GameDay

The Pats' 16 games had two distinct halves: games 1-8 (before the Colts game), and 9-16 from the Colts game and on.

The team victory, performance numbers... can be proven beyond any statistical doubt that there is a difference between the two episodes (I won't bore you with details how this statistical analysis works, but basically it involves a test to see if the two sets of games belong to the same population or not).

A simple description is that the dominance of victory in the 2nd half of the season is less than that of the 1st half.
The question is what might cause the difference.
This has been discussed throughout, and can be summarized with three hypotheses. What percentage of weight would you put on these:

A- (Tactical reason) In games 9-16, other teams have discovered the Pats' strength/weakness and prepared well for them, thus making the games more competitive.

B- (Psychological reason) The opponents got psyched up to give the Pats their best shots (being underdogs and slighted)

C- (Pats' strategic reasons) Notwithstanding with Brady's desire to "kill teams and blow them out", the Pats began to have agenda and design in these games, in anticipation of the playoff.

D- Other hypotheses?

With this, we just hope to project how the Pats may fare. Right now, the variation is too big (we have 50-80% that the Pats will win all, depending on match-up scenarios).

===========
A footnote: why the Colts' game is the marking point: This was a game in which I was quite off in projecting the Pats winning 10-14 points. Other people argued against all hard-number statistical analyses and pointed to the psychological factor (Hypothesis B): the Colts were undefeated defending champs at home. There could not have been a more dissed home dog. (They won, taking the home dog and the points).

From that game and Buffalo game, other teams could learn what the Colts did (right) and Buffalo did (wrong) and tactically improved their game against the Pats. This is hypothesis A.

Denzera

I would assume hypotheses could include:

(D) Players get injured over the course of the season and our loss of Colvin, Morris, etc narrowed the gap between the Pats and the rest of the league.

(E) Misleading final scores. A common Belichick strategy is that with a large lead at the end of the game, he is willing to give up points in exchange for time. The best example is the Philly super bowl - they could've prevented that last touchdown and probably won 24-14, but instead Belichick made them get it via spending too much time off the clock, and they never got the ball back. Many of our games had late scores by opponents where the final score didn't reflect our dominance - both Miami games, this Giants game, the SD game, etc.

My two cents.

__________________
“I am on my fantasy team. I think I’m gonna bench myself.” – Lions WR Roy Williams

GameDay

The injury factor is certainly one of it.

Misleading score was actually taken into account. The competitiveness of a game is NOT measured by the final score, but scores throughout a game. By this measure, the Pats have played far more competitive games, including falling behind in games 9-16 than in games 1-8.

DarrylS

(d) the patriots are not a machine, they are a group of human beings, who have their highs and lows.. the reality, and I do not know why, is they play better against the best teams and tend to play to the level of competition of the rest.. there are a lot of factors attributing to this.. sub teams play up,

With that being said, not sure that there were two seasons, as far as I know they are 16-0 and anyway you slice it is interesting, but in reality holds little credibility..

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

xmarkd400x

I think there is something to the B (Psychological Reason). I believe that opposing teams play and coach better leading up to a game against the Patriots.

My reasoning for this belief has it's foundation in the analysis of the battle of the bulge (WWII). The men trapped in German territory learned the layout of a city in a very short amount of time. They needed to do this in order to live. In repeat experiments, army men have been offered time off, money, and all sorts of things to accomplish what the soldiers in the battle of the bulge accomplished. They have not been able to.

I think that there is a greater sense of urgency against the Patriots, and I believe it heightens their opponents' abilities.

GameDay

This is the psych factor. The pressure was heavier as the season went on. Even Pats players admitted that, and they collectively breathed a sigh of relief (or shout) last Saturday.

One way to slice it is to check the fingernails, heart rates, and blood pressure of the Patriot nation in games like Colts, Eagles, Ravens, Jets, Giants,... compared with games 1-8. How was your heart in Ravens or Giants games? (Did you peek at the TV through your fingers on your face? That's a measure of the game competitiveness)

robertweathers

Good post. Agree 100% that the Pats had a bit tougher of a go with it from games 9-16.

Without getting into all the stats and such, I chalk up 4 main reasons that can be perceived as "slowing the Pats down"

1. Team did start to do some different things defensively (blitzing, getting physical with Moss, etc.) that might have caught them off guard.

2. Weather- Since the passing game is a big part of their offense, rain and wind plays a role in playing with Brady's throwing accuracy and timing with his receivers.

3. Intensity of their opponent- Teams wanted to be the ones to knock them off and that kind of play showed up on the field.

4. Intensity of the Pats- As Brady said in an interview that I read, it's hard to maintain the same level of intentsity every game and every practice.

With that said, over the final 7 games, their ave score was 33-18.

__________________
“I'm not really concerned about the other 31 teams,” - Bill Belichick

"If a player has talent and doesn't succeed, that means that they either don't want to be successful or I have failed as a coach." - Bill Belichick

GameDay

How many % would you put on each? I'm putting 50% on A (tactical), 40% on B (psychological) , and 10% on C (Pats' strategy).

PS weather factor was already included.

DarrylS

In case you can't tell do not think you can do some type of statistical analysis of what happens when in the NFL.. the variable is a bunch of human beings who are effected differently on different days with a whole bunch of other factors mixed in. The giants played up big time sat nite, the pats did not play as best as they are able to.. is this psychological, I do not know, but not sure how you apply any psychological principals to 53 unique individuals who perform as one unit. Been away from that business for a while now, maybe I missed some development.

I am a consummate die hard, said at half time of the giants game the pats were going to win.. do not recall how I felt in the ravens game, but pretty sure felt the same way.. hate to say it, but can usually tell the outcome dependent on how #12 is playing.. this year has been his most consistent..

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

GameDay

Agree with all your factors. One thing though: the ave score is NOT a good measure of the competitiveness. We use score differential after each drive (blow for blow) as the measure. Also, the 33-18 is a bad average. Throw out the Buffalo game and it is 29-20.

(It's like comparing average wealth of two group of people. One group includes you, me and Warren Buffet. The other includes 100 people, each worth $1 B. You would conclude that the 1st group is much wealthier than the 2nd).