"We are trying to kill teams. We're trying to blow them out if we can."
--Tom Brady, 11/20/07, WEEI

The opening line of the Patriots-Eagles game was 23 1/2. That is the largest spread on any game in the history of the National Football League, save for a game that pitted the Super Bowl champion Steelers against the expansion Bucs in 1976. To put this in perspective, here's Rick Gosselin from earlier this season in the Dallas Morning News: "In 2003, the largest betting line in any one game was 14 points. In 2005, there were only three teams favored to win by as many as 16 points (Indianapolis twice, Seattle once). In 2006, there were just two (Chicago and Indianapolis, once apiece)." Since 1980, just five teams have been installed as twenty-point favorites or more. I've been wondering when some Vegas casinos would take Patriots games off the board. Apparently, a few have gone that route. The house isn't the business to give away money.

Is Philly that horrible? No, they're a .500 team in a tough division. They put 56 points on the board earlier this season. Remember: These two franchises played in the Super Bowl just three years ago. Donovan McNabb is "questionable," but there's been no announcement that he will not play. So why the humongous spread? The Patriots are that good. They've scored 411 points this season. Only one other team in the NFL has scored 300. Just two teams have given up fewer points. They're humiliating opponents by outscoring them by an average of 25 points. Why not a 23 1/2-point spread when the Pats regularly beat teams by that amount? As John Avello, who operates Wynn's sports book in Las Vegas, says, "You just don’t see these kind of numbers in the NFL."

Vegas has amazingly posted 1:3 odds on a bet for New England to win the Super Bowl. If the Super Bowl were next week, those kind of odds might not seem so abnormal. But there's a lot of football to play. There are twenty or so teams who still have legitimate playoff hopes. Yet, Vegas says that New England is such a better bet than the field that you will have to lay down $3 to win $1 if you pick them right now to win the Super Bowl.

"Here, alas, is something NFL fans have never seen before: One team playing an entirely different game from all the others," writes Gerry Callahan in the Boston Herald. Callahan points out something that anybody tuning into the Patriots regularly already nows: "You're watching the best team ever." "How many times have we heard that one before?," isn't the right question. "How many times have we heard that one before when it hasn't been hyberbole?"

The Patriots are that good. But there is a fine line between perfection and punchline, and losing a game at the wrong time will make them the latter instead of the former. Hear many fans talking about the 2005 Colts or the 1998 Vikings?

But who will pin a loss on the Patriots? They've already beaten the NFL's runner-ups, Dallas and Indianapolis, on the road. The teams in competition with the Patriots now are the likes of the '85 Bears, '72 Dolphins, and the '94 49ers.

Yes, the Pats are that good. Yet, my personal opinion is that it's low class to embarrass your opponent like they've been doing. That they're better is apparent, painfully so, and I think they'll go 19-0, barring a major injury. There's no one else in the league that can touch them. I won't watch them. If they go to the SB, I won't watch. I'm all for winners and losers, after all, that's not only the nature of sports, sometimes, it's the very nature of life. I just don't agree with the way they do it.

Now you've stepped in it Dan!

Billiam,

I think a majority of football fans think the way you do. And it's really too bad (no sarcasm intended). Even many New England fans agree with you.

But for the pure nature of sport we are seeing something unique with this version of the Patriots and I don't think you necessarily need to be a homer to appreciate it.

I can honestly say that if it were another region’s pro football team doing the same thing, I would be in awe of their accomplishments and go out of my way to watch them every week.

As an example, even though it’s not on the same level, I stop everything that I'm doing to watch the Boyz if they're on (unfortunately, if Jerry Jones gets his way that won't be the case as ALL NFL games will be on pay for cable TV). I think they’re an exciting team to watch and the Romo/Owens combo has been one that becomes more interesting every week.

So I don’t understand why, if you could watch an event that demonstrates excellence, why anybody would not want to witness it.

I don’t know. Maybe I’m just a psycho football fan and can’t understand how people don’t appreciate the game played at a very high level.

Since it is pro and not amateur, I don't think it is quite as classless to run up scores as it is in college football, but it is to an extent.

I am not sure why the team doesn't see it as a bit counter-productive though. I have no idea how many minutes they have been giving to their back-up players in these blowouts, but it is a long and hard-hitting enough season that creating unbelievable depth at every position would seem to me to pay serious dividends down the road and not only for this year.

