MassPats38

Not the point that was offered for. The point is if the Texans are such a great defense and the Pats inferior, then the final scores would not be comparable. They are in fact comparable. Yardage comparisons are of minimal value as a statistic as games are won and lost in scores, not yardage given up.

And the Pats have won six straight after a rocky start in terms of offensive output. Even with injuries, do you honestly believe this team cannot score? And is this the same defense that lost those games? The fact is the defense is better, and the better the defense is, the larger the margin of error.

Better offenses by what measure? How is that assessment not subjective? They have played Detroit (giving up 31), Green Bay (giving up 42), and Chicago (largely without Cutler). They played the Jaguars (3rd worst offense - 37 points) twice, the Titans twice (20th in scoring), and the AFC East once. The Pats played the Bills twice (comparable output-wise to the Packers), and the the Colts (same). The Texans have given up 42, 37, 31, and 25 points this season. The Pats supposedly weaker defense has not given up more than 31 (twice), 30 and 26.

You claim some deep insight based on "reliable stats", but the truth is your arguments boil down to "you are your record" (useful only when setting playoff seeding, and oft misused by those who have no clue what the expression means in team to team comparisons on a given Sunday) and your own "meaningless subjective explanations", such as playing "better offenses" (that is a purely subjective assessment based on your opinion, not a "reliable stat"). You don't need average points as a statistic when you have the actual scores from the games, and the Texans have been gouged, on one occasion by a team whose one game total against the Texans represented about 20% of its season total. I guess that is readily dismissed by you as a statistical anomaly.

The Pats beat Denver, which beat the 12-4 Steelers, beat the 12-4 Ravens, and lost against the Giants, which tore through the best teams in the NFC. I have no clue what you mean by "we all know what happened", unless you believe the 4 point loss in a championship game somehow suggests the Pats were not tested and failed when they met a good team, which is once again your subjective belief and nothing more.

I don't see how this could be considered negative or pessimistic. If you implied above that the Pats would beat the Giants with better competition in 2011, see 2007 - the Pats played the Giants that season. For that matter, see 2011 - the Pats played them twice that year (preseason and regular season), and still lost. If you believe the success or failure of the Pats in the playoffs turns on what team is played during the season, then your thought process is a little too Madden football-esque. Momentum heading into the playoffs, talent level, key injuries, and depth are probably better indicators of playoff success. With coaching as it is, opponents are not mysteries when a season of game film is extensively analyzed.

ThatllMoveTheChains!!!

Are you sure you know what the word pessimistic and the phrase "rain on any parades" mean?

NYCPatsFan

Forgot to add: given the injury status in our O, I wouldn't be surprised if the Pats O doesn't score much and we end up losing. But I can still expect them to win every game, as I am hoping they do.

mayoclinic

What exactly do you think getting "exposed" means? Do you expect the whole team to flash in front of Houston and SF?

I expected these to be 2 of our toughest games going into this season, and nothing that I've seen changes my opinion. I would be a fool not to admit the possibility that we could lose one or both of these games. Regardless of the outcome, I expect that the coaching staff will be diligent in analyzing them - as all other games - to assess and address problems and fix weaknesses before the playoffs.

But what do you expect to be "exposed"? That there are days when we can lose? No big surprise there. That there are days when our offense struggles? We've already shown that, especially when we get predictable with our play calling and get away from balance on offense. That our defense may not be good enough? Just about everyone on the planet has questioned the Pats' D, and I haven't heard anyone ready to declare it "fixed" just yet.

Win or lose, there will be flaws to be addressed, and useful experience from playing 2 of the best teams in the NFL. They are beatable, just as we are. And winning or losing against them in the next 2 weeks doesn't guarantee anything if we face them again in the playoffs (see NY Giants, 2007; Baltimore Ravens, 2009; NY Jets, 2010).

