Lost amidst the ongoing debate about Bill Belichick’s ridiculous decision to go for it on fourth down, is the fact that the Patriots blew a 17-point, 4th-quarter lead against the Colts last night. Even worse, they were up 13 with two-and-a-half minutes to play. It’s been said good teams don’t blow leads late. Which kind of begs the question, are the Patriots a good team?
I’m not so sure. At 6-3, the Pats are significantly better than the Jets, who are in a total tailspin. What’s more, the Pats sit atop the AFC East and are an absolute lock to make the playoffs.
But so what? Despite their record and place in the standings, the Pats have yet to beat this season what the kids today call a good team. The Pats' six wins have come against the lowly Buffalo Bills (3-6), the inconsistent Miami Dolphins (4-5), the truly awful Tampa Bay Buccaneers (1-8), the mediocre Baltimore Ravens (4-4), the so-so Atlantic Falcons (5-4) and the reeling Tennessee Titans (3-6), who wanted absolutely nothing do with the Patriots or the snow. For those keeping score at home, the Pats’ wins have come against teams with a combined record of 20-33, about 10 games below even the most liberal definition of mediocrity.
Granted, the Patriots can only play the teams they play. And, besides the Jets in Week 2, the Patriots have beaten the teams they’re supposed to beat. At the same time, though, the Pats are 1-2 against teams with a winning record, including their home win against the Falcons. They got outplayed in Denver, and just flat out blew last night’s game against the Colts.
Critics can slam Belichick all they want, and Pats fans can point out that the odds backed him up. But, if I counted myself among them, I’d be more concerned as a New England fan with the very real possibility that the 2009 Patriots, like their Red Sox counterparts, are simply a second-tier team. Which, knowing Pats fans, is probably more excruciating than Jets fans having to endure yet another lost season.
If Pats fans need any advice on how to handle adversity, I'd suggest looking elsewhere besides Belichick and his handlers. They make Obama's Secret Service detail look like a bunch of bathroom attendants.
BEN:
I find this post surprisingly comforting. It's nice to know, while you are busy licking your wounds from what can only be described as an excruciating loss, that somewhere, somehow, a New York fan will find a way to totally misinterpret and overstate the consequences of the loss.
Here's an obvious point, for starters: they put up 34 points against the defense averaging the least points per game in the NFL. Here's another one: they lost by one point, on the road, to an undefeated team, and by most accounts outplayed them for about 55 minutes. I'd say those are both signs of a pretty damn good team.
Come on. Could you really watch that game and not see it as a contest between two elite teams? I'm sure you won't question the legit-ness of the Patriots offense. (Or will you? One never knows, I guess.) And their kicking game, also strong. The defense? Yeah, they got pretty chewed up there at the end of the game, but they were also down to their backup-backups on the defensive line. And overall, they've performed very well this season. Both stats and analysts say so.
As far as their alleged problem of winning only against bad teams. This strikes me as particularly revisionist. Just a reminder: the Patriots played exclusively undefeated teams until week 6.
The quality of NFL competition is not a fixed quantity. Teams, like for instance the Jets and Giants, to take two random examples, can look like world-beaters one minute and also-rans the next. When the Ravens came into Foxborough, they were out for blood, and, as noted elsewhere in this blog, seen as one of the top teams in the NFL. Do their subsequent struggles retroactively mean that they weren't good? Of course not, and there are lots of reasons why. Game plans develop over the season. Players get injured. Weather conditions change. You have to rely on what's happening in front of your face. And watching that game, I could see it was two good teams gutting it out.
The Jets have made it easier on me today. As down-and-out as they've been lately, a win against a thoroughly mediocre Jaguars team--at home, coming off their bye week--would have put them back to within one game of the division lead. And could have made this weekend's divisional rematch and all-the-marbles kind of game. But Rex Ryan didn't have his team ready.
By the way, don't let anyone fool you into thinking that the Jaguars' mediocrity is similar to think "mediocrity" of the Falcons and Ravens, both considered to be playoff contenders. The Jags have slouched their way to a 5-4 record while allowing 39 more points than they've scored. The Falcons are 5-4 at +27; the Ravens are 4-4 at +52. (While we're at it, the Jets are +41, and the Patriots are +109). If you prefer gambling metrics, how about if I note that the supposedly-mediocre Ravens are favored by a point against the Colts?
But I suppose I digress. What was your point again? You feel that the Patriots, by virtue of a last-second one-point loss against an undefeated team, have shown themselves to be second-rate. This must also apply to the Bengals, who gave up a crazy game-winning TD to the undefeated Broncos. And to the Steelers, who gave up a game-winning TD to the Bengals. And to the Vikings, whose two turnovers in the 4th quarter clinched a win for the Steelers. Is the facile-ness of this argument self-evident yet? The only two teams you CAN'T say it about are the Saints and Colts, because they haven't lost. So is your point that the Pats aren't one of the top two teams in the NFL right now? If so, I concede.
MILES:
We got a good one going here.
I'd just like to point out that the Patriots, at 6-3, have the same record as the Arizona Cardinals and Dallas Cowboys, hardly beasts of the National Football League. The Pats also share the same record as the the Kyle Orton-led Denver Broncos and Norv Turner's San Diego Chargers.
Further, the Pats's six wins include one--I repeat, one-- road win, against the 1-8 Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who have allowed 99 more points than they've scored. Speaking of the +/- system, four of the Pats six wins have come against teams that have allowed more points than they've scored: the Bills (-70); the Dolphins (-9); the Titans (-66); and the aforementioned Bucs (-99). Only the Ravens and the Falcons have played in positive numbers.