I would think they would want to maximize that advantage from being so much better right now, and as a byproduct the margins of victory would assuredly narrow.

Matt Cassell has played more than any back-up quarterback in the NFL. Brady sat for all of the fourth quarter against the Bills. Their fourth-quarter touchdowns came off a dive play from a practice-squad guy out of the Naval Academy who has become their fourth-string runner, and from a Bills fumble that the Pats defense scored on. The Patriots punted from the Bills 31, for pete's sake.

Where were Randy Moss, Tom Brady, and Rodney Harrison in the fourth quarter? On the bench. Sorry folks, this isn't college football where you have 100-man rosters. There isn't a back-up to Kyle Eckel. There isn't a simpler, non-running-up-the-score play than the dive. Yet, the Pats will still get accused of running up the score by people who react as though a fourth-stringer scoring a touchdown on a dive is the same thing as running a reverse or throwing a bomb. Watch the games. Don't listen to people who don't.

Right on Dan! And don't forget Cassell playing in the Miami game until he screwed up and threw an interception that was run back for a touchdown.

At that point, Sata....Belichick put Brady back in to keep the margin of victory comfortable.

But, the bottom line is that after Brady threw five touchdown passes in the first half, they pulled back on the throttle in the second. So what the heck do people expect them to do?

I’ll say it again: they score because they can.

And even if they’re scoring with their fourth stringers, I think it’s up to opposing defenses to do a little soul searching and figure out how to stop them.

Pretty entertaining article in a Florida pub after the Miami game.

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071022/SPORTS/710220327/1002/SPORTS

"Yet, the Pats will still get accused of running up the score by people who react as though a fourth-stringer scoring a touchdown on a dive is the same thing as running a reverse or throwing a bomb. Watch the games. Don't listen to people who don't."

I watch the games. I watched the game against the Skins. In the 4th quarter the Pats, up 38-0, drove 78 yards for a touchdown. Brady led that drive by passing on 9 of the 16 plays. And they weren't short passes, either, the drive included completions of 21, 15, and 35 yards. On 4th and 1 from the Washingon 8, Brady ran a QB sneak for a first-down. He then threw a TD pass to Welker.

"On 4th and 1 from the Washingon 8, Brady ran a QB sneak for a first-down. He then threw a TD pass to Welker."

Because he could.

Rush Limbaugh was just gushing about the Patriots. Agog at how efficiently and often they score.

Smart man.

Ralph: You keep embarrassing yourself by invoking the Pats going for it on 4th and 1 or 4th and 3. That's what teams do when they don't want to run up the score. Everyone seems to understand, but you, that kicking a field goal--going for the automatic points--is running up the score, and kneeling on the ball with lots of time still left on the clock is insulting the other team. So, what do you do? You go for it on fourth down and give the opposition a chance to get the ball back on downs.

Your facts are also incorrect on the Skins game. You write: "In the 4th quarter the Pats, up 38-0, drove 78 yards for a touchdown." No, that drive started in the third quarter. Should the Pats have done what no NFL teams ever do? Taken out their starters in the third quarter? In the middle of a drive? Brady came out after that drive, and his back-up replaced him for a drive, and then the back-ups back-up replaced him for a drive. That's not running up the score.

You are also incorrect in your assertion, "And they weren't short passes, either, the drive included completions of 21, 15, and 35 yards." All but the 35-yard completion to Moss, were described in the play-by-play on ESPN.com as "short" passes. I saw the game and that description is accurate. Even an 80-yard completion can be a "short" pass. The yards accumulated don't indicate if the pass was a bomb or a screen, if the yardage was gained in the air or on the ground after the catch.

"They've already beaten the NFL's runner-ups, Dallas and Indianapolis, on the road."

As good as the Pats are, and they are great, I think the margin between them and their nearest rivals is not as big as Pats' fans suppose.

They barely beat the Colts, and Indy was without Ugoh and Harrison. And in their game against the Boys, they trailed in the third, and were up be only a touchdown early in the fourth. Dallas was also missing key players, Henry and Glenn.

The Pats are not invincible. There are some very good teams in the NFL that could knock them off in the playoffs.

Dan,

If you're unwilling to admit that that final drive of Brady's against the Skins was running up the score, then you've got blinders on. They weren't running dives with the FB, they were throwing deep to Moss. If that's not running up the score, then nothing is.

