Looking back at the season, did the Patriots overperform or underperform?

Did the Pats overperform or underperform?

  • Overperformed, they were never that good a team

    Votes: 117 55.5%
  • Underperformed, they were a legit SB contender that collapsed

    Votes: 5 2.4%
  • Neither

    Votes: 89 42.2%

  • Total voters
    211

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,616
Springfield, VA
In mid-October, the team looked destined for mediocrity.

In mid-December, the team looked like a favorite to win the AFC Championship.

Which was the bigger mirage? Or did they end up right where they belonged?
 

vadertime

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,600
Rhode Island
Neither. Preseason, I had them as a 9-10 win team, and WC contender...which they were. To channel Dennis Green, they were who I thought they were.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,617
I didn’t have them getting to 10 (I don’t think) so I say over. They lost to a superior roster on the road. Mac played better than I thought he would in the cold (low bar but he passed it). Negative note, I don’t think I have seen a team clown a BB D like the Bills did 2x this year. I don’t even think Walsh put beatings on him like this but I’d have to look it up.

edit: not that it matters but I cannot believe some Pats fans were rooting to play Buffalo. That was probably the worst matchup in not only the AFC but the NFL.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
Neither. The post-bye stretch was ugly, and only makes the season overall seem worse than it was.

We're in the 7-10 win tier of teams
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,475
Melrose, MA
Honestly, really hard to say. Down the stretch they played like a team that ought to be in the running for the #1 pick. Beofre that they were in the #1 seed.
 

bigq

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,083
Recency bias at play but I think they over performed. I didn’t think they would be above .500. The mid season hot streak was nice though and Mac appears to be legit.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,372
Neither. They were a 7-win team last year that did a ton of overhaul, and you never know how that goes. Then they started a true rookie all season and that never usually goes well. But they hung in there against some good teams, had good and bad stretches, won 10 games and made the playoffs. Ugly ending but I think it was overall what I was hoping for.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
I'd say over-performed but not for the reason listed in the poll.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
I'd say over-performed but not for the reason listed in the poll.
+1
edit: given the overhaul of the team and starting a rookie qb this team could have been a lot worse. Except for the games against Buffalo they were in every game.. if not for some key and atypical turnovers they could have won a few more. Mac looks legit and should get better next year... I think getting a playoff game under his belt will be good for him and the team going forward. Feels like we're holding this team to a supremely high standard compared to the rest of the league.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
I was hoping for a playoff qualification, which they got. Anything beyond that would be gravy.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
I voted neither, but if you have a range of outcomes on the season, this had to be what, an 80th percentile type of performance? I think they hit the medium-high end of the spectrum, so it was a success, but I wouldn't say it was a complete overperformance. If they had held onto the AFC East I would have voted overperformance.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,948
NH
Neither. They beat bad teams and typically hung with good teams. The last game left a bad stain in our mouths.
 

Cotillion

New Member
Jun 11, 2019
4,926
By the polls reasoning, neither.

I think for me, getting division contention and a playoff game with a rookie QB is definitely at the super high end of doing more than you would expect. More expected cause of the Belichick factor.
 

Jungleland

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2009
2,351
10-8 feels roughly their actual talent level. I actually think the Bucs and Cowboys games ended up being pretty good barometers for where they were at this year: good enough to compete with good teams, but not good enough to beat them. I'm absolutely perplexed by what happened post bye, but at the end of the day they had a good season for a team that blew 3-4 drafts in a row and started a rookie QB all year.
 

Rico Guapo

New Member
Apr 24, 2009
2,150
New England's Rising Star
I voted over-performed (though only by a win or two IMO) as despite the draft and offseason signings they lacked a #1 WR on offense and had glaring holes at LB and DE.

Feels like it's going to take another year or two of rebuilding to compete with Buffalo unfortunately.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
Neither. This was a 7-9 team last year that added a ton of talent. Vegas had them at 9.5 or so. They were basically an as expected team, they went .500 in the division (and then only because they got a freak weather game), they had a nice run over teams that were either very bad or gutted by injury/Covid, that skewed perceptions but they came right back down to what they were, a flawed team on both sides, that couldn't play up a level.

Edit- I see no case for overperformed by the way. They took a 7-9 team, lost nobody important and spent a TON of money on players, plus got back all the opt-outs. This team should have been expected to at the very minimum win 9, but probably 10.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,651
where I was last at
I think taken as a whole they overperformed for the season, though played poorly the last month+ of the season.

