How do you think the Pats would've performed against Seattle?

[RelocatedPatFan]

I think Clubber Lang's prediction would have been upheld.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Really, I think the only BB/Brady Pats teams that would of beat Seattle last night were the 2003-2004 teams. Regarding 07, Sherman/Thomas would of took Moss out of the game, leaving it up to Welker to carry the offense in a potential matchup. This Seattle team is definitely one of the better teams in NFL history. They had a top 10 D all time and a solid offense to complement it.

The 2004 Patriots vs. the 2013 Seahawks would of been a heck of a game to watch.

I honestly wonder if we would of been able to even move the ball last night without Gronk.

 

[alvinnf]

I would have liked their chances against Seatle, there offense matches up pretty well with their D. They would have moved the ball and it would have come down to red zone. It would have been a good game. What happened last night was an abomination. All of Mr Mannings demons were on full display.

 

[resdubwhite]

we'd have been Beaten IMO. Not as soundly as the donks. but beaten.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Seattle would have had a much easier time against Edelman and the smurfs.
However, NE would have been much better prepared.

 

[TinhWoodhead]

Pats would've been big underdogs but they'd somehow find a way to win to revenge last year's "blown save" as Wilson gets knocked out by his HC and Mark Bumblebutt Sanchez replaces him

 

[robbomango]

Brady would get carried off the field. they'd get destroyed

I doubt it, Brady got sacked 5 times and hit 20+ in SB 42 and was still fighting at the very end. Can you imagine If Peyton was our QB in SB 42? lol. He'd have thrown at least 3 pics...

 

[Uncle Meat]

Seattle would have eaten the Patriots' lunch, or at least stolen their lunch money.

 

[Guts]

They would have beaten us but Brady an co would have put up a fight.

 

[supafly]

We not only did well vs SEA previously, but we did it in their home where they rarely lose. Had it not been for Brady's timing gaffe right before halftime when they were going to kick a chip shot FG, we'd have easily had at least 26 on their defense, with a 16 point lead with 5-6 min left in the game.

I don't believe that too many teams could've beaten SEA Sunday, but I do think we would've been much better prepared. Unfortunately with our severe lack of weapons in the receiving game (how do you think Edelman and Amendola would have fared, not to even bring up the almighty rookie receivers?) and our inability to run on that stout rush defense, we'd have likely come up short.

I'd think that SEA would have won by 10-13, but that it would've been a much better game.

 

[supafly]

Seattle would have eaten the Patriots' lunch, or at least stolen their lunch money.

We had a 13 pt lead on their home turf and held them to 10 pts prior to the Tavon Wilson (then rookie) gaffe where all he had to do was play back. It put him in the doghouse for quite awhile...actually, one could debate that he's never truly gotten out and only played the remainder of the snaps last season due to a lack of other options.

We were about to kick a chip shot FG before the half, but Brady didn't realize time was running down. That was the difference between scoring 26 and 23 on them up in Seattle, and that one point made the difference as our rookie blew the 13 pt lead with about 5 min left in the game.

Of course that was with a better group of receivers too, so I agree with your overall point with the exception that I do believe Belichick and Brady would have been much better prepared for the big game yesterday. Until we improve on our receivers and can rush the ball effectively vs a team like that (which is almost impossible, but 2 teams ran for 200+ on SEA just this year), I would think they'd have won by double digits for sure--10/13/14 points.

 

[RIpats88]

If we had a healthy Talib and Gronkowski and Dobson we couldve taken them. but with our team as decimated as they were I think we wouldve lost.

BUT this teams makeup is different than denvers and we wouldn't have folded. probably wouldve made it more of a game.

 

[Nunchucks]

Seattle would have had a much easier time against Edelman and the smurfs.
However, NE would have been much better prepared.

Not really, they may actually of had a tougher time with the smaller quicker receivers. Seattle's DBs matched up well with Denver's large receivers, but you put a lot of fast twitch guys out there and they will have trouble keeping up.

 

[Danger Zone]

Not really, they may actually of had a tougher time with the smaller quicker receivers. Seattle's DBs matched up well with Denver's large receivers, but you put a lot of fast twitch guys out there and they will have trouble keeping up.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I'm proud of us coming in here and not pretending we'd have won this game.