Ralph: You have blinders on. They most certainly were running dives. Why do you keep writing things that can be so easily discredited as false? Here's from the ESPN.com play-by-play of that final Brady drive:

* "H.Evans up the middle to NE 15 for 3 yards"
* "H.Evans right guard to NE 49 for 10 yards"
* "K.Faulk right guard to WAS 7 for 6 yards"
* "T.Brady left guard to WAS 5 for 2 yards"
* "K.Faulk up the middle to WAS 2 for 8 yards"

You write, "They weren't running dives with the FB." But, Ralph, they were. Heath Evans is a full back, and Faulk is their third-down back/third-string tailback.

Yes, they also threw a 35-yard bomb to Moss. As I noted in an earlier post, that's really the only play of the season that I felt was overkill.

Pats 48
Boyz 27

On the road. Against, arguably, the best team in the NFC.

Pretty close. Mathematically challenged are we or are there deeper psychological issues?

Just to second ASDF's point, the New York Post asked the sports book director of the MGM Mirage what his line would be for hypothetical Super Bowl match-ups. Pats-Cowboys? 17. Ralph, to save you from checking, that's New England favored by 17. In other words, the Cowboys would be underdogs by roughly the same margin that the Pats were underdogs against the Rams in the 2002 Super Bowl.

Only die-hard Cowboys fans saw the Pats-Cowboys game the way you did. Vegas certainly didn't think it was all too competitive. Winning by three touchdowns is generally considered a comfortable victory, particularly when you are on the road, without your best defensive player (Richard Seymour), and without your starting running back. You are right that no team is invincible, that the Pats could lose. But you are wrong to think, if you do, that it won't be a complete shock if they do.

I do not understand, nor have sympathy for, guys who complain about the Pats (or any pro team) running up the score. This is the NFL! This isn't a SEC school beating up on the worst team from the WAC.

The NFL is a collection of freakishly gifted athletes. Which, of course, makes the Pats domination quite impressive.

I have no problem with "running up the score" in the NFL. However, if anything, running up the score is even more acceptable in College Football. In the NCAA, you have AP Voters to impress, and it matters now just whether you win or lose, but by how big a margin you do it. There is all the reason in the world for an LSU to beat up on the weakest teams in its schedule if it can do so/

Gawd. Talk about the whimpification of America.

This whole score thing is not even worthy of discussion unless that discussion is to express the fact that it's unprecedented for a team in professional football to be doing consistently what the Patriots are doing and that it is an impressive feat.

What we have here is clearly an unfair situation. The Patriots seem to be able to score at will, while some teams out there are just scraping by. What we need to do is re-allocate some of those points to the lesser-haves. When the Pats reach a certain number, we'll call that a "scoring bracket" and any points they score beyond that will be re-distributed. I'm sure this will work because it's been put into effect in another situation. I just don't remember what that is.

Seriously, though. If they aren't still cheating somehow, it's very impressive.

They call that the Democratic way Daniel.

Are you sure you're not the Governor of Massachusetts?

Up 35-7 at end of half and defending against a Hail Mary, isn't it a little risky, if not in bad taste, to insert Randy Moss to win the jump ball?

Also, I had to live thru the Redskins-are-invincible hype before they were crushed by the Raiders in the '84 Super Bowl. No one is invincible even if they do win all their games. That just means that they didn't live up to their potential to lose.

Well, I hope New England continues to win and dominate. I hope the Pats hype leading up to the Super Bowl makes the USC hype leading up to the 2005 National Championship look modest. That will make the Cowboys victory all the sweeter (and God help you if Dallas wins; I'll append every future Flynn Files comment with the phrase "How bout them Cowboys?!"). Until that time, enjoy your dominance.

Yep, sho nuff. That oughta learn us.

And if that day does come, you'll see how good sports handle things. And maybe learn something in the process.

Flying under the wire here in Boston are a most excellent Celtics team. So far, they've lost one game by a point to an 8-2 team, have scored under 100 only one time (first game to Utah) but for the most part have beaten teams by the biggest point margin in the NBA.

They are under the wire here in Boston, but not nationally. There is a good amount of Celtics coverage in the NBA sections of SI and ESPN. Regardless, I know I am enjoying the season so far. I've watched every game except where they run into Patriots games. Warriors @ Celtics was great fun last night.

