3 encouraging signs for the 2010 NEP - New England Patriots Forums

***ctpatsfan77*** · 01-09-2011, 04:23 PM

Yes, Any Given Sunday and all that, but consider the following:

(1) This bears repeating: the Patriots' turnover margin of +28 is the second-highest in NFL history, and the Patriots almost never win the turnover battle but lose the game.

(2) As someone else has noted, this Patriots team is ruthlessly efficient. The 2007 Patriots posted 6,580 yards of total offense—the highest total since the merger—while scoring 589 poiints. In other words, every time the 2007 Patriots marched down the football field (100 yards), they earned an average of 8.95 points.

The 2010 Patriots were only #27 in offense, at 5,820 yards, but #7 in NFL history with 518 points. That same trip down the field earned only slightly fewer points than the 2007 Patriots—8.90 points.

But if you look only at the last eight games of the season, watch what happens:

2007 Patriots: 3,064 yards (#68), 258 pts (#11), 8.42 points/100 yards
2010 Patriots: 3,225 yards (#29), 299 pts (#1), 9.27 points/100 yards

(3) The 2010 Patriots are only one of two teams in NFL history to beat five teams with winning records in the last eight weeks of the season. [The other was the 2000 Packers.]

No, this doesn't prove anything, but it should help you believe in this team.

TriplecHamp · 01-09-2011, 04:25 PM

anybody who doesn't believe by now will never.

wizwor · 01-09-2011, 04:28 PM

LMAO, I think most people here are believers. For me, the most encouraging news (outside the performance of the home team) is that the teams we do not know well are exiting the tournament. I love that we will probably play the Jets and the Steelers and an NFC team already beaten in the regular season.

***goheels22002*** · 01-09-2011, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctpatsfan77

Yes, Any Given Sunday and all that, but consider the following:

(1) This bears repeating: the Patriots' turnover margin of +28 is the second-highest in NFL history, and the Patriots almost never win the turnover battle but lose the game.

(2) As someone else has noted, this Patriots team is ruthlessly efficient. The 2007 Patriots posted 6,580 yards of total offense—the highest total since the merger—while scoring 589 poiints. In other words, every time the 2007 Patriots marched down the football field (100 yards), they earned an average of 8.95 points.

The 2010 Patriots were only #27 in offense, at 5,820 yards, but #7 in NFL history with 510 points. That same trip down the field earned only slightly fewer points than the 2007 Patriots—8.76 points.

But if you look only at the last eight games of the season, watch what happens:

2007 Patriots: 3,064 yards (#68), 258 pts (#11), 8.42 points/100 yards
2010 Patriots: 3,225 yards (#29), 299 pts (#1), 9.27 points/100 yards

(3) The 2010 Patriots are only one of two teams in NFL history to beat five teams with winning records in the last eight weeks of the season. [The other was the 2000 Packers.]

No, this doesn't prove anything, but it should help you believe in this team.

The points/100 yards is a very interesting stat. Does it include points scored by the defense or is it a gross point total? The other question is whether it converts to victories. Big yards are often rung up by losing teams - seven of the top passing games in 2010 were losses when QBs started slinging it to get back into games. That's been the case with the Pats all season - give up loads of yards late to decent passing teams but win the game.

mosi · 01-09-2011, 04:40 PM

The 2010 season is over and the stats that go along with it meaningless.

As BB says, the Pats have a record of 0-0, just like the rest of the playoff teams.

The Pats will need to realize that if they don't give their 100% on every play, they are done and that 14-2 record will be forgotten as a lost season.

***ctpatsfan77*** · 01-09-2011, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goheels22002

The points/100 yards is a very interesting stat. Does it include points scored by the defense or is it a gross point total? The other question is whether it converts to victories. Big yards are often rung up by losing teams - seven of the top passing games in 2010 were losses when QBs started slinging it to get back into games. That's been the case with the Pats all season - give up loads of yards late to decent passing teams but win the game.

It's overall.

And, according to Cold Hard Football Facts, there's a correlation; it's basically the inverse of their scoreability index (turned into an easier to visualize stat).

wizwor · 01-09-2011, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pork3

^^
Well, the last time we played an NFC team in the superbowl that we vanquished in the regular season resulted in bitter memories that haunt me to this day.

-Jamman

True, but BB et al have a better record against well known opponents.

RodThePat · 01-09-2011, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pork3

^^
Well, the last time we played an NFC team in the superbowl that we vanquished in the regular season resulted in bitter memories that haunt me to this day.

-Jamman

By "vanquished" you mean "were in a dogfight until the final whistle", right?

oldrover · 01-09-2011, 05:15 PM

Biggest reason for that yards/points ratio, IMHO: turnovers causing a short field.

gmtaxi27 · 01-09-2011, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mosi

The 2010 season is over and the stats that go along with it meaningless.

As BB says, the Pats have a record of 0-0, just like the rest of the playoff teams.

The Pats will need to realize that if they don't give their 100% on every play, they are done and that 14-2 record will be forgotten as a lost season.

Great post. I couldn't agree more. Its amazes me that people never learn that a regular season game has no bearing on a playoff games. I have watched football for over 35 years, and can give you a ton of a examples of great regular season teams laying an egg in the playoffs.

I am expecting the Jets to be a tough SOB next Sunday.