That said, in the vein of any given Sunday and us having Brady, if it's true that our agile receivers could have made the Seahawk's miss the punitively hard hits they game planned for.. then maybe we would have had a chance at this one.

Wish I could reproduce/find the statistic they used, but before the first Brady vs Manning game this season (now last season I suppose, sigh) ESPN put up the stat that Brady was #1 in leading his receivers for the YAC and Peyton was something like #32... the meaning I took from it was that Brady places his throws so that his receivers have room to move after the catch... and Peyton doesn't.

Example: Austin Collie and this years Wes Welker.

EDIT: Still, as tickled as I am at Peyton falling to earth a little, I have a hard time imagining he is #32 among all present day quarterbacks at anything (yes, even choking in big games ).

 

[Froob]

We had a 13 pt lead on their home turf and held them to 10 pts prior to the Tavon Wilson (then rookie) gaffe where all he had to do was play back. It put him in the doghouse for quite awhile...actually, one could debate that he's never truly gotten out and only played the remainder of the snaps last season due to a lack of other options.

We were about to kick a chip shot FG before the half, but Brady didn't realize time was running down. That was the difference between scoring 26 and 23 on them up in Seattle, and that one point made the difference as our rookie blew the 13 pt lead with about 5 min left in the game.

Of course that was with a better group of receivers too, so I agree with your overall point with the exception that I do believe Belichick and Brady would have been much better prepared for the big game yesterday. Until we improve on our receivers and can rush the ball effectively vs a team like that (which is almost impossible, but 2 teams ran for 200+ on SEA just this year), I would think they'd have won by double digits for sure--10/13/14 points.

That play was bull****. Brady threw it out of the back of the endzone and for some bizarre reason they called intentional grounding when that is NEVER called in that situation. They need to do some serious re-writing of the rules for intentional grounding. How can you determine the intent of a guy? Like when a QB is overthrowing the ball(Super Bowl 46) or just throwing the ball to nowhere land.

 

[The Brandon Five]

They would have performed better than that, I am sure. That was painful to watch. Did the whole team even make the flight from Denver?

 

[JackBauer]

Hate to say it but I don't see us winning that matchup. I have zero faith that our interior offensive line would have held up against that pass rush.

 

[signbabybrady]

First off I think it should be noted that Seattle was awesome this year and they earned their title and look to be in the running for more for awhile.

But what the hell is going on in this thread where this many of us think we had no chance?

I am willing to give Seattle the credit that they likely beat us but we would have had a really good chance and you would think we were the 91 Patriots with the way this thread is going.
We were one of the 4-5 best teams in the league this year and I think that a game between any of these teams would be a lot closer and if each game were played 10 times Seattle would lose its share it would win more than not but NEP and any other team in the top 4-5 would win its share.

 

[BradyFTW!]

We would've left with some semblance of our dignity intact (unlike Seattle), but would've lost soundly IMO.

Gronk's injury was just a deal-breaker for the Pats. With Gronk, I think we could've gone and won that game. Without him, I just don't see how our offense threatens that defense. We would have to run a ton and hope to win a battle of field position, which I could almost buy if Harvin hadn't been playing.

 

[Kontradiction]

First off I think it should be noted that Seattle was awesome this year and they earned their title and look to be in the running for more for awhile.

But what the hell is going on in this thread where this many of us think we had no chance?

I am willing to give Seattle the credit that they likely beat us but we would have had a really good chance and you would think we were the 91 Patriots with the way this thread is going.
We were one of the 4-5 best teams in the league this year and I think that a game between any of these teams would be a lot closer and if each game were played 10 times Seattle would lose its share it would win more than not but NEP and any other team in the top 4-5 would win its share.

We were the banged up runner up in a conference that was clearly inferior to the NFC. The Pats would have hobbled into that game and gotten smoked. Not as badly as Denver did, mind you. They wouldn't have turned the ball over like Denver did. But smoked nonetheless. A healthy Pats team with Gronk, Mayo, Kelly, and Wilfork back might have been able to win. Not the team we would have fielded.