I think the Celtics are the 2nd or 3rd best team in the East, which makes them the 6th or 7th best team in the NBA behind the Texas teams and Phoenix. I might even put New Orleans and L.A. ahead of them. They've got a good shot at going to the Finals, but they'll get beat soundly by the West's representative.

Who is better than them in the East? Boston and Orlando are the East's only good teams, and Boston lost that game by 1 point (after an 8 game winning streak). If Ray Allen had not been having an off night, they would have defeated the Magic easily. Furthermore, Orlando's all offense, no D style cannot hold itself up over the course of a 7 game series.

As for the west, Boston is better than Denver, and Houston,neither of whom can play defense. They are better than Phoenix, who has no bench (Boston's own bench has exceeded expectations heavily). As far as the Mavs go, there is no reason to believe that they are much better than they were when they couldn't defeat the 8th seed Warriors that the C's dismantled last night. Not to mention their severe choking syndrome. Boston is the second best team in the NBA, inferior only to San Antonio.

However, I expect the Celts to meet, and be defeated by, the Spurs in the NBA Finals, so the point is moot.

I can see it now. The Pats are up by 35 in the 4th quarter with Brady and Moss still in the game. Both get hurt in the same play. It will be hilarious. Why? Because they deserve it for their lack of class and arrogance.

Moss and Brady sat out the entire fourth quarter against Buffalo. Matt Cassell has gotten more playing time than any backup QB in the NFL. That kind of scenario doesn't happen.

Ken,

You sound like a silly child saying something like that. Wishing ill on professional athletes who are doing what they do best at a very high level who have been very successful doing it? Why?

Anybody with a brain in their head and any common sense whatsoever would appreciate what they're seeing.

I don't know where people like you come from but it's pretty sad that you're out there.

Heeyyyyy, I think the Boyz were running up the score!

Yes. That TD pass to T.O. was running up the score. I would have preferred to continue running the ball (of course, the way the ground game was going, Dallas likely would have scored running). I guess the coaching staff felt like they needed to keep Owens happy.

Since a fourth quarter pass to T.O is certainly worse than running a 4th string tailback up the middle, guess that makes the Boys even more classless than the Patriots.

People, people. Neither the Boys nor the Pats have any class. I can taste the Super Bowl champagne now!

There are suddenly a lot of Hall of Fame QBs on Flynn Files. NFC dominance will be decided on the field next week, Brett.

I blame the Boys running up the score on the Pats. New England's vicious actions have corrupted the whole league.

Of course, according to Dan the Boys are incapable of running up the score, so perhaps that TD pass was benign after all.

I come from a place where running up the score and embarrassing the other team is both unnecessary and a display of arrogance. You New Englanders really live up to your stereotypes.
ASDF, I usually agree with your posts, but not this time. Don't insult my intelligence because I have a different (and correct) opinion about this.

ASDF, one more thing. Your string of insults towards me sounds more childish than anything else on this thread. Good work.

"I come from a place where running up the score and embarrassing the other team is both unnecessary and a display of arrogance. You New Englanders really live up to your stereotypes.
ASDF, I usually agree with your posts, but not this time. Don't insult my intelligence because I have a different (and correct) opinion about this." - Ken

Go ahead and explain how running a 4th string tailback up the middle on 4th and 2 constitutes running up the score, please.

First of all, that is only one play, making this hardly worth responding to. Explain how that is running up the score? That's easy. One word. Punt.

Ken,

There were no string(s) of insults that I know of. Just one was sufficient.

However, I'm glad you have the sense to be insulted as you've brought insult on yourself by insinuating that, in a fit of jealous foolishness, you would wish harm on a group of fine professional athletes for doing the jobs they're paid for.

"First of all, that is only one play, making this hardly worth responding to. Explain how that is running up the score? That's easy. One word. Punt." - Ken

Punt? Obviously you did not watch the game. The options were field goal or run it up the middle.

Hey Brett,

My Boys will be biatch slapping you soon. Ya'll.

"The options were field goal or run it up the middle."

They could've punted. That would have actually been pretty cool. A punt from inside the five that lands in the upper deck. That would have been more insulting than a score, and I would have given Belichick credit for style.

Talk about biatch slapping.....my Broons kicked bootay on the NY Isles at noon. And tonight, the Celtics whipped some Laker a$$.

