Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He beat them? You mean the Seattle team beat them. Since when was Wilson on the team defending passes & rushing at other QBs? Brady didn't beat the Colts. Rodgers didn't beat the Cowboys. Flacco didn't beat the Steelers. The teams they were on did.
So then you should go play QB for the Hawks then, as it's obvious the QB plays no role in the victories...
Obviously, the Patriots are probably looking like the best team on the field - it's tough to pick against Brady and Belichick and their offensive machine.
However, if you look at the two or three games in which the Pats struggled (I'm not going to count Buffalo), the one thing that jumps out is that teams had success running the ball against their defense. Eddie Lacy had 98 yards. The Pats gave up 125 to Baltimore's running back. The Pats were 1-1 in those games. The question then is, can the Pats defense make adjustments and can Brady and Co. spread the ball around and create balance to win. Seattle will be their toughest test yet, though they already faced a comparable team in Green Bay and made it competitive. For those reasons, I have to give the edge to Seattle.
The one reason why the Pats have a chance is the scheming of Belichick. He'll have two weeks to break down film on Russell Wilson, and he's about as good as there is at prepping for big games.
to stop Lynch the Pats have to put 8 in the box, that leaves the receivers one on one with the corners....with a scrambling QB like Wilson, Pats better hope they can get to Wilson or that's an advantage to the Hawks for big plays just what Flacco did when he threw for 4 TD's and Forsett rushed for 130 yards.
if Pats can run the ball they have a chance....if they can't, I don't see them winning this game and Brady will have a rough day.
Since game 4, they are 12-2 which makes them pretty hot, one of those W's in your constantly mentioned stats game. Barely made this, lots of yards, blah blah - honestly not really sure what your point is.
The 9-7 Giants won the Super Bowl because they became the hottest team at the right time playing on all cylinders beating a superior Patriots team because they were better.
and your point is the Patriots are hot because they beat the Colts again 1 sided?
so did the Hawks....they executed and beat a better team in the Packers than the Ravens.....can we agree that the Packers are a stronger and more balance team than the Ravens????
can the Pats have 5 turnovers and beat the Packers????? they had 0 turnovers in November and still lost to the Packers.
The Packers are better than the Ravens - absolutely.
You can't win every game. If I'm not mistaken, Green Bay was blowing every team out, good and bad, until the Patriots came to town. They barely squeaked by at home, which actually did show how good the Patriots are. The same two teams on a neutral field or at Gillette on that day - I'd bet the Pats would have won.
And yes, the Patriots can beat any team even with 5 turnovers. The Packers had a few turnovers of their own to balance it out just a bit. If the Packers had no turnovers, I don't think Seattle would have won.
and your point is the Patriots are hot because they beat the Colts again 1 sided?
No I never said that. 12-2 in the last 14 games - that's hot by any standard in the NFL. Score differentiation makes no difference in deeming a team hot or not - wins and losses does.
The Packers are better than the Ravens - absolutely.
You can't win every game. If I'm not mistaken, Green Bay was blowing every team out, good and bad, until the Patriots came to town. They barely squeaked by at home, which actually did show how good the Patriots are. The same two teams on a neutral field or at Gillette on that day - I'd bet the Pats would have won.
And yes, the Patriots can beat any team even with 5 turnovers. The Packers had a few turnovers of their own to balance it out just a bit. If the Packers had no turnovers, I don't think Seattle would have won.
Packers had 2 to Seahawks 5...that's an advantage of 3 for the Packers.
tell me when the Patriots beat a top 3 team in the NFL with 5 turnovers?........I don't think they could have beat the Ravens last week with 3 turnovers....they had 1 turnover against the Ravens and barely won by 4 points and they had to pulled that win late in the 4th quarter.
No I never said that. 12-2 in the last 14 games - that's hot by any standard in the NFL. Score differentiation makes no difference in deeming a team hot or not - wins and losses does.
Dallas finished with the same record as the Patriots, so did the Packers who beat the Patriots....so did the Hawks.
apart from Denver who weren't the same as last year, what competition the Pats have in their division and AFC?
Packers had 2 to Seahawks 5...that's an advantage of 3 for the Packers.
tell me when the Patriots beat a top 3 team in the NFL with 5 turnovers?........I don't think they could have beat the Ravens last week with 3 turnovers....they had 1 turnover against the Ravens and barely won by 4 points and they had to pulled that win late in the 4th quarter.
Seattle is in another level than the Patriots.
Well, I guess all we can do is wait for two weeks to see which team is at what level.
Unlike yourself, I do not diminish Seattle like you do the Patriots. I've said it in another thread - right now Seattle is the best team. They are the defending Super Bowl champs going back to the dance, so the Patriots are faced with "to be the best you must beat the best". But another level? No they are not, and they've shown that all year. Seattle, New England, Green Bay - those 3 team were on the same level this year, and actually, it took Seattle longer to get up to it. Not as dominant as last year, of which maybe then they were on this other level you speak of.
So go ahead, read more scripture and verse on the Ravens game. Of course you wouldn't do the same for the Seattle/Green Bay game, because you probably believe the Hawks were pretending for 56 minutes and then pulled out that special level to win. Green Bay had nothing to do with losing.
With both teams being fairly equal on both sides of the ball, I think this one comes down to clutch QB play and coaching. Got to give the edge to N.E. on both counts. Pats win...(and I'll be rooting for the Seahawks)
Dallas finished with the same record as the Patriots, so did the Packers who beat the Patriots....so did the Hawks.
apart from Denver who weren't the same as last year, what competition the Pats have in their division and AFC?
The NFC is a tougher conference.
Definitely the NFC is tougher overall.
Yes the Pats lost to the Packers, but it was by far the closest home game Green Bay had.
Pats annihilated the Bears and Vikings (I know, not great teams) and the Lions. The Pats have fared well against the NFC, so although the division as a hole is stronger, the Pats have proven in the NFC they'd still probably be towards the top (but of course that's just a guess).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