To be fair, I guess you could argue that beating the Ravens in Foxboro in Week 4 qualifies as a signature win, but I wouldn't be so quick to hang your hat on it. Here's how NFL.com describes that game's decisive play:
Baltimore's potential game-winning drive stalled as Mark Clayton dropped a perfect fourth-down pass that would have given the Ravens a first-and-goal. The Patriots took a knee and ran out the remaining 28 seconds off the clock.More fortunate than convincing, wouldn't you say? Kind of like the gift Buffalo handed you in Week 1. Think about it for a second: 6-3 could easily, easily, be 5-4 or even 4-5. It's not, but I'm making the point, not entirely unfounded, I believe, that the Pats are a soft 6-win team. Not that they are themselves soft, mind you; only their record. They success thus far is primarily the result of a superior offense, a weak, borderline pathetic division, and a less-than-taxing schedule. All of these factors have helped camouflage some of the team's biggest weaknesses. That they are the Patriots, I think, analysts and commentators have been loathe to call them on it. These talking heads are letting the past success define, or at least color, their perceptions of this year's Patriots team.
I don't think the team stands up to closer scrutiny. Take, for instance, the Pats' vaunted +109 point differential. On the surface, it's pretty impressive. However, a 59-0 rout of a truly deplorable and dysfunctional Titans team, who entered that contest losers of back-to-back games by 20 and 22 points, respectively, will do wonders to a team's statistics. As will playing the hapless Bucs.
Which is why I prefer to look at a team's record. As Bill Parcells likes to remind us, "You are what your record says you are." At 6-3, the Pats are squarely in the middle of the pack, jostling for position against the Broncos, the Chargers, and the Steelers, the AFC's second-tier teams. The Pats could eventually break free and make a strong run into the playoffs, based almost entirely on the team's offensive talent, but I don't see that happening. The defense is suspect, particularly in the 4th quarter, a pretty big bugaboo. Just ask Bill Belichick. He doesn't even believe in them.
Finally, I can't let this one go unnoticed: "the Patriots played exclusively undefeated teams until week 6." Seriously? You're really calling the 0-0 Bills undefeated? Sure, the Jets, coming off their Week 1 against the Texans, were, technically, undefeated, as were the 2-0 Falcons. The 3-0 Ravens, thanks to Mark Clayton, literally let a win slip through their fingers. In Week 5, the previously undefeated Broncos beat you, as noted above. As did the undefeated Colts this week.
The Pats are a good team, vastly superior to the Jets--and most other teams in the NFL. I'll give you that. All I'm saying is, they aren't one of the league's elite teams, and I'd be surprised, almost shocked, if they got out of the second round of the playoffs.
BEN:
You're right that they could have lost to the Bills or Ravens. But they could equally well have beaten the Broncos (to whom they lost in overtime, on the road, after losing the coin toss) and the Colts (obviously). If those things had happened, they'd be 8-1 and we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. The fact that they didn't win those games is no more or less indicative of their character than the near-losses against Buffalo and Baltimore.
The NFL provides a much smaller sample size than baseball. Each statistic, but particularly wins and losses, is hugely impacted by single games. You know I love stats, but this one doesn't really come down to them. I don't think the Patriots should be punished for beating bad teams, but sure, their mettle is tested against the good ones.
If you feel, as you seem to, that the Steelers, Chargers, Patriots, and Broncos comprise the AFC's second tier, then I presume what you're saying is that the top tier consists only of two teams--the Colts and Bengals. And, I mean, sure, as far as that goes, I'll agree. Despite the allegation that "the media" are loathe to criticize the Patriots (an odd point to make, I'd submit, in view of the three links you included at the top of this post), I think most people have had questions about the team all year long: about Brady's return to form, about the youth of the defense, etc.
To return once more, to whatever your point is: I am happy to agree that the Patriots are not clearly better than the Steelers or Chargers. I think all three teams have a shot at the Super Bowl. You'd be shocked if the Patriots made it out of the second round of the playoffs. Meaning what? That they might not be among the top 4 teams in the NFL? Is this what a "reality check" looks like? I think this is kind of a small criticism, and not even clearly an accurate one. I'll say this: I don't think the Colts have any more desire to play us in January than they did three days ago.
MILES:
See, I think that's just it. There's this prevailing notion that the Pats still loom over the league, that the road to the Super Bowl goes through Foxborough. They don't, and it doesn't. Why wouldn't the Colts have any more desire to play the Pats in January than they did three days ago? The Colts won, coming back from 17 down in the 4th quarter. As a fan, you have every right to remain optimistic about the Pats' chances, but you also have to consider the very real likelihood that, this year, the Pats simply don't have it, even if you're not yet ready to admit it.
BEN:
Do I really need to explain why the Colts don't feel differently about the Patriots? I would think the answer is obvious: because they won in the last seconds by one point and needed a miracle comeback. Why would they feel sure that would happen again? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Pats are better than they are. (Or that the "road to the Super Bowl comes through Foxborough.") But I am saying that nothing about the game was definitive.
I don't think you need to get creative to feel that this Pats team, while not the best in the league, is good enough to beat anyone. Most people seem to agree; if you think this is part of a pro-Patriots media conspiracy, well, which one of us is letting his biases get in the way?
MILES:
I stand by my missive, biased or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment