Peter King addresses reactions to his rankings, re: Patriots, Jets

[nj meadowlands]

I EVIDENTLY UNDERRATE THE PATS. From Thomas Marples of Duxbury, Mass.: "You make no sense. The Colts beat New England in the AFC title game by one score, lose some key defensive personnel, and the Pats address one of their big weaknesses (wide receiver), and add one of the most versatile defensive players in the NFL. That doesn't make up for the one score which New England lost by? I know the Pats have other problems, but if they had Wes Welker and Donte Stallworth last year instead of Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney, they would have won.''

If Grady Little had guts, the Red Sox would have won the pennant in 2003. If the Chargers hang on to an interception in the divisional round last year, the Patriots wouldn't have advanced to even play the Colts in the game you're talking about. Here's an interesting fact about the way the NFL works, Thomas: The league does not start the next season at the point where the previous season ended. So, unfortunately for you, there's actually going to be a full season played before the Patriots have a chance to battle through the AFC to get to the playoffs and the Super Bowl. I might be wrong, which is customary this time of year, but the Patriots have to prove to me they can stop the Colts from running the ball. They sure didn't when it counted last year.

I EVIDENTLY OVERRATE THE JETS. From Harold Moskowitz of Chicago: "The Jets? A team that built its record against non-winning team and lost almost all their games against teams with winning records? And I still do not get your anti-Bengal bias that is constant. What's the difference from last year? How about Carson Palmer being healthy from the get-go and able to practice all summer with his receivers? How about possibly not missing your left tackle for five games, your starting linebackers for almost all of the season, your kick returner, your punt returner, your third-down back. Yet, New Orleans, whose idea of getting better was getting a WR with a bad knee and two former Bengals who were part of the last two horrific defensive seasons, is now "hot" in your book.''

Three things about the Bengals, Harold:

1. They're 8-8 in three of the past four years.

2. Scoring was not their problem last year. They outscored five playoff teams. The lack of a consistent pass rush and allowing foes to complete 63 percent of their throws, now those are problems. Other than the addition of Leon Hall, I don't see that much was done to fix that in the offseason.

3. You act like injuries aren't going to happen. I don't think the Bengals were hit hard by injuries last year compared to other teams in the league. Their starting six skill players -- quarterback, two backs, two wideouts, one tight end -- missed a total of two games due to injury last year. Their best tackle, Willie Anderson, played 16. Their best defensive end and best safety played 16. I don't quite get the outrage.

Okay, maybe more about the Bengals than anything, but still the article was a decent read

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/07/17/mailbag/1.html