The Governator, in town for a (f#$king) Kennedy Thanksgiving extravaganza, was so upset, he walked out on Koby and Phil. When asked why he was leaving, all he could say was, "Ai'll be bakkk!".

Hoc...key?

UPDATE: I love Ray Allen

What a squeakaagh.

Earlier in the college football season, I had a discussion about how college football has become so predictable in terms of certain teams always being on top and the fact that you pretty much know going in what the outcome will be.

Man, this year has been anything but predictable! Upset upon upset; rankings shifting from one week to the next; no team seems to want to hang onto #1 or #2.

Although the teams still typically can't play defense, it's been a more interesting year to watch college football.

It has been an interesting year, but it also emphasizes the need for a playoff more than previous seasons. Two years ago, when 12-0 Texas faced off against 12-0 USC, there was no doubt that these were the two teams that deserved to be playing for the championship, and the winner was the best team in college football. There's no way that can be said this year about the two teams that will play in the championship and the eventual winner.

I don't really want a playoff system, for three reasons.

A.) This is a freak year. Normally, college football lacks any kind of parity, the same handful of teams are pretty much always on top. The playoffs would generally be the same every year.

B.) With the current system, one loss can mean the end of your national title hopes. It makes every single game have a playoff atmosphere to it. That atmosphere is a big reason why college football is so enjoyable to watch.

C.) I'm a traditionalist and I enjoy the bowl games.

Further proof that the Patriots are making the league crazy and maybe even crazier in Texas.

ESPN just had a thing on Brad Sham (whom I've never heard of) and some of his disparaging remarks about the Boyz during the Patriots game.

Glad we're just having fun with this and people aren't getting nuts up here.

I'm with you Ralph, I think a playoff system is the way to go.

I never liked the idea that coaches and media pundits were in charge of ranking teams. Records should speak for themselves and backed up by performance.

And while I'm on performance, for my money, you could $hit can the OT format. I say do OT the way the pros do it.

I agree that coaches and pundits should have no say. Ranking should be done 100% by computer.

Well, for that matter, why even play the games? Just plug the vitals into one big computer model and see who comes out on top.

What are the vitals? How do you calculate for a model strong coaching, dumb luck, the effect psychological effects, etc, etc, etc? That is far different from using a computer to rank teams based on their schedule, win-loss percentage, etc.

Well, the Pats did it again. They could have won by one point but had to run it up to three. Arrogant cheats!

Humble pie, anyone?

3 point win over the Eagles (with Feeley). What happened?

Feeley doesn't get rattled and is a better qb than Donovan McNabb. And he certainly played better than expected.

Although, he's on his second tour with the Eagles as he came in three years ago, played better than McNabb, wanted the starting job and got Garciaed when he didn't get it, he went to the Dolphins (where he beat the Pats) and was pretty effective. Still, he's a career backup. Same thing happened last year with Garcia: plays better than McNabb and then get's 86'ed. They just have a thang for McNabb.

Anyway, enough of the history. With Sir Pukesalot, they are a different team (not in a good way) and the details of the outcome might have been quite a bit different. But Feeley played much better and along with Westbrook, arguably the best two way threat in football out of the backfield, and a huge mobile offensive line, the Feables looked very good last night. Add to that a 5-5 team that wants to knock off the big dog and who has nothing to lose and this was going to be a tough game.

This points out an obvious flaw in the Patriot's defense. Outside of Samuels their corners and/or nickle pack is not that good and unless the line and backers can get serious pressure on a quick qb, they can be had.

The spread was absurd but made Vegas a lot of $$$$$.

Wanna tell you I love your way every day... and I have been looking for sites like this for a long time. Thank you!
Shadows grow so long before my eyes And they're moving across the page ...

Madden is usually an idiot (he made several moronic comments last night), but he might be onto something when he said that the Pats' defense was vulnerable to the deep square-in routes that Philly was running. The middle of the field was open all night long for the Eagles' WRs. It seems to be even more of a vulnerability when you try to think of the WRs' names. I just watched them play in a riveting game and I still can't tell you any of their names.

I also like what the Eagles' defense did at the line of scrimmage and covering Moss (that vicious hit by the safety on Moss that jarred the ball loose was brilliant). The numbers are deceiving. While Brady had almost 400 yards passing (on 54 attempts!), he threw for only two TDs (and the offense as a whole scored only three TDs). The Eagles were good at bending without breaking, e.g., that lengthy Pats drive that ended in a missed field goal (though on the replay, it looked to be good). Obviously, the difference in the game was Welker. He's a killer in the slot.

