They barely got that one. It is funny how San Diego can’t handle the Pats and Denver can’t handle Indy but both teams have great success the other way.

I’m tired of spygate. I think a smart coach, instead of crying to the league, just waits until a key play and signals in bad info to be intercepted by the Pats and makes them look stupid. The teams that said “It looked like they knew every play we were going to run” should have tested their suspision with an adjustment.

I love seeing the Pats beat the Chargers. Don’t like the Pats, just love seeing the Chargers lose.

Did I tell you I’m sick of spygate? Maybe I’ll rattle on about it some more.

Or maybe not.

Sometimes in Pro Football, the abilities and talents of a specific team that are deemed superior to another, do not guarantee victory. We have all heard the quote “On any given Sunday”. Of course this means that any team can win a game against anyone on any given day.

But there is something else that haunts many NFL teams. We can only measure it by history or head to head record. It is the unarguable fact that many teams simply struggle when matched against another certain team. Often, the domination is a Division or Conference rival. Sometimes it’s a team that only plays a few times every decade, but the outcome is always the same with the same team winning most the time. Most football fans call it “Having another teams number”. Others will dismiss it as a dismal franchise that can’t overcome another no matter who’s in charge; Often a teams dominance is based on the players and coaches of a certain era or regime.

In the case of New England, overall Denver is 24-15 regular season and 2-0 post season over the Pats. Thats a 63% winning percentage all time against the Patriot Franchise. This record of course is over a span of 47 years. Not a big deal, but lets take away the AFL matchups. The Patriots dominated Denver 10-8 games prior to the Merger. In head to head between 1970 and 1977 they only played twice, each winning a game apiece. (I use 1977 as a measurable year because Denver became a more dominating Franchise after their first Superbowl. They were more competative and teams didn’t overlook the Broncos after 77.)

We see that since 1977, Denver has enjoyed a 15-4 record plus two playoff wins against the Pats: An 80% winning margine for Denver. The only Patriot wins after 77 came against Denver in 1980, 99, 2000, and 2003. Two of those wins under the Belichick regime.

Now lets look at recent history. Belichik vs Shanahan. They have matched up seven times between 2000 and 2006 (they did not play each other in 04 and 07): 6 regular season games and 1 playoff game. During this time, the Pats are 2-5 against the Broncos including the playoff loss to Denver in 2005 which equals a 71% winning record for Shanahan vs Belichik.

Both teams have changed considerably during those years. Denver had two QB’s in head to head vs NE; Griese was 2-1 vs the Pats and Plummer was 3-1 vs the Pats.
From the Patriot side, Bledsoe was 1-0 against Denver (2000) and Brady is 1-5 against Denver.

Now for some nuts and bolts numbers. Why is it that NE under the play of Tom Brady are the Pats only 1-5 against Denver? Looking at Tom Brady’s record since starting in NE he has an incredible number of 86-26 win loss record as a starter. Against the entire league he has a 76% win record. Pretty incredible numbers that he wins over 75% of his games. But what is up with Brady against Denver? Against Denver, Brady has only one win in six games: A 16% winning record. One of those losses was his first Playoff loss against Denver after winning 10 straight playoff games in his career.

So what does all this mean? How can we look at history to help us forecast the future? Remember the slogan, “on any given Sunday”, but in the case of the Pats under Brady there haven’t been many good Sundays. Why the domination of Denver?

Weak, or strong – here’s a few theories:

1) Denver simply has the Patriots number. They can’t adjust to Denver’s altitude on the road and they simply struggle against the Broncos no matter whos playing or coaching. It’s another Bean Town Curse and they will never dominate.

2) Denver simply had better teams in the 20th Century and Belichik has been outcoached by Shanahan. The Broncos have been a step ahead of the Patriots and Belichik has not been able to gain an advantage with defensive signal calling by the Broncos. Belichik simply can’t adjust to Shanahans changes and there is an understandable lack of confidence with Brady.

3) The Patriot organization is the best team of the new millenium, and they simply don’t care about beating Denver. They know they are the best and Denver has simply been lucky. Everybody knows that when NE plays Denver, it is the Pats that loses the games and never that Denver actually beats them.

4) Jimmy Hoffa was actually buried under the end zone at Foxborough dressed in a John Elway Jersey. The curse lives on (By the way, Elway was 11-0 all time against the Pats. He never lost)

Joking aside, I believe that even with the Pats coming off a 16-0 regular season, they will not do that again, and if any team has a chance at beating them in their own stadium, it will be the Denver Broncos. I’ve heard a few Denver fans circling the NE game saying “oh no”.

I’ll bet that a lot of Pat fans circled that game and said the same thing “Oh No – It’s Denver!”, we need to pray.

Your’e thoughts?

I think the idea that the Pats have stumbled against the Broncos because they couldn’t steal their signals is nonsense. Spygate makes me think less highly of Belichick, who apparently leaves no corners uncut, but the whole thing has been way overblown. This no-wonder-we-lost-it-seemed-like-they-knew-what-we-were-going-to-do silliness is just too whiney. Winners win and losers make excuses. The Broncos have had recent success against the Patsies because we match up well and longterm succees because, possibly, once we won a number of times it started to get into their heads negatively and ours positively. A mental edge. Usually I like Klis but I think he was trying too hard this time.