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"OVER Loading at ANY position can create a Fatal Advantage. THAT is what interests ME. Attacking With Concentrated Force. THAT is what WINS. In the words ~ more or less ~ of General Patton: 'I'm fighting a WAR, here. Let the B*****ES worry about their FLANKS.' " - Off the Grid

"The key to any successful organization is to anticipate things, not react to them." - Michael Lombardi

Finnishfan

Where did I predict that that will happen? Skewing my comments will only make me jump on you over and over again. So here we go again...

We were discussing the potential of those teams. How Kaepernick performed or didnt perform on any given week has nothing to do with his potential. His potential is the very reason why he stole the starting job and if Harbaugh and the locker room buys to that potential, then who am I to doubt them.

But obvioulsy, you know better than Harbaugh.

Also that post was made after the Chicago game, and just for reference, I thought benching Smith was a poor decission. Can dig up the post I made on that topic on a thread discussing that decission, but surely thats not necessary..

Yet sometimes the discussions drift away from the original premise, which is unfortunate, but part of life in internet forums.

Gee.. wonder if this reply of yours fits that bill also?

How nice of you to try and turn my own weapons against me. However, as I already mentioned, we were discussing potential, not expectations. I'm thinking I'm a slight optimist when I say our potential is #3 in this league. I would suspect that majority of the most educated football minds would place us slightly lower.

The further away from the "most educated concensus" you are from, the less realistic you are. IMO, there is no such thing as a realistic person, because we all have motives, values, opinions and emotions and to be realistic you would need to look past all of them.

You are free to interpret anything the way you like. But it isnt based on what I typed, as the previous points illustrate.

And I can handle commentary, as you see from this reply as well as the previous one. I choose to reply in this manner. If not for personal entertainment or anything else, then just to establish myself.

Poor judgement is a continuing theme, as we are several posts down the road and you still miss the whole point of the discussion you intervened in.

Ok, so now I:
1. Enjoy bringing out the negatives of the game/team
2. Got offended by your post
3. Dont enjoy winning
4. Dont recognize that the team is good

Hope I didn't miss any parts of your amazing analysis of me. You really got me covered.

I'm not saying you are delusional, nor am I claiming that you think Pats are unbeatable. I'm not even thinking that you disrespect the Texans or the 49ers. Only reason I jump on your posts is that you replied to us in a very belittling manner, and in many cases that is a sign of arrogance which is one of my least favourite personality features.

And for the record, I'm not rooting for lowering expectations. I think fans should always expect the best possible outcome, because that will make the sweet taste sweeter and the bitter taste more bitter. That is what life is all about, at least IMO.

But as you also said somewhere in this post: Everyone is entitled to react the way they want to.

Again: potential is not the same as expectations.

However I do agree on all your points, except the last one. It's just not that simple, that you just go into a game and play great and come away with the W.

You make a plan, prepare to execute it to perfection, and then on Sunday you just do the best you can. But no matter how good the plan was supposed to be, if the opposing team has managed to come up with the perfect counter, you will struggle, no matter how good of a team you are or the opponent isn't.

Then there are also things like match up issues and such, which are impossible to counter. Because with 53 guys on the roster, you cannot prepare to cover all types of receivers will all the different skillsets etc... Sometimes the matchups work in your favour, sometimes they don't. It's not about "how well you play or don't play" it's just another cryptic variable that makes this game that much more interesting.

It's not about "winning" or "losing". They are results, not something you set out to do. You go out there to execute and play your best, and whether you END UP winning or losing depends on a whole lot more than how well each player does their job.

I would trust in this team whichever way it would go. If we had the bye or the #6 seed, I would still bet on us to win the Superbowl.

But I also acknowledge this:
Under right circumstances, we can win on our worst day or lose on our best. Though latter applies with a handful of teams. That is the beauty of football. It's the "any given Sunday" factor.

I don't know if you directed this to me, but I'm now the OP here. Nor do I agree with the idea in the OP for that matter, as I stated earlier.

PatriotSeven

I agree with your yards stats comments, and I never once pointed to any yards stats as some sort of meaningful stat because they are the most meaningless of all.

I don't see how you honestly compare Ryan Fitzpatrick and the Bills to Aaron Rodgers and Green Bay and saying they are similar on offense purely based on point production of one game. Point production, by itself, is not an accurate enough measurement without factoring in scoring efficiency.