As good as the Pats have been, they were lucky to get a win last night. Were it not for an incredibly poor decision (not to mention a poor throw), that game would surely have gone to OT. I was shocked by that play. Why, when you've just driven nearly 70 yards with apparent ease by throwing in the middle and underneath, and are noW in field-goal range, would you throw such a risky deep ball? Not smart. So Samuel's INTs accounted for at least a 10-point swing.

I now eagerly await the game against the Steelers. Then we'll see if the results Philly's game-plan were a fluke, or if the Pats' weaknesses have been exposed.

Good assessment. And I do agree they were lucky to win in one of the best games I've seen in a while.

As usual, Brady does what he needs to do to come out on top. Even when his stats and play do not look stellar. And, after that wallop he took in the fourth (when he got Juqua’ed), no one should dare question his toughness or resilience again. He may look like Brad Pitt, but he plays like Terry Bradshaw.

I will say that I don’t believe the Pats ever take a team lightly and I don’t think they did with Philly. But they weren’t prepared for how hard the Eagles played and how “on” Feeley was. And the Eagles never quit.

Again, all of these teams are professionals and all of these players are excellent by degree so you know that very few of them come into a game with a ho-hum attitude. It’s just a question of, on any given Sunday, that our professionals play well against your professionals.

Just like Brady said last week that they’re out to kill teams, I’m sure that that’s the sentiment across the league.

Give me give me, give me just a little smile Cool Links
that´s all I ask of you!

McNabb has a great personality, but he isn't what he used to be on the field. I think this game really proves that it's time for Philly to get rid of him.

I said it last year and I will say it this year. McNabb does not deserve to start for Philly. Garcia was better than him then and Feeley was better than him now. As for the Pats, they definitely had a weakness exposed. Don't expect the Steelers to exploit it though, they are the most overrated team in the NFL and they are on the road that week.

Humble pie? Don't you eat that when your team loses? The Pats are so good that when they don't blow teams out Hatriots suggest that they should eat humble pie. Save the celebration for when they lose.

I think Andy Reid outcoached Belichik, which is something you don't see every day, or every season for that matter. From going for it on fourth down early, to the onside kick, to putting pressure on Brady, Reid did every thing he could to win. When you play a better team on the road, you have to take chances. That mentality may have cost them in the end with the interception, but it is what allowed them to make the game a game in the first place.

Belichik, on the other hand, decided he could win without the run. They did win, but wouldn't they have been more effective had the Eagles had to guess a little about whether the next play would be a run or a pass? There wasn't even a pretense of deception: they were passing. Maroney didn't enter the game until the third quarter! What bothers me about this is that Brady's QB rating when they run play action is above 150! Without any credible running game, play action just doesn't have the same effect.

Defense was the real problem, though, as the Pats, I think, never even punted.

I guess they're not "that good". The suggestion is not that the Patriots eat humble pie ...but their fans who write a blog on why they're the best team ever.

What's the mythical team that was "that good"--that only won games by blowing out the opposition? Newsflash! Just one team in NFL history has gone undefeated, and every other team in the "greatest of all time" conversation not only had teams play competitively against them, but actually LOST games--something the Patriots have yet to do. Several of the teams in the "greatest of all time" conversation actually lost multiple regular season games. King Hatriot, you often confuse your wishes for reality.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Belichick serve up "humble pie" every week? I think I even saw some Pats players walking around the locker room with "humble pie" T-shirts on. Regardless, when a .500 team that isn't as good as their record, being led on the road by a journey-man QB and a bunch of no-name guys at WR, comes into the Pats' house and nearly beats them, it should instill a slight measure of humility in New England fans.

You act like crazy blitz packages and surprise onside kicks are unusual for Reid's Eagles. That they had nothing to lose, and therefore, let it all hang out against the Pats. But that's just how Reid and Johnson coach. They attempt a surprise onside kick against Dallas almost every year, and Johnson is known for his exotic blitzes. And the deep pass at the end that was intercepted by Samuel was not a result of the "mentality that allowed them to make it a game in the first place." They "made it a game" by throwing underneath the safeties and over the middle against a New England secondary that was helpless to prevent it (Feeley threw for 345 yards). The late throw deep to the corner of the endzone (on 2nd-&-4 from the NE 29) was not consistent with that game-plan.

