NOW WE DEFEND THE PATS #1 RANKING?

This quote comes from Patomatic that likes to bring up Ray Lewis' legal troubles in 2000, the Broncos troubles with salary cap, and the 49ers issues with tampering with players before free agancy.

Rankings are delusional just like Patriot fans. They mean nothing and the only thing that matters is who is still standing at the end holding the Vince Lombardi trophy. My guess is once again it will not be the Patriots and there cheat of a coach.

Well, the Cowboys of the 90's are hated, the Patriots now are tainted.

At least i know that the 3 titles that Joe Gibbs brought in for us in his first stint weren't tainted by anything. Our Lombardis are clean.

The Patriots had the most gaudy statistical offense in the NFL last year, but their inability to truly establish the run in big situations will be exploited. Their offensive line is great in pass protection, and they are very well coached, but they don't get as much push in the run game.

Their great passing success was not accompanied by any solid threat on the ground, which makes it a small miracle how they did much with play-action.

Manning's Colts will once again rival them for best offense in the league if they can get Marvin Harrison back on the field. His injury helped them in the long run, because it got experience to other guys who wouldn't have otherwise. Anthony Gonzalez has the makings of a star WR playing with Peyton. Even without Marvin, they can put Gonzo out wide, Wayne on the other side, with Jacob Tamme and Dallas Clark split inside as TE's/big slot receivers and still have the running threat of Joseph Addai.

The Colts O will be lethal yet again, and with Marvin Harrison, they can only get better.

Plus, even if Tom has his record, Peyton Manning is still the best QB in the NFL. He didn't even need a physical specimen like Randy Moss (who he could just toss it up to in triple coverage deep) to break the record. Plus, his 49 TD's were in 15 games, while Brady tied and broke the record in his 16th game of the year. Had the Colts tried to win their last game of that season and left Peyton in for more than 1 series, the record would likely have been 52 TD's (since he averaged 3 per game), a mark Brady would have just fallen short of.

oh, and that Colts watched the Giants D in the Super Bowl, and loaded up on a couple more fast, attacking linebackers they can use in a 4 DE package.

The only problem the Colts have is that they can't beat the Chargers. lol

OK, read this http://www.patriots.com/search/index.cfm?ac=searchdetail&pid=31882&pcid=41&rss=1

You 'll change your tune. Also, defenses know how to get to Brady? guess what, the Patriots know that too. 16-0 they went and this year they WILL be better, you can count on it especially since Spygate is now officially over

GO PATS!!

Ray Lewis' legal troubles? What are you? He was arrested for MURDER you idiot, how does that compare with video taping from the wrong spot???

The Giants were not 12-4... they were 10-6... which is still a good record in the NFL, especially considering the strength of their division. They had to face the Cowboys twice, Redskins twice and Eagles twice.... none of whom had a losing record.

Whereas, the Patriots were 16-0 and played the Dolphins (1-15) twice, the Jets (4-12) twice and the Bills (7-9) twice. As you can see, none of them had a winning record.

So with a tissue paper-soft schedule, the Patriots won 6 more games than the Giants.

Consider that the Giants lost both games to the Cowboys, and split with the Redskins and swept the Eagles. If they had played the Dolphins, Bills and Jets twice, it's likely that instead of being 3-3, the Giants would have been 6-0... meaning they'd have been 13-3.

Then, on top of that, they barely lost to the Pats in week 17. So, had they not blown that 12 point lead against the Pats, and had those easier games, it's possible the Giants would have been 14-2... pretty darn good.

If the Pats had to play the Eagles twice and Cowboys twice, it's reasonable to think they'd have split that series 2-2 (considering they barely beat both teams). They hammered the Skins in New England, and although the Skins would have made it closer at home, I think we'd have gotten swept, putting the Pats at 4-2 in division games.

That drops them to 14-2... and if they had lost that game to the Giants as previously stated, they'd have been 13-3.

Just saying.... 10-6 with one of the hardest schedules in the NFL and 16-0 with the easiest schedule in the NFL is comparable in terms of the talent levels of both teams and how well both teams played.