits and point to a few things the Bengals accomplished when it was too late to matter, but when the contest was still in doubt, The Pats simply steamrolled Cinncinnatti.


     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?

    In Response to Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?:
    Nobody knows after 1 game. 
    Posted by carawaydj

    The Patriots were always that good last year, except for when they lost Wes Welker.  They were that good against New Orleans in preseason, and that counts for something.  Also their first string defense was that good against Atlanta in preseason. 

    Cincinnati was getting that bad rapidly, judging by their five preseason disasters in a row.  Actually they got even worse yesterday.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?

    They looked pretty good to me. I still think there will be some bumps, there always are, especially with a young team, but d@mn they were impressive.

    You knew the Bengals were going to go after the young Patriot corners and they did. McCourty and Butler passed the test with flying colors.

    I don't think I've ever looked forward to a non super bowl game like I am for next weeks game at the Jets.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?

    In Response to Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?:
    I wouldn't say that the Pats were "better" but that they were better coached for this game. The Pats kept the Bengals defense on their heels the entire first half, and were able to parlay a large lead into a bend but do not break defense for the 2nd half. That being said, the defense bent "a lot" in the 2nd half. With out the INT return and the KO return, the game played out closer than the posters on this board are admitting. To assume that Pats will get a leg up on a Ryan or Harbaugh coached defense is a mistake, and it remains to be seen if the defense can stop a drive when the momentum has shifted to the opponents favor.  Also, like every team, it remains a large question mark how the Pats deal with any injuries to the already thin OL or front 7.  
    Posted by ronk1


    I love this kind of reasoning right here ^.

    So . . .   you're saying that if the Pats had not played so well, the game would have been a lot closer.

    My god man, that's genius.


    Undecided






     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2010. Show Evil2010's posts

    Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?

    In Response to Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?:
    In Response to Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:? : Easy bud, you have 6 days until your beating.
    Posted by whodeawhodat


    Leon you would know all about beating wouldn't you. of course the rest of us are talking about football teams while you just beat your inchworm.
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?

    In Response to Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?:
    I wouldn't say that the Pats were "better" but that they were better coached for this game. ...With out the INT return and the KO return, the game played out closer than the posters on this board are admitting. ....Posted by ronk1


    So, Ronk1....  if the Patriots offense took control after the INT and after the second half kickoff and scored TD's, thereby running off more time of possession to lessen the amount of time the Bengals O is on the field, that makes this a different game?  Seems the offense put it out of reach with a 14 play drive that lasted almost 8 minutes to close out the 3rd quarter and make the score 38 - 17.  You can "what if" the INT and KO TD all you want, in the end, the Pats pretty much dominated the game!
     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?

    The INT return and the KO return kept the offense off the field.

    The Pats were far superior. They were up 31-3 in the 3rd quarter and cruising. They had drops and missed field goals that should have led to more points. Then they played to prevent quick scores and to run out the clock.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from kman2004. Show kman2004's posts

    Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?

    In Response to Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?:
    In Response to Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:? : no, I am saying that except for those 2 plays, the teams were pretty even. In reading the posts it would seem that the Pats were far superior, and that was not the case.
    Posted by ronk1


    Hello? Are you new to football. They beat the team by 14 points. How many points do they need to beat them by to be superior? The vast majority of the wins in the league come down to 2-3 plays per game. The Patriots margin of victory was the 3rd largest of all of the games played this week so far.

    There was never a point in the game where they were in danger of losing. The last time I checked Defensive & Special teams touchdowns get the same point total. So who cares how they got the points.

    They were not pretty even, they are 14 points apart. Which in NFL is the difference between a 14-2 team and a 2-14 team.

    So who is your team? Or you too afraid to come clean and tell us?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?

    31-3 right after the beginning of the 3rd quarter sounds like very good to me, and don't forget the Bungles won their division last year and are a playoff claiber team. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?

    Ronk1,


    It wasn't that they COULDN'T stop the Bengals in the second half. It was that they DIDN'T WANT TO. You could see the defense opening a hole around 5 yds down field surrounded by three or more defenders. Palmer would pass the ball to the receiver going through that hole and he wouldn't have anywhere to go.

    The same thing could be said of the offense. While they were up by more than two touchdowns they didn't do much. Once the Bengals got within two touchdowns, they turned it back on again and marched right down the field for another score.

    In essence the Pats dictated the game on both sides of the ball for the entire game.

    I was at that game too and nobody around me thought anything like what you thought. Nobody around me thought the Pats might lose the lead. They all were remarking about how the Bengals were gaining yards but they were also killing the clock awfully fast.
     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?

    In Response to Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:?:
    In Response to Re: Were that Pats that good in Week 1:? : so the Pats didnt care that the score quickly became 31-17 and they lost the momentum of the first half?
    Posted by ronk1


    No. Not exactly... but it wasn't exactly inconspicuous that they were giving the Bengals short passes in the second half.... even the Bengals noted it in the presser. If a team needs five scores to come back (31-3) to tie, you simply do everything you can to avoid letting them get a quick score. It's called situational football.

    And yes, Ocho was very good down the stretch, but you gotta be kidding if you think Ne was playing as tight in the third and fourth as they were in the first and second.
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts