An Interesting Fact About The Patriots Loss

[Villain The Foe]

15 minutes ago, CTM said:

Chiefs will attack Brady unlike the Chargers

I think 

(hope)

Pat's nowhere near as good on road. 

Good chance next week is symbolic handing of the torch to the new face of the league 

You're seeing only half the story if you're going to go regular season performance. 

Sure, The Patriots are 3-5 on the road. 

However, do you know what the Chiefs record was against Playoff teams? 

2-4. 

The playoff teams the Chiefs played against were the Chargers 2X, Patriots, Rams, Ravens and Seahawks. 

The Chiefs lost every one of those games except their week 1 game against the Chargers, a game where the Chiefs won 38-28 and week 14 against the Lamar Jackson Led Ravens, in which it took overtime to beat them. 

 

So the Chiefs are playing a team that they took their first loss to, a team that isnt good on the road. That seems like it could even things out. But now you have to consider experience. Brady has been here before, Mahomes is so wet behind the ears that he's too young to even be concerned....which for him that it s good thing. With that said though, I would be more concerned with the fact that it seems like the Chiefs had a hard time beating the better teams of the league. 

 

Dont sleep. 

[Villain The Foe]

2 minutes ago, DetroitRed said:

In New England they won by a hair.  Road wins by the Pats.... Jets, Bills and Bears.  And got a million lucky bounces in the Bear game

Read my comment above that I just wrote to CTM

[CTM]

5 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

You're seeing only half the story if you're going to go regular season performance. 

Sure, The Patriots are 3-5 on the road. 

However, do you know what the Chiefs record was against Playoff teams? 

2-4. 

The playoff teams the Chiefs played against were the Chargers 2X, Patriots, Rams, Ravens and Seahawks. 

The Chiefs lost every one of those games except their week 1 game against the Chargers, a game where the Chiefs won 38-28 and week 14 against the Lamar Jackson Led Ravens, in which it took overtime to beat them. 

 

So the Chiefs are playing a team that they took their first loss to, a team that isnt good on the road. That seems like it could even things out. But now you have to consider experience. Brady has been here before, Mahomes is so wet behind the ears that he's too young to even be concerned....which for him that it s good thing. With that said though, I would be more concern with the fact that it seems like the Chiefs had a hard time beating the better teams of the league. 

 

Dont sleep. 

Only 1 of those losses at home, and they just beat the Colts (playoff team) so 3-4

Anything can happen in 1 game but I feel a lot more confident in the Chiefs chances than the Chargers 

[DetroitRed]

3 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Read my comment above that I just wrote to CTM

Except you excluded yesterday

[Villain The Foe]

Just now, CTM said:

Only 1 of those losses at home, and they just beat the Colts so 3-4

Anything can happen in 1 game but I feel a lot more confident in the Chiefs chances than the Chargers 

Sure, the Chiefs beat the 6th seed Colts. A Colts team tied with the lowest record of the AFC playoff teams. Tied  for the lowest record with another team that the Chiefs beat in the Ravens. 

Guess what? No one was talking about those teams as possible SB contenders. 

The SB contending teams? The Chiefs lost to everyone that they played. Patriots, Rams

The Patriots aint the Colts. 

 

But please, dont misunderstand my position as saying that it cant be done. All im saying is that I dont doubt Brady during the playoffs. I personally would love to see a SB without the Patriots. 

However, the fact that I even have to make such a statement, shows how dominate the team has been, no matter what we thought was a demerit during the regular season. The team is simply different in the playoffs. 

[Villain The Foe]

5 minutes ago, DetroitRed said:

Except you excluded yesterday

Except they didnt play the Colts in the regular season. 

 

Also, read my above quote that I just sent CTM. 

[JustInFudge]

44 minutes ago, CTM said:

Not. Chiefs win next week despite your claims that there is no difference between Mahommes and Smith.

Quite the conundrum for you, Pat's win and it helps your Pat's aren not in decline argument but also weakens your Brady isnt GOAT position.

 Look at you spinning and shaping like you’re playing mafia.  You insecure little hippy 

[HighPitch]

Pats are still good. Still producing. Still winning....

they just won the division, got the bye and blew out a playoff game and are going to the acfcg.

yes i want the dynasty to end as well but the pig is still running around the pen eating and snorting

[Jet Nut]

6 hours ago, Villain The Foe said:

 

 

 

 

 

So what was more sensible and accurate, my statements above or yours below???

Maybe we should ask the Chargers if the Pats looked slow and didnt have that firepower anymore. 

Chargers just got surgically dismantled. 

 

 

 

 

The Ravens got beat to shreds by the team that the Patriots just beat to shreds. lol. 

How's that "obvious decline" looking? Like @JiF said, maybe you should have taken the Pats. 

 

This didnt age very well for you now did it? I believe that this is that "ownage"  @Patriot Killa mentioned to you before.

They're once again in the Final 4, and win or lose, I told you that the loss to the Dolphins and Steelers in December wasnt as dire as you were making it out to be, then covering it up as if it was the pats "14 game performance" up to that point.  

Your comments was just wishful thinking. Maybe this ass whipping you just witnessed by this old ass man, and his inconsistent defense should let you know to just wait for him to retire like the rest of us and not bet against this dude. 

 

 

 

 

A whole lot of wasted to pay yourself on the back because of one win vs the idea that the days of pure dominance is fading. They beat the Chargers at home.  Played well today.  Doesn't mean they're the same old Pats.  Whatever makes you happy.  

 

 

[Villain The Foe]

On 1/14/2019 at 4:36 AM, Jet Nut said:

A whole lot of wasted to pay yourself on the back because of one win vs the idea that the days of pure dominance is fading. They beat the Chargers at home.  Played well today.  Doesn't mean they're the same old Pats.  Whatever makes you happy.  

 

 

Nope, not the same old pats. 

On 12/17/2018 at 7:30 PM, Jet Nut said:

I'm not taking the pats in LA or KC

Patriots 41- Chargers 28

Patriots 37- Chiefs 31

 

This didn't age well. 

 

P.S. It's okay to be wrong. Like you told me, im wrong all the time. amirite?

[TuscanyTile2]

On 12/17/2018 at 5:08 PM, DetroitRed said:

 

The last year Deberg played a full NFL season he was 40. Vinny was 39. Brady May play a few more years, but his play will continue the decline we are currently witnessing


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

 

What is this decline you’re referring to?  Isn’t he in the Superbowl? 

[Villain The Foe]

On 12/17/2018 at 3:38 PM, Jet Nut said:

Difference is before we were assuming he had to start his decline, the calendar and his age told us he should.  This time we're seeing a decline.  And not just to Brady.  Gronk has two red zone catches, not normal.  He was sucking wind in the 4th quarter.  The Pats look slow and like they don't have that quick strike firepower anymore.  

So in otherwords, Brady was so elite that his decline is still a superbowl caliber QB? Gronk isnt the same guy so all Brady did was throw to Edleman to the point where Edleman ends up being MVP of the game. Wasnt you the one that agreed with Jester that Gronk and Edleman were both in decline as well? Then Why the F are the patriots still dominating teams in the playoffs as well as shutting one of the highest scoring teams in the league down with a defense you called "inconsistent"? Maybe you were wrong, ever thought of that? Wanna know what's ironic? Edelman was the MVP of the game, and the two longest completions by the Patriots were both passes to Gronk. Want to know another ironic thing? The first 8 possessions for LA resulted in punts, and they didn't have a possession that went more than 5 snaps during that time. Talk about an inconsistent defense right? So wrong you've been while talking about my opinions and Mike Glennon right???

BUT, the overall topic was about the Patriots as a team. Well, they didn't seem to lack firepower in the playoffs and didn't look to have an inconsistent defense in the SB. Care to explain WTF happened???

On 12/17/2018 at 6:36 PM, Jet Nut said:

And let me give you a piece from the one shltty article:

Their failure was so complete, so embarrassing, that it's hard to see any way they'll win more games than they lose—let alone collect their usual division title 

could care less, they look different.  This piece of nonsense was an over the top response to one game.  Not after watching 14 games.  Doesn't require 1000+ words explaining what we're seeing isn't what we're seeing

So after watching those 14 games which "clearly" confirmed to you what you were seeing, why are they SB champions again? Afterall, I simply said that "Im not betting against Brady in the playoffs". You decided to go the stupid route (relax, Im not calling you stupid, but the route you took stupid) because of 2 lost games in December and make it out to be that it was 14 games up to that point that ultimately showed what this team was. Well, where was that team when it came playoff time Jet Nut? 

On 12/17/2018 at 6:50 PM, Jet Nut said:

It was one game.  And no one was saying he was done or mortal.  They were questioning be what his future was.  Hardly like this season where he hasn't been the same QB   You want to harp on it and use the idea that in two articles after a loss they were wrong proves that what we've seen for a season is meaningless fine.  I'm not getting into an argument over this.  Anyone who has watched them knows they're not the same

So, those articles was questioning his future, while YOU were questioning what he is RIGHT NOW. Question, how did that work out....since "anyone who has watched 14 games of them knows they're not the same"????

On 12/17/2018 at 7:30 PM, Jet Nut said:

I'm not taking the pats in LA or KC

The Patriots are 3-0 vs LA and KC in the playoffs. Beat the LA Chargers in the divisional, KC in the AFCCG and the other LA team in the Rams in the SB. YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING. 

Everything you've said, the complete opposite happened. You mentioned how the Pats Defense was also "inconsistent". Well, they held one of the most highest scoring offenses to just 3 points in the SB. So yeah, you're wrong again. 

Looking at this thread in hindsight proved that I was right about not betting against Brady in the playoffs, while everything you claimed...the complete opposite happened. 

Shoutouts to @greenwichjetfan, I know he'll find a way to be upset me talking to you like this then find another random thread that im in to release his frustrations. 

 

Signed, with great amusement.

Villain The Foe

 

P.S. The season's over and I had fun over these past 2 months owning you with this topic, but the season is done and I will let it go, since I've also been wrong in the past....unlike you Jet Nut, still feeling the need to mention Mike Glennon as recently as YESTERDAY...

though, I've clearly and repeatedly owned up to my wrongness with Glennon (still maintained my fandom though) and never ran away from the fact that I was wrong.....for the past 3+ years. Yet and still, you feel the need mention it or remind me as some way to convince yourself that everything I say is now wrong. Lmao

So please, when im in other threads participating in the topic, such as the Pat Mahomes thread, dont quote me with your disagreement just to ultimately get into a debate so you can bring up "How im always wrong about Mike Glennon" as a way of trying to discredit my thoughts. If makes your position look pathetic, because it is.

Folks who do that should never be THIS wrong about anything the way you were in this thread.