MyPetSlug

I don't know how you can say they are just a "good" team but not a great one. They finish every season with double digit wins. Even the year Brady went down in week 1. Year in and year out they are almost always considered one of the top three teams in the league, if not the outright best. Not only that, but they are one of the offensive trend setters in the league. What the Patriots do, other teams copy. As for them not loading up. Think about it, their franchise philosophy in a lot of ways mirrors their on the field philosophy. Just dink and dunk. Take the sure five yards and keep moving down the field. Yes, every now and then you take a shot, but only when you're in the right position. And you only take big risks when you have to. In franchise building terms, their goal is to get home field advantage for the playoffs while leaving as much cap space as possible for next year. Fill your holes by signing the reasonably priced free agent. And every now and then take a shot on a a Dillon, Moss, Haynesworth, or Ocho Cincho. You can criticise them for not loading up, but think about it this way. There are no gaurantees. If they could sign a single player that could gaurantee them the Superbowl, no matter the cost, I'm sure they would do it. But, what happens if you load up and don't win it all? Maybe you give youself a two or three year window and then fade into mediocrity for two or three wasted years where you are guaranteed to lose. Instead, they figure the superior strategy is just to be great every year. Make the playoffs, get home field advantage if possible, but keep an eye toward the future Then, when the playoffs come, let the chips fall where they may. And if not for a helmet catch and Wes Welker catch, we would not be arguing how well it works.

Let me re-phrase your question for you and you might see your error. "If the GIANTS could hold the number 1 offense in the league to only 20 points one time in a sample size one 1, what makes you think the Patriots can fare better?" Do you see what you missed? What you said has about as much relevance as me saying "Since the Giants gave up 49 points to the Saints, what hope do they have of stopping the Patrios?". In the GB game, did the Giants def play out of their minds? Maybe. Did GB just have an off day? Maybe. We can definitely say that they're not as good as they looked that game and not as bad as they looked playing the Saints. You have to be careful putting too much weight into 1 game. But, we know over the whole season, the Giants def wasn't much better than the Patriot. We also know over the whole season the Giants are a much more inconsistent team than the Patriots. Much more likely to come out and put up a sinker. Or, they could play lights out.

Pats fans are just a little nervous by how poorly the team played against the Ravens. We still won, but we honestly didn't really deserve to. 5 trips to the end zone with only 2 TDs. Brady throws 2 ints, not to mention missing a wide open Gronk for the TD, and there's a fumble on a kickoff return. That, and while the Pats D made some big plays when it had to, it also made Flacco look like an all-world QB, not to mention the Pats were literally a tenth of a second away from losing the game. These things do have a way of dampening the spirits. I see this game as a true coin flip. Someone pointed out that the Giants won the last two matchups, but by what scores? 17-14 and 24-20, both really tight games that came down to the last possession, not to mention the velcro catch and some dropped ints by the Pats. The game before that it was, what, 38-35, another really close game. This is not a matchup where one team has dominated. Plus, pointing out the Giants are on fire right now, you would think the week off hurts them while at the same time helping the Pats by giving them a chance to regroup from a tough outing. But, all the Giants media I'm reading right now seems very confident.

Pats fan here. I actually don't have a lot of confidence that they win, but then this question is how they could win. The Pats do have a number of advantages over the Giants. 1) O line - The Pats have a great O line. Everyone talks about the giants having the best front 4 in the league, but I don't think it would be shocking for the Pats to mostly shut them out and they'll need to. Maybe limit them to just 1 or 2 sacks like they did against the Ravens. Denver also has a great pass rush and they didn't get anywhere near Brady. I'm not saying it will happen, but it wouldn't be a surprise. 2) Hurry up offense - The Pats do this better than any team in the league. If they sense any kind of advantage or catch the Giants in a personnel mismatch, they'll turn on the the accelerator. This also limits the pass rush too as they can tire the pass rushers out and limit the blitzing by the def. The Ravens had a great game plan for this, but I think it's still a question whether the Giants can do the same. 3) Offensive efficiency - The Pats don't have an explosive big play threat like a Hakeem Nicks or VCruz, but they are great in the short and intermediate game. They move down the field efficiently and consistently. Even against a top def like the Ravens, the Pats still had 5 red zone chances (and would have been 6 if Gronk's catch was ruled correctly) and they made some uncharacteristic mistakes in those spots that lead to FGs instead of TDs. I see the Giants as tending to rely more on big plays down the field. Defending that is an area of weakness for the Pats, but it's also much more high risk for the Giants. Some days, those big plays just aren't there. The timing is just a little off. Or worse, defenders don't collide to miss an easy int. 4) Turnovers - Over the course of the year, they didn't throw many ints and rarely fumbled. They were 3rd on the year (not to mention 1st last year) in turnover differential, while the Giants were 8th. Yes the Pats were -2 vs. the Raven, they were -1 vs. the Broncos, and they were -2 (going on memory) when the last played the Giants, but generally, the Pats play a very clean game and they may be due for luck to swing the other way in this department. If the Pats win the turnover margin, I think they win the game.

Maybe this is slightly off-topic, but whenever I see posts like this "My partner Chris Mortensen seems to think the Raiders are willing to part ways with Asomugha for a 2nd rd pick", I always wonder, why do teams seem to value draft picks so highly? Is a top 5 corner in the league really only worth a 2nd round pick? A known pro bowl commodity is really only worth a draft prospect that might be a bust or in most cases, just a serviceable player? I guess this comment comes from more than just this post, but with all the trades in the league this year, it just seems like you have quality players getting moved for draft peanuts. I mean, as a GM, why even take a chance drafting a bust in the first couple rounds of the draft, why not trade those picks for quality players who have already proven themselves in the league? You could just trade your first or second and get a Asomugha every year. Can someone tell me what I'm missing?