Can these Patriots Win the SB Without Gronk?

[TheoShmeo]

So is there a Patriots fan out there who didn't say or think "there goes any chance of winning a SB" when Gronk went down?  I know I said that and that I instantly received three e-mails to that effect.  I am sure that I am not unique in that regard and indeed, Chris Gasper's column in Globe today sounded that predictable but altogether fair theme.
 
Now I know that winning a SB WITH Gronk was no sure thing this year.  The Pats have been ridiculously slow starters for several weeks in a row, have been living on miracles, have been living on the incredible late game heroics of Tom Brady and his offensive line and have a defense that was the subject of a similar thread a few weeks ago. And Denver and Seattle are both pretty good.  So when I ask this question, I'm asking it to isolate the Gronk discussion yet still understanding that a Lombardi this year was no sure thing.
 
With the caveats out of the way, can this year's team win it all without Gronk?
 
Edit: Legitimate reactions re quantification.  I tried to address that with my second question.
 
 

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

They need to catch a few breaks, AFC championship snow storm in Denver, a key PI call, Richard Sherman turning an ankle, etc...
 
But they are still in the conversation.  The number of things they need to break their way grew exponentially but they are still in the conversation.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Can they? Sure, I guess. We've already seen 6 seeds and 9-7 teams win the SB against "much better" opposition. So sure. They have a puncher's chance. Crazy shit happens in the NFL.
 
But it's fair to say their chances of doing so went down considerably yesterday.

 

[Stitch01]

Sort of hard to answer without quantifying what a signficant chance means.  They're likely to be the two seed.  Their most likely path is having to win a home game against Indy/KC, then win at Denver, then beat Seattle in the Super Bowl.  Chances are lower than they were without Gronk, but there's going to be some chance of winning each of those games. Say they're 66%/25%/33% in those three games (again, sort of WAG type numbers, but wont be super far off from betting lines) they'd be about 5.5% to win the Super Bowl. 
 
Some chance they blow the bye, some chance they sneak into homefield, some chance there are upsets along the way leading to more favorable matchups....but Id say they're something like 5% to win the Super Bowl.
 
Qualitatively, the defense stinks but the coach/QB combination gives the Pats a chance.  Offense should be better than it was without Gronk earlier in the year if for no other reason than they have Vereen, a more healthy Amendola, and (hopefully) rookie receivers that arent completely lost in the offense.  They probably need to win the turnover battle and have very good execution in the red zone to have a chance against Denver and Seattle.  On the positive thoughts side, they are more likely to beat those two teams this year than they were to beat the Steelers and Rams in consecutive weeks in '01 so we've won it all from worse spots before.  They also have more equity now than either the Ravens or Giants had at this time during the last two seasons.
YMMV if you consider 5% a significant chance.

 

[Jimy Hendrix]

"Can" they, sure.
 
Is it a lot less likely now than it was at this time yesterday morning, also yes.
 
They're gonna get into the playoffs, and barring a rough collapse at a pretty high seed. Get hot at the right time, have injuries hit other teams, or just get some dumb luck and it's 3 Games to Glory Part IV.
 
It is a bummer to think about this as a team that could've had the defense of the first half of the season and the offense of the last few weeks and compare that to what we actually have, but a team in the playoffs is a team in the playoffs.

 

[Stanley Steamer]

No. Next question?
I'm pretty impressed with the Pats' Houdini act this year, but that was Cleveland they almost (and should've) lost to yesterday. I think they have exceeded expectations to date, but aren't strong enough to win the SB this year, and certainly not without Gronk. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

 

[Stitch01]

No. Next question?
I'm pretty impressed with the Pats' Houdini act this year, but that was Cleveland they almost (and should've) lost to yesterday. I think they have exceeded expectations to date, but aren't strong enough to win the SB this year, and certainly not without Gronk. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

So you would give me 50-1 odds and let me bet on the Pats winning the SB this year? 
 
EDIT: not trying to come across as picking on you, just trying to illustrate this isnt a yes/no question. 

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

FWIW, 5-1 before he came back and 1-0 after he got hurt.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

I think the offense can probably still play well enough without Gronk, but not if the defense can't figure out how to at least start forcing turnovers again (since they can't seem to stop anyone at this point).  They'll probably have to play three pretty much perfect games in the playoffs (assuming they hang on for the #2 seed) to do this, or get really lucky in terms of turnovers, etc.
 
They definitely still can do it, but their margin for error is pretty miniscule at this point.

 

[dcmissle]

Yes because theoretically anything is possible.
 
Realistic, no.  Note the question is "winning" not making the SB.
 
I will be interested in comparing the poll results pre-Miami and post-Baltimore.  Very meaningful games the next two weeks.

 

[RedOctober3829]

This team looks to have a lot of heart and they play until the final whistle moreso than other Patriots teams of the past.  If they get the #2 seed and the bye, they get 1 home game then theoretically anything can happen in a 1-game setting to get to the Super Bowl.
 
As SJH says, they were 5-1 without him earlier in the season and now they have Vereen and Amendola.  Both those guys have to step up and in Vereen's case continue to be a big contributor.  Other key guys have gone down and they are 10-3 to this point.
 
I am a huge SD Chargers fan on Thursday.  If they can somehow go to Denver and win, then the 1 seed is in play.

 

[Fishercat]

I think it's feasible. It's not as if the past decade of Super Bowl Champions have all been offensive juggernauts. Certainly, you want an above average or elite offense, but there are just as many "edging in on the Top 10" offenses and even a couple below average offenses that won the Super Bowl.
 
It's three games if they get a bye and Tom Brady remains one of the better QBs in football today. The defense, if the remaining players can stay healthy, can do well enough to make the game manageable.
 
Honestly, I'm not seeing it as that realistic and I think they need the bye to have a shot, but sure, they get some breaks and it's in play.

 

[Jnai]

You still have Tom Brady and Bill Belichick. If you have those two people, the answer to "Can the Patriots win the super bowl this year?" will always be "Yes", regardless of whatever other trash you put on the sidelines.
 
You lost a really good player. It hurts significantly. But acting like it zeros out your chances is silly.

 

[Stitch01]

Yes because theoretically anything is possible.
 
Realistic, no.  Note the question is "winning" not making the SB.
 
I will be interested in comparing the poll results pre-Miami and post-Baltimore.  Very meaningful games the next two weeks.

Well, they'll only be 2-1 or 3-1 dogs in the Super Bowl at worst. 

 

[DJnVa]

Heck yeah.
 
Win at home, then Manning in snow in Denver and Brees and in snow in NY.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Well, they'll only be 2-1 or 3-1 dogs in the Super Bowl at worst.


Especially given the SB will be played outside in the cold, and possibly the snow/wind. Maybe their overall odds right now are 10%, but I would take that situation, all things considered. How many teams are in a better position?

 

[Stanley Steamer]

So you would give me 50-1 odds and let me bet on the Pats winning the SB this year? 
 
EDIT: not trying to come across as picking on you, just trying to illustrate this isnt a yes/no question.

Well, except it was a yes or no question.
I guess if the modifier is "can", then the answer is yes, almost by definition.
I just don't see it happening this year, but I'm far too cheap to give you 50:1 odds on it!

 

[Sam Ray Not]

Well, I'd give them a better shot than I would have given them of winning yesterday's game down 26-14 with 2:40 left. Or than I would have given the Sox (at the start of this season) of winning the World Series. Or than I would have given the Bruins of making this year's Stanley Cup finals down 2 goals to Toronto 82 seconds away from elimination. Or than I would have given the Celtics of being in first place 22 games into this season.
 
Which is to say ... slim to none.

 

[SMU_Sox]

No Wilfork, Mayo, Gronk, Seabass, Cannon, Hernandez, a crappy interior O-Line, and a banged up secondary which may or may not get healthy. Sure they have a chance. But I'd be happy with a playoff win this year let alone a SB appearance or SB win. Odds are stacked against them with those injuries.

 

[dcmissle]

Well, they'll only be 2-1 or 3-1 dogs in the Super Bowl at worst. 

 
You seem to be itching for a fight -- first with Stanley Steamer, then with me. 
 
I'm not taking the bait; time will tell.  If you want to bet on them at whatever odds, I'm sure Vegas will take your money.
 
Meanwhile, the Pats are facing two very formiodable road challenges and are anything but a lock to hold the 2 seed.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

 
You seem to be itching for a fight -- first with Stanley Steamer, then with me. 
 
I'm not taking the bait; time will tell.  If you want to bet on them at whatever odds, I'm sure Vegas will take your money.
 
Meanwhile, the Pats are facing two very formiodable road challenges and are anything but a lock to hold the 2 seed.

 
I'm not a huge fan of these kinds of polls either but if your contribution to the thread is "time will tell" then it is probably better to just avoid the whole discussion outright.  Obviously time will tell.

 

[Ed Hillel]

You seem to be itching for a fight -- first with Stanley Steamer, then with me.

I'm not taking the bait; time will tell. If you want to bet on them at whatever odds, I'm sure Vegas will take your money.

Meanwhile, the Pats are facing two very formiodable road challenges and are anything but a lock to hold the 2 seed.


Huh? He was saying that the worst their odds would be in the Superbowl are 3-1, and he's right. He wasn't assuming they would make it there. You wrote as though their odds in the SB would be 0%.

 

[Saints Rest]

As others upthread have noted, the Pats' chances in the playoffs, in all three potential games, will be driven almost as much by external factors as internal ones.  Favorable calls, some lucky bounces, that sort of thing.  With the SB being in NJ, it sure would be nice (as long as we're wishing) if the NFC champ ended up being a team less well-situated for a cold/snowy game -- The Saints come to mind most readily, but I wonder how SF or Carolina would do in the cold if one of them were to end up there over Seattle (I fear Seattle as much for the fact that I don't think weather will impact them as much as those other three teams).
 
In terms of internal factors, it sure would be nice to get those banged-up guys back close to full health, most notably, Talib, Dennard and Arrington.

 

[Stitch01]

 
You seem to be itching for a fight -- first with Stanley Steamer, then with me. 
 
I'm not taking the bait; time will tell.  If you want to bet on them at whatever odds, I'm sure Vegas will take your money.
 
Meanwhile, the Pats are facing two very formiodable road challenges and are anything but a lock to hold the 2 seed.

Im not itching for a fight at all, just think the question is overrating the differences in talent between NFL teams and underrating the variance in individual games.
 
I gave my estimate of the team winning the Super Bowl: 5%, give or take.  If you want to add content by giving an estimate that's cool or say 5% isnt significant, that's cool too.
 
Saying the Pats have no shot to beat Seattle or San Francisco is simply laughable though.
 
EDIT: If Im misinterpreting why you are saying winning the Super Bowl vs. making it is key, please clarify.  Is it that the Pats will have an extremely small chance of winning the Super Bowl (this is what I read you as saying)?  If not, why is that the key that makes winning a title not realistic for the Pats?

 

[dcmissle]

 
I'm not a huge fan of these kinds of polls either but if your contribution to the thread is "time will tell" then it is probably better to just avoid the whole discussion outright.  Obviously time will tell.

 
No my contributions to the poll were "yes" and "no", a short explanation of that, a note that the question relates to winning the SB, and an observation that I'll be interested in comparing the pre-Mia and post-Bal poll results, as those games should be revealing.

 

[dcmissle]

Huh? He was saying that the worst their odds would be in the Superbowl are 3-1, and he's right. He wasn't assuming they would make it there. You wrote as though their odds in the SB would be 0%.

 
 Huh?  I answered the first question "yes", which is quite inconsistent with 0%.  At least read my 10:25 post, please.

 

[bankshot1]

They need a lot of things to go right, including BB to re-jigger his assets, big contributions from Ridley and Vereen,  the rookie receivers to get healthy and play well, score TDs and not FGs in the red zone, and for the D to bend and not break, and no more fucking injuries. 
 
and snow and wind at the right time.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Huh? I answered the first question "yes", which is quite inconsistent with 0%. At least read my 10:25 post, please.

Maybe you should put some effort into parsing out what your posts mean.

"Theoretically, yes" and "realistically no" tells a reader pretty much nothing. When you point out the "note he says winning", it seems to imply you're saying they have little chance to beat the NFC representative if they make it. It was pointed out to you that the worst odds you will see at that point are probably 25%.

Now all you need is a strawman generalizing how Pats fans in this forum refuse to do anything other than deify the Patriots organization and personnel, while at the same time building up Baltimore (were they a theoretical or realistic yes at this point last year?), and you're all set!

 

[Stitch01]

Well, except it was a yes or no question.
I guess if the modifier is "can", then the answer is yes, almost by definition.
I just don't see it happening this year, but I'm far too cheap to give you 50:1 odds on it!

Wasnt asking to book or anything or picking on your point, just making the point that everyone is going to have a different threshhold for signficant and a different estimate of chances, so answers are going to be all over the map.  Cheers.   

 

[Otis Foster]

Anything can happen, so while the question invited simple yes/no (I voted no) I come down on'maybe but it's a very long shot' side.
 
