I agree, Lisa. I never bought into the "easy schedule" talk (unless
we get to play Miami 16 times this year). It doesn't take travel and
game times into account, and it's based upon last year's records.
Many teams have changed a considerable amount of personnel and
coaches since last year. Younger players get batter, older players
slip. I'm sure teams were very happy to have the Pats on their
schedule in 2001, based on "strength of schedule".
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, llj7366@... wrote:
> I disagree with an easy schedule. We have two back to back
weekends out to
> the west coast. We have a thursday night game and then have to
> days later. I can see that we have some weaker opponents but this
is a new year
> and some of those teams may just end up not being as weak as they
> year. We won today. I am going to take the "W" and run but I am
> how far we will get without Brady. Not only is he an amazing
> is one of the main leaders on our team. It will be tough to win
> without him on the field, in my humble opinion.
> In a message dated 9/7/2008 8:55:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> billy61987@... writes:
> Hey Rich. I really hope that this is not the case. The one thing I
> to believe that it is as serious as people are saying is Brady
> off the field. I mean with help and all but he was bending that
knee. I was
> listening to WEEI post game and Pete Shepard says that the
Patriots or a 10 to
> 11 win team without Tom. They have one of the easiest schedules in
> but is Cassel for real or a fluke one time game. I dont think this
is a real
> serious injury so I am keeping the faith for now.
> Billy Goodwin
> GO PATS!!!!!!!
> **************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new
> plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.