Granted your offense wasn't having as difficult a time as your defense, but it's not like they man-handled the Eagles. The Pats scored three TDs. How many points is that below their average? They were forced to kick three field goals (missing one), punt twice (would have been three except for an offsides penalty), and turned it over on downs once. Brady was sacked, hit and pressured, and Moss was taken out of the game.

Of course, one tough game could be a fluke. We won't be able to tell until Pats-Steelers two weeks from now (the Ravens are significantly worse than Philly). But fluke or not, New England has humbled.

By the way, I'd like to make it clear that every post I make on FlynnFiles is with my name "Ralph"; so that Hatriot guy is not me (if I did use other names, they'd be much more clever).

dont warry be happy with Top Sites
Best Links
Links
try to check
Cool Links
and i love you!

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Belichick serve up "humble pie" every week? I think I even saw some Pats players walking around the locker room with "humble pie" T-shirts on. Regardless, when a .500 team that isn't as good as their record, being led on the road by a journey-man QB and a bunch of no-name guys at WR, comes into the Pats' house and nearly beats them, it should instill a slight measure of humility in New England fans." - Ralph

Says "I eat it" on the front and "Humble Pie" on the back. Adalius Thomas made them.

And yes, the Pats should be eating it. However judging from the rest of the season so far, it was much more likely to have simply been a bad game than a systematic problem. Also, in regards to the Eagles on offense, most teams would not be able to pass up the middle on the Pats like that. The reason being that most teams don't have a Brian Westbrook chillin' over there to force the Pats not to commit to the pass even though Feeley had been airing it out all night.

The Pats offense should have scored four TDs (one was called back on a Randy Moss offensive pass interference that was a terrible call). That would have been a normal night for the Patriots offense.

P.S: Your Mavs are now 1-4 against the Eastern Conference. I hope the Celtics will be lucky enough to face you in the NBA Finals!

dont warry be happy with Best Link
Links
Best Link
Best Links
Links
and i love you!

Two points Dan:

You are sooooo right about the running game. I thought it was football 101 to understand that if you don't have a running game a defense will quickly figure out what you’re doing and will be able to concentrate and focus on one element of your strategy. Using the four wideout set almost exclusively was arrogantly stupid on Belichick’s part and almost got Brady killed. Running the football has been part of some of their best games when they had a healthy Sammy Morris. And now that Maroney has (maybe) figured out that you don’t do the jig BEFORE you hit the hole, they might have some success with it again.

Also, you don’t often hear the undefeated 72’ Dolphins mentioned in conversations discussing the greatest teams. Undefeated does not necessarily denote greatness unless difficulty of schedule and dominance is considered. Many of the truly ‘great’ teams in history lost at some point in a given season.

And even though the Pats won this game, I can’t imagine anybody not thinking they barely dodged a bullet. A win is a win but there is no question this was a humbling experience for our boys and the whole organization should be doing some soul searching today. Especially the coaching staff.

iam sorry man, bat let me post it Best Links
Cool sites
Sites
Cool sites
Interesting Pages
please

Ben-T,

"However judging from the rest of the season so far, it was much more likely to have simply been a bad game than a systematic problem."

This I readily grant. As I said, we will need to see more games to know which it was (though after last night's game, I may have to retract my statement that the Steelers are the team to test this hypothesis).

Concerning the effect of Westbrook, while he is great (as asdf said, he's probably the best dual-threat back in the game), other teams that the Pats will/may face have good running games.

I also agree that that call against Moss was terrible (though I still maintain the one in the Colts game was defensible).

The Mavs are consciously not trying as hard this season (e.g., the starters minutes are way down), because they've discovered (the hard way) that wins and losses before May (especially in November) aren't significant.

"Many of the truly ‘great’ teams in history lost at some point in a given season."

One obvious reason for this is those great teams had playoff seeding decided weeks before the regular season ended, so starters were often rested.

I wouldn't put the '72 Fins in the top five.

A quote from Buchanan's column today:

"Yet while civil government is failing, institutions like the 82nd, Microsoft and the New England Patriots succeed -- because they operate on other than ideological principles."

One of the greatest men of our time uses our Patriots as an example of success (excellence?). Right up there with Microsoft.

The 82nd Airborne?

Yep.