There are a number of problems beyond Gronk's knee. The OL comes to  mind immediately. They were bad yesterday. Either something's bothering Solder, or he's lost a step or two. Mankins has been a Crackerjack box of up/downs, and they're playing with 2d/3rd stringers at right guard/tackle. It's universally accepted that if you can force Brady to move his feet a lot, his performancebecomes more ordinary, and weakness in the OL plays right into it. So there's that.
 
On defense, where's the pass rush? Was this deliberate? Campbell had so much time yesterday he looked like he was contemplating a chess board. You can't really make an informed judgment about the DBs until you normalize for sub-par play from the DL.
 
These aren't one-game phenomena. We've seen some of this throughout the season, and so far, they show no signs of being able to correct the problems. By hypothesis, you're playing better teams in the playoffs, and presumably they're even more ramped up. So I don't put anything past BB and TB, but I wouldn't bet the farm on them getting beyond a Cincinnati or Denver.

 

[RSN Diaspora]

Yes to both. I was one of the many who thought "there goes any chance of winning a SB" when Gronk went down, and the path to victory has now gotten considerably more difficult. But perhaps more so than any other sport, football lends itself to the unexpected. Whether it was the 2001-02 Pats, or *gulp*, the 2007-08 New York Giants, teams that ought not to win on paper have often managed to do so. Just as many of us thought this season was over yesterday after Gronk's injury, so too did I think we were on easy street after Baltimore downed Denver in last year's playoffs. You just can't count out a 10-3 team, especially one that squeezes every bit of talent it can out of every player.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

 
No my contributions to the poll were "yes" and "no", a short explanation of that, a note that the question relates to winning the SB, and an observation that I'll be interested in comparing the pre-Mia and post-Bal poll results, as those games should be revealing.

 
Wait, so we might know more in two weeks about how this team will fare post-Gronk and how we feel about their playoff/Super Bowl chances?

 

[Eric Ampersand]

Since when does the best team from the regular season win the Superbowl? The Pats have been in great position many times and still stumbled in the playoffs. After 2007 there is no reason any fans of any team should feel confident to win it all. We at least get to watch Tom F. Brady say fuck your odds from here on out. 

 

[RedOctober3829]

For the people that say the Patriots have no chance to win: what's your take on the Patriots going 5-1 without Gronkowski earlier in the season(and most of it without Vereen and Amendola) and the team still winning games without Vince Wilfork, Jerod Mayo, Tommy Kelly, Sebastian Vollmer and Aqib Talib out for a long stretch?  This team has had to adapt and overcome on the fly from Day 1 and they are 10-3.  I'm not saying their chances are great to win it, but they've had to overcome adversity the entire season and change what they do on both sides of the ball constantly and they are still winning games. 

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

 
Meanwhile, the Pats are facing two very formiodable road challenges and are anything but a lock to hold the 2 seed.

And the Bengals have two tough divisional games left, including at Pittsburgh and home for Ravens team that is likely to be fighting for its playoff life in Week 17. I think they'll get the 2 seed, and I'm confident they'll win the home game. Why? Because I look at the AFC opposition and see no team that's significantly better. The Broncos are the best team in the AFC, no doubt, but they have flaws, including a lousy defense.

Are any of the Bengals, Colts, Dolphins, Chiefs, or Ravens clearly better than the Pats? I'd give CIN a slight edge a home; in Foxboro I'd give the Pats an even chance of winning.

So, yeah, I think they have as good a shot as any team outside of Denver to come out of the AFC.

 

[bankshot1]

Barnwell on Pats/Gronk
 
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/10107892/bill-barnwell-week-14-nfl
 
 

That said, the Patriots will have to battle through the absence of yet another key player. They've now lost Gronkowski, Sebastian Vollmer, Vince Wilfork, and Jerod Mayo to season-ending injuries, arguably four of the team's top seven players. That doesn't include the absence of Aaron Hernandez, either. They will survive the absence of Gronkowski. Thriving in the way that seemed possible with Gronk in the lineup might be another story altogether.
 

I get the sense that Barnwell was giggling as he wrote his conclusion.

 

[Stitch01]

I
 

And the Bengals have two tough divisional games left, including at Pittsburgh and home for Ravens team that is likely to be fighting for its playoff life in Week 17. I think they'll get the 2 seed, and I'm confident they'll win the home game. Why? Because I look at the AFC opposition and see no team that's significantly better. The Broncos are the best team in the AFC, no doubt, but they have flaws, including a lousy defense.