IMO 10-7 with a rookie QB and making the post-season was better than my expectations to where I had thought they were going with Cam as a starter and a bunch of new FA replacement parts. Last night was a shit show.
 

Arroyoyo

New Member
Dec 13, 2021
805
Overperformed, but only slightly. I never expected a rookie QB, before the season, to march this roster through the playoffs. Once they got there, I went with my heart and hoped for the best. With that said, before the season, I thought there were enough big FA signings to keep it interesting and maybe help mask some of the growing pains of a young QB.

I would have probably guessed 9-8 or 10-7 and missing the playoffs. They indeed went 10-7 and somewhat comfortably got in, which IMO is slightly surpassing my expectations.

I do expect more speed on defense (particularly LB) and a stud, “we’re-not-fucking-around-anymore” #1 WR this off-season. If that happens, and Jonnu can double his meager production this year, and Henry and Mac can improve even a tiny bit, we’ll be talking about a real contender in 2022.

One thing I want to see from Mac early in 2022: a little more zip on his passes and less emotional outbursts (which were often directed at himself) on the field. I want to see him shake off bad drives and push passes a little faster and a little more down field next season.

I do know this: if the Patriots do not go all-in on a WR1 next year and they continue to struggle to open and stretch the field, and then they miss the playoffs or exit early, it’s going to start getting really ugly for Bill. I think a lot of us aren’t there, but next year is a real “show me” year for Bill. The people who were there this year were way too premature (you expect big stuff with a rookie QB? Really?); but after next year, the noise will start getting a lot louder.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,372
Neither. This was a 7-9 team last year that added a ton of talent. Vegas had them at 9.5 or so. They were basically an as expected team, they went .500 in the division (and then only because they got a freak weather game), they had a nice run over teams that were either very bad or gutted by injury/Covid, that skewed perceptions but they came right back down to what they were, a flawed team on both sides, that couldn't play up a level.

Edit- I see no case for overperformed by the way. They took a 7-9 team, lost nobody important and spent a TON of money on players, plus got back all the opt-outs. This team should have been expected to at the very minimum win 9, but probably 10.
Spending a TON of money is a bit of a red herring though. They spent as much money on this year's team as they do every year - basically right up to the salary cap. It was simply the case that they had a TON of holes and a TON of cap space available after 2020. Of COURSE they spent a ton of money - but it's not like they spent $80m over the cap or anything. Actually, according to Spotrac, the 2021 Patriots still had the 12th most cap space available. So they spent a ton of money in the offseason, but they still didn't spend as much on the 2021 team as some other teams. They spent the 11th most money on the "active" roster (as opposed to a dead cap hit). Using "they spent a ton of money" as a reason for high expectations isn't really fair, because they had SO much cap space and so many roster holes to fill.

Plus they had a true rookie QB. Still, I expected 9-10 wins, so you and I end up in the same place.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
Spending a TON of money is a bit of a red herring though. They spent as much money on this year's team as they do every year - basically right up to the salary cap. It was simply the case that they had a TON of holes and a TON of cap space available after 2020. Of COURSE they spent a ton of money - but it's not like they spent $80m over the cap or anything. Actually, according to Spotrac, the 2021 Patriots still had the 12th most cap space available. So they spent a ton of money in the offseason, but they still didn't spend as much on the 2021 team as some other teams. They spent the 11th most money on the "active" roster (as opposed to a dead cap hit). Using "they spent a ton of money" as a reason for high expectations isn't really fair, because they had SO much cap space and so many roster holes to fill.

Plus they had a true rookie QB. Still, I expected 9-10 wins, so you and I end up in the same place.
My point was that they spent a lot of money on additions to a 7-9 team. You don't spend like that and not expect to get 2-3 more wins minimum. They rebuilt the entire passcatching corps, they added a ton on defense, and got back the opt-outs. Anyone looking at this team before the season knew it was a significantly better roster than the previous year.

I also think the rookie QB thing is a bit of a copout people are using. We started a rookie QB because he was playing well, we had a Vet QB we had won 7 games with, if Mac came out looking not ready they would have gone with the vet. Mac's performance was very good for a rookie, but that's more individual expectations vs. team.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,372
It was additions but only because they had a ton of holes. I mean we were all hoping they’d improve over 2020, for sure and I’m with you on that. But Mac was a question mark (how could he not be?) and all their additions just basically got them back to a competitive level roster-wise.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
My point was that they spent a lot of money on additions to a 7-9 team. You don't spend like that and not expect to get 2-3 more wins minimum. They rebuilt the entire passcatching corps, they added a ton on defense, and got back the opt-outs. Anyone looking at this team before the season knew it was a significantly better roster than the previous year.
They went from 27th to 6th in PPG starting a rookie QB and getting little from their highest priced offensive acquisition (Agholor). That’s overperformance in my book.
 

