ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
It is fair to look at the question of "Are there teams that are able to consistently beat teams with losing records, but not able to beat teams who, based on performance against similar opponents, are similar in talent?" and by extension, whether or not the Patriots fall into that category. I don't think that this is an easy question to answer, and is certainly impossible to answer based on two games, especially since the first part of the question doesn't even have a definitive answer. In all likelihood, however, there is no statistical meaningfulness.
I will say this about Strength of Schedule: I think it matters a lot less than other factors (does the team have an experienced, SB QB? does the team have home field? is the team healthy? does it have momentum?) in the playoffs.
That said I think it probably counts for *something*... but the Pats have all of the aforementioned (and to my mind more important) factors going for them, so maybe it doesn't mean too much in their case.
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
This QBs in the playoffs amaze me. It's really only Brady and Rapelisburger. Flacoo is average at best. Dalton in cincy..yates in texas and tebow in denver..this is why it's the pats for the taking if they want it
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm looking for the dead horse emoticon (since obviously I've beaten this thing to death), but can't find it. In any event I'll get out of the way now.
lillloyd
here...don't ever say we didn't give you anything....
This QBs in the playoffs amaze me. It's really only Brady and Rapelisburger. Flacoo is average at best. Dalton in cincy..yates in texas and tebow in denver..this is why it's the pats for the taking if they want it
That's assuming that all you need is a great QB to win playoff games & the SB.
It works to the Pats disadvantage that they are so solely reliant on Brady, imo. Although he comes through the vast majority of the time, all it takes is an off day for him, and they don't really have anything (running game, defense) that they can fall back on.
By my reasoning, the Patriots failed to show that they could beat a team with a better than .500 record. It's really as simple as that. All the "What if?" hypotheticals you, and others, are trying to push forward aren't going to change that. All the "But this team...." isn't going to change it either.
It's a simple thing, and it's not arbitrary, as you're smart enough to know. The Patriots did not beat a team that finished with a better than .500 record. The Patriots lost to boths team they played that finished with a better than .500 record.
The meaningfulness is only lost on the willfully obtuse, because the meaning is obvious and about a very focused portion of the Patriots' schedule.
Actually the "meaningfulness" is 'lost" because you apply standards so arbitrarily. You cite the Patriots not beating a team with a winning record but call it trolling when I say Chicago and Detroit aren't good teams. In Chicago's case you cite their 7-3 start but ignore the fact they only beat one team with a winning record this season in that start, and you cite Detroit when they never beat a team with a winning record. So what you claim is meaningful in one instance you completely ignore in the other.
You also call Dilfer comments poorly thought out and over the top yet then claim they have merit, but refuse to give any reason as to why and dismiss disagreement as 'trolling."
Basically you make a statement and then declare it right by your terms of debate, and dismiss that which doesn't fit those terms as meaningless. It's a neat debating trick but pretty much meaningless in terms of the overall discussion. It's like Rex Ryan declaring the Jets the best team in football and the Champs, he can say it but it doesn't make it reality.
here...don't ever say we didn't give you anything....
LOL thanks
OT: When exactly was it that people beat their horses to death so regularly (and then continued beating them *after* death, just for yuks) that this became a common saying?!
If you want to include the actual playoff runs leading up to the title, the Steelers had a pretty good run themselves in '05 winning from the 6 slot for the first time in history. (I think that run may still have the record for the most combined wins from playoff opponents.) And that '08 team I believe had a historically tough schedule just to get to the playoffs.
Unfortunately I think they have since been eclipsed by the 2007 Giants. I don't have the stats right in front of me, but I don't know how a team could have beaten more difficult opponents than the 16-0 Pats, 13-3 Cowboys, and 13-3 Packers. Oh, they beat the Bucs too (9-7). But still, you are not going to go through a tougher playoff gauntlet than those first three teams mentioned.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
That's assuming that all you need is a great QB to win playoff games & the SB.
It works to the Pats disadvantage that they are so solely reliant on Brady, IMO. Although he comes through the vast majority of the time, all it takes is an off day for him, and they don't really have anything (running game, defense) that they can fall back on.
For the four games that the Pats had a comparatively healthy Offensive line, their run game was outstanding. Of more importance is that the O-line and RBs are getting healthy now. Light, Mankins, Connelly, Waters and Volmer with a blocking TE of Solder, and Gronk is an outstanding run and pass protect line.
Unfortunately, they only had it for a few games; but they look to have all but probably Vollmer back for the Playoffs. To which they added the fine FB, Lousaka Polite. I'd say any team thinking the Pats can't run will be shocked to discover just how well they can. On top of that Deon Branch returned for the last game after missing several, and Ocho may be ready to contribute too. Both Ridely and BJGE are now healthy too. IOW, the Pats are NOT staggering into the Playoffs riddled with injuries like in other years. They are going in at full strength on Offense.
On Defense the last two games have seen the return to health and play of Mayo, Fletcher, Spikes, and most importantly Chung. Anytime you can add and return four starters to your eleven, it can't be bad.
Unfortunately I think they have since been eclipsed by the 2007 Giants. I don't have the stats right in front of me, but I don't know how a team could have beaten more difficult opponents than the 16-0 Pats, 13-3 Cowboys, and 13-3 Packers. Oh, they beat the Bucs too (9-7). But still, you are not going to go through a tougher playoff gauntlet than those first three teams mentioned.
If that's correct, then I think the NYG and Pitt would be tied, 51 opponent wins apiece. Pitt beat Cincy (11-5), Indy (14-2), Denver (13-3), and Seattle (13-3).
Give the nod to NY since they knocked off an undefeated team...but a pretty serious accomplishment for both PITT and NYG in my book!
15Likes
Re: Weakest AFC field in years?
Linear Mode