Are any of the Bengals, Colts, Dolphins, Chiefs, or Ravens clearly better than the Pats? I'd give CIN a slight edge a home; in Foxboro I'd give the Pats an even chance of winning.

So, yeah, I think they have as good a shot as any team outside of Denver to come out of the AFC.

Yeah, I think 2-1 gets the Pats the bye more than half the time.  Yesterday was huge in that regard. 

 

[wutang112878]

A rematch with Denver would be difficult without Gronks offense, but its not a given they advance considering Peytons struggles outside, there arent that many teams that scare me.  KC is kind of a fraud, the Ravens arent a powerhouse, I like our chances in a rematch with the Bengals.  Overall in the AFC without Denver I think we could advance, and if we get to the SB with 4 probowlers on IR I think thats a fantastic season.  Even if we made the AFC championship thats fantastic, and then we would just be 2 upset games away.
 
I dont think its probable, but I can see some scenarios where its certainly possible.
 
Edit, there is also 'something' about this team.  They have overcome the losses of Vilfork, Mayo and Vollmer thus far, and had crazy comebacks against Denver and Cleveland, whatever the odds this team hangs in there and is a tough out.  Seeing that quality over and over just makes me believe they wont just roll over come playoff time either

 

[Super Nomario]

I think people are taking the remainder of the Pats' schedule way too lightly. It took a couple miracles to win yesterday's home game against the playing-for-nothing Browns. The Pats haven't beaten a decent team on the road all season (wins at 4-9 Bills, 3-10 Falcons, 2-11 Texans). I expect they'll be favored the next two weeks, but I'm not sure they should be, and dropping both games is far from out-of-the-question.

 

[Stitch01]

I think people are taking the remainder of the Pats' schedule way too lightly. It took a couple miracles to win yesterday's home game against the playing-for-nothing Browns. The Pats haven't beaten a decent team on the road all season (wins at 4-9 Bills, 3-10 Falcons, 2-11 Texans). I expect they'll be favored the next two weeks, but I'm not sure they should be, and dropping both games is far from out-of-the-question.

I think a split is the most likely outcome of the road games.  More likely to lose @ Balt than @ Mia, but 12-4 seems like the most likely outcome.  They're opening -1 against Miami next week and will probably be a slight dog to Baltimore.
 
That gets the Pats the bye unless the Bengals can win both @ Pittsburgh and vs. Baltimore as well as beating the Vikings at home.  Bengals are playing well, but the split is the most likely outcome there.  Bengals will be favored in both games.
 
Homefield throughout is pretty unlikely now.
 
If the Pats dont get the bye, their chances go way down.  Id have them something like 2% to win it all if they dont get the bye.
 
Yesterday's come back was so huge because it kept the Pats as bye favorites.  They'd be meaningful underdogs if they had to play a game better than the Bengals over the last 3.

 

[lexrageorge]

Death by a thousand cuts can take a while to reflect in the W-L record.  My guess is that the will win 2 of the 3 remaining games and somehow nail the #2 seed.  But that will not be enough.  If the D had been healthy, perhaps I would say "yes".  But I think this is too huge hole to overcome.  
 
Of course, there's been an element of unpredictability in the NFL playoffs the past couple of seasons, so I will say their chances are greater than zero.

 

[Toe Nash]

Sort of hard to answer without quantifying what a signficant chance means.  They're likely to be the two seed.  Their most likely path is having to win a home game against Indy/KC, then win at Denver, then beat Seattle in the Super Bowl.  Chances are lower than they were without Gronk, but there's going to be some chance of winning each of those games. Say they're 66%/25%/33% in those three games (again, sort of WAG type numbers, but wont be super far off from betting lines) they'd be about 5.5% to win the Super Bowl. 
 

This is basically what I'd put the odds at. Maybe a little higher against Denver and lower in the SB, but both would depend on the weather and the SB would depend on who ends up making it (I think they get completely blown out against Seattle - just a real bad matchup and of course a great team).
 
The best shot of course is if they get help from someone upsetting Denver and someone upsetting Seattle / SF, though the other NFC teams are strong too.

 

[Reverend]

If you point to any team in the league and say, "Is this team likely to win the Super Bowl?" I would answer "No." But somebody's gonna win.
 
I think this is where the idea of "Do you think this team can win the Super Bowl?" gets muddied. Nobody is likely, but that's not the point. On paper, I can't fathom how they are 10-3, but they are. It's why we watch the games.
 
I'll tell ya' what, though--if they win this year, it'd be a helluva bookend around 2007. 