Old Fart Tree

the maven of meat
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2001
14,024
Boulder, CO
I didn’t have them getting to 10 (I don’t think) so I say over. They lost to a superior roster on the road. Mac played better than I thought he would in the cold (low bar but he passed it). Negative note, I don’t think I have seen a team clown a BB D like the Bills did 2x this year. I don’t even think Walsh put beatings on him like this but I’d have to look it up.

edit: not that it matters but I cannot believe some Pats fans were rooting to play Buffalo. That was probably the worst matchup in not only the AFC but the NFL.
No shit - I was praying for Cincy (not that they would have been an easy win either) because Buffalo was a TERRIBLE matchup unless they got lucky on a bad day for Allen.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,247
from the wilds of western ma
I went with neither, but if there was a borderline option between that and over-performed, that's where I'd put them. Given the free agents they brought in, I expected them to improve to being a WC contender. Others have brought up the point that their poor play in December, and the disaster Saturday night, makes the season look worse than it was. And think that's about right. I got caught up in the win streak, and therefore judged them harshly the last few weeks. Playing a rookie QB all year, beating a couple of good teams, being very competitive against a coupe of others, and getting waxed by a couple, probably is right in line with how they were constructed this year. They still need considerable roster improvement, particularly in the area of speed in the LB corps, O-line depth, and a couple of dynamic playmakers in the RB and receiving group. But, in the sober light of 2 days removed from Saturday night, I'd have to call this season one of good progress. With cautious optimism that they'll continue to improve for the next few.
 
Last edited:

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
They were about where I thought they'd be. I thought they's sneak into the playoffs and that's what they did, although they finished like crap.

At least they got back to winning more games than the Meadowlands teams combined. That 2020 team winning only 7 to the Jets/Giants 8 really sucked.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
I voted neither given totality of the season, but I still think it's fair to be moderately disappointed.

Not many fringe playoff teams are in line for the #1 seed after 13 games. Plus their Point differential and DVOA O and D were strong and they didn't really have any catastrophic injury/COVID excuse for the collapse.

They were likely playing over their heads at that point in the year, but I dont think anyone necessarily saw a 6th seed and blowout embarrassing loss in the Wild Card game either. They were the odds on favorite for the Super Bowl in the AFC at one point late in the season.

I still think Mac looking like "the guy" is the most important take away from the year so I'm satisfied. But this wasn't exactly the most typical 10 win and 1st round loss kind of season either.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
I voted neither given totality of the season, but I still think it's fair to be moderately disappointed.

Not many fringe playoff teams are in line for the #1 seed after 13 games. Plus their Point differential and DVOA O and D were strong and they didn't really have any catastrophic injury/COVID excuse for the collapse.

They were likely playing over their heads at that point in the year, but I dont think anyone necessarily saw a 6th seed and blowout embarrassing loss in the Wild Card game either. They were the odds on favorite for the Super Bowl in the AFC at one point late in the season.

I still think Mac looking like "the guy" is the most important take away from the year so I'm satisfied. But this wasn't exactly the most typical 10 win and 1st round loss kind of season either.
Matt Judon, Kendrick Bourne, Ju’Whaun Bentley, Rhamondre Stevenson, Josh Uche, Myles Bryant, Yodny Cajuste and Brandon King all had Covid or were in Covid protocol very late in the season.. 6 of those players were taken off protocol right before the week 17 game against Miami.
I wonder if any of the defensive woes in the pass rush/coverage were due to a number of defensive players not having any motor.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
Matt Judon, Kendrick Bourne, Ju’Whaun Bentley, Rhamondre Stevenson, Josh Uche, Myles Bryant, Yodny Cajuste and Brandon King all had Covid or were in Covid protocol very late in the season.. 6 of those players were taken off protocol right before the week 17 game against Miami.
I wonder if any of the defensive woes in the pass rush/coverage were due to a number of defensive players not having any motor.
Lots of teams lost guys for a week, plus you really only listed a few key players. I will add losing Mills in the playoffs hurt, secondary depth got scary bad fast. Not trying to minimize COVID, even in healthy athletes it can have a variable long term effect.

But I don't look at the Pats COVID situation this year compared to other teams and think the end of season collapse really makes sense for that reason.