I was watching Sports Sunday and they put up a stat that the Pats have been outscored in the first quarter this year and that they have only scored 87 points in that quarter whereas they put up 140 or so in every other quarter.

Any thoughts as to why this team starts so slow?

Their offensive success is predicated upon taking what the defense gives them.

It takes a few series before they figure out exactly what that is.

Total WAG (wild-ass guess) on my part.

Because NE is one of the signature franchises most teams are jacked up to play them and conversely, it's probably difficult for BB to pump up his guys when they are double digit favorites.

Since they choose to kickoff almost every coin toss they win, and the opponent typically chooses to receive when they win the toss, my guess is that on average the Pats have fewer 1st quarter possessions than other quarters.

That probably doesn't explain all of it, but might be responsible for some.

Really? I'm not sure about that one Toro, for a couple of reasons. The Pats have a pretty young team so I would think that BB would be able to get them psyched up pretty easily. I also think that Brady is a tremendous competitor that really does get psyched up for every game. Also, they have struggled all year in the first quarter and not all of those games were situations where they were double digit favorites.

I think YTF is probably closer to the point but I just don't understand how the team isn't able to come out fast in some cases given how much preparation I know BB and the players do in anticipation of a game. Especially against teams they've played before. Seems curious.

I'm sure that definitely accounts for some of it. Good point.

I think Toro's guess is just as valid as the rest of our guesses.

I doubt the "jacked" up explanation is valid, unless other marquee teams like GB and NO see the same trend

it's probably a combination of usually kicking off + some run bad

The guys on the radio today were saying BB should re-think deferring and choosing to defend because of the bad starts. I don't buy that arguement at all since its been a team wide funk at the beginning of games with both offense and defense strating slow.

I really like BB's strategy to defer and take the second half kickoff when he can.

Agreed. Getting the second half kickoff seems like a bigger advantage than opening kickoff to me.

I'm pretty sure the Pats just don't try in the first quarter because of what happened when they went up 21-0 against Buffalo earlier in the season.

winner!

I'm also looking forward to seeing what GB and NO and Balt and Pitt are actually made of. I predict a few of these teams will be frauds!

Just checked the Broncos thread, they're already looking forward to next season!

Pitt has gotten some bad luck with key injuries, and if they get bumped early I wouldn't necessarily consider them to have been frauds.

Nope you're a fraud if you don't win the super bowl

I guess I missed a post...

I get you're mocking my casualfan statement, but I'm not going to be comforted by the odds this year, sorry. I recognize all of the strengths and flaws of this team that you do, but i'm not going to be trolled by betting lines the way you troll everyone else.

Also, I've never used the term "frauds," but thanks for associating me with the term you made up yourself.


I think the Pats' odds of winning reflect their betting odds as much as you do. But I know you're going to mock me for being at least concerned given our strengths and weaknesses.

I wonder if the crowd will boo if we fall behind early in the Super Bowl.

(The booing the last two weeks has been an absolute embarrassment to the region.)

Don't worry, the game is in Indy, there will be cheers if the Pats fall behind. Fortunately Polian is gone now so he can't direct his minions to pump in the crowd noise over the speakers, so we might have a chance.

what I'm mocking is the idea that you've watched this team 16 times, but it's the next single game that will supply you with the info you need to make a judgement on them..."see what they're actually made of".

It's funny, I was going to rip into Salva for this exact point but I didn't since I've given him enough grief this year. I'm glad someone brought it up though.

It's the same mentality that leads people to believe that the Pats can't win in the playoffs anymore because they lost two years ago (after they're star receiver went down) and lost last year to a good Jets team (anything can happen in one game). It's two freaking games against very good competition. I just don't really understand how fans don't understand this.

Before you guys rip Salva you should consider this. The Pats actually had a pretty easy schedule this year, only facing 3 playoff teams and only beating one of them, Denver. So yes, we will see what they are actually made of.

I think you're half right Toro. according to Football Outsiders the Pats had the 26th hardest (6th easiest) schedule in the league. but here are their other schedule rankings:

Packers 28th
Steelers 29th
Saints 31st
Texans 30th
49'ers 32nd
Ravens 21st

so by that metric we played an easy schedule, but so did nearly every other top tier team. so it's not really a strike against us when compared to any other top team.

in addition, the metric of "playoff teams faced" isn't really a great one. we beat the Jets twice, and I think they are better than the Bengals. but we get no credit for that? what about beating the Eagles and Chargers who are also better than the Texans, Bengals & Broncos? or beating the Cowboys who almost certainly would have made it if not for the midseason Romo injury?

finally, beating teams by a lot of points, even bad teams, is predictive of future success. only the Saints and Packers have a better point differential than we do.