 

[mauf]

I wonder what kind of action you could get on the Ravens at this time a year ago.
 
Off the top of my head, I'd say the Pats' odds should be somewhere around 25-1, so I answered yes to the first question and no to the second. (Stitch's math looks sound to me, except he doesn't factor in the risk that they'll blow the #2 seed in the next 3 weeks.)

 

[Shelterdog]

I think people are taking the remainder of the Pats' schedule way too lightly. It took a couple miracles to win yesterday's home game against the playing-for-nothing Browns. The Pats haven't beaten a decent team on the road all season (wins at 4-9 Bills, 3-10 Falcons, 2-11 Texans). I expect they'll be favored the next two weeks, but I'm not sure they should be, and dropping both games is far from out-of-the-question.

 
I'm with you but for different reasons.  Winning games is tough for anyone unless the team has quit or doesn't show up (which rarely happens against the Pats) and both Baltimore and Miami are going to be playing hard for a possible playoff bids. 

 

[Stitch01]

I wonder what kind of action you could get on the Ravens at this time a year ago.
 
Off the top of my head, I'd say the Pats' odds should be somewhere around 25-1, so I answered yes to the first question and no to the second. (Stitch's math looks sound to me, except he doesn't factor in the risk that they'll blow the #2 seed in the next 3 weeks.)

Yeah, I sort of worked around that by not accounting for the fact that Denver or Seattle could lose, which would up the odds in later rounds, and then rounding down slightly to 5%.  Im not sure they offset accurately and certainly wouldnt argue if your number was 4%.

 

[DJnVa]

If you point to any team in the league and say, "Is this team likely to win the Super Bowl?" I would answer "No." But somebody's gonna win.

 
And not only that, some team WITHOUT GRONKOWSKI is going to win too.
 
Nothing to do but lace 'em up.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

I think people are taking the remainder of the Pats' schedule way too lightly. It took a couple miracles to win yesterday's home game against the playing-for-nothing Browns. The Pats haven't beaten a decent team on the road all season (wins at 4-9 Bills, 3-10 Falcons, 2-11 Texans). I expect they'll be favored the next two weeks, but I'm not sure they should be, and dropping both games is far from out-of-the-question.

They were beaten soundly by the Bengals, but the Jets and Panthers games both came down to terrible calls and easily could have been wins. But fair enough.

I think they and the Bengals will go 2-1.

 

[Super Nomario]

They were beaten soundly by the Bengals, but the Jets and Panthers games both came down to terrible calls and easily could have been wins. But fair enough.

Sure, but all the wins were squeakers, too. For the next two games to be any more than coinflips, the Pats will have to play better than they have all season.
 

I think they and the Bengals will go 2-1.

This is the most likely scenario, but there is a significant chance that Cincy goes 3-0 and / or the Pats go 1-2. The Pats have an objectively tougher schedule - they get Baltimore on the road, Miami is better than Pittsburgh (better record / point differential / beat the Steelers head-to-head on the road), even the creampuff game for Cincy is easier (BUF has a better record than MIN and the Vikings are likely minus ADP).

 

[Toe Nash]

I think people are taking the remainder of the Pats' schedule way too lightly. It took a couple miracles to win yesterday's home game against the playing-for-nothing Browns. The Pats haven't beaten a decent team on the road all season (wins at 4-9 Bills, 3-10 Falcons, 2-11 Texans). I expect they'll be favored the next two weeks, but I'm not sure they should be, and dropping both games is far from out-of-the-question.

I don't think playing for nothing is fair. The game was obviously way closer than expected and the Pats didn't look good in many areas. But the Browns are better with Campbell than Weeden for sure, Gordon has emerged as a real weapon and they have some players on defense. Plus the JAGUARS have won three in a row now so teams can and do change within a season.
 
Plus it's rare that teams lay an egg against New England -- it seems very often like coaches manage to get their teams up for those games and they play a lot better than expected (certainly happens within the division). It's almost like teams want to prove something against the consensus best franchise in the league for the past decade. Or that the media has built up a myth about how great NE is and how they're cheaters, pretty boys, arrogant, etc. and they buy into it. We've seen plenty of quotes from players to that effect.
 
I mean, if you're the coach and you're out of the playoffs with 6 games left, don't you circle the best opponent on your calendar and pull out your best work to make a statement for that game? Ditto all the players fighting for jobs next year. If you start 2-9 but finish 4-1 you're getting a lot more rope next year. There's always something to play for.