The Bills are:
16th in scoring offense(ppg).
14th in yards per point.
20th in net yards per point.
are starting quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick.

So while the Bills may seem mediocre offensively, they are towards the bottom of the NFL when it comes to efficiency. A more efficient team will tear them apart.

Green Bay is:
12th in scoring offense(ppg)
9th in yards per point
10th in net yards per point

Chicago Bears are:
13th in scoring offense(ppg)
#2 in yards per point
#1 in net yards per point

Let's get something right. The Patriots are the Patriots primarily because of our scoring production and scoring efficiency, which is a great measurement for a team's execution and consistency. We are as good as we are because of those two categories. We have consistently been in the top 5 in the NFL year in and year out.

Huston is one such team this year, has also been this way last year and improved upon it. They have faced 4 other similar powerhouses: Denver, Chicago, Green Bay, and Baltimore. Two of those teams also happen to have a top 10 scoring defense. In addition they have beaten better defenses and only lost 1 game to Green Bay Packers.

We only beat 1: Denver Broncos. We have lost 3 games to top 10 defenses, less efficient offenses than our own, and have had our offense slowed to a halt by yet another top 10 defense in Miami.

My argument does not at all boil down to winning record or any one particular stat. My argument is based on all of the following components combined: scoring offense, scoring defense(points per game, point differential), scoring efficiency(yards per point, points per play), as well as strength of schedule/opponents.

It's a combination of all 3 categories. Since you seem to believe this is not adequate, if you have a better way of measuring teams and opponents statistically let me know.

Finnishfan

You are using the term scoring efficiency very loosely here.

Chicago Bears have 34 takeaways giving them a lot of short fields and 7 defensive touchdowns. Packers and Bills both have 18 takeaways and the Pack has 1 defensive TD while the Bills have none.

Most takeaways give you short fields and easy points. If you get the ball inside the opponents 20 then your yards/points is through the roof even if you advance the ball only 1 yard and kick the FG.

Furthermore, the biggest fail for that comparison number is when we look at this list:

New York Jets rank as the 19th most effective offense in the league based on that stat. Below them are teams such as:
Dallas Cowboys
Detroit Lions
Carolina Panthers
Indianapolis Colts (at 27th)
Oakland Raiders

I know you don't wanna say that the Jets are truely 19th most effective offense in the NFL.

PatriotSeven

Yes takeaways and great field position increase efficiency. There's nothing wrong with that. So do special teams. But nothing affects it more than the ability to score points for the offensive yards gained. This affects the stat more than anything else over the long haul. If you're gaining yards, and not scoring points or limited to field goals, you will end up pretty inefficient. The nice thing about it as that for the most part it's an all inclusive statistic which doesn't operate in a vacuum, and when compared across all teams over a season its pretty reliable. However as you mentioned, it can be misleading if that is the ONLY stat you use.

So I will quote myself and leave it at that.


Once you cross reference the efficiency stats of a team against scoring offense and defense, you're very unlikely to find a team that slips through the cracks and isn't properly represented. For example simply checking net or margin ypp, it would show the Jets as the 25th most inefficient team in the NFL. Combine that with the fact they are 26th in scoring offense(output) and 22nd in scoring defense, and it matches up pretty much with what we think of them, no?

Finnishfan

Also, the 3 and out factor is not included in this. If you have lots of 3 and outs and then scoring drives where you get big plays etc, then is your offense truely effective in scoring? No, but because they don't gather many "non-scoring yards" they might look good in that stat.

If you really want one number that shows offensive scoring efficiency, then look at red zone scoring percentage, points/plays or punts per offensive score which all are a lot more telling about the proficiency of scoring offense.

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team Points per Play on TeamRankings.com

Yeah but still they are trailed by the Colts, Lions, Panthers, Titans and Raiders, who all look MUCH more efficient in the good old "eyeball test".

Furthermore, here are those three categories that I presented in the previous part of my reply, and how the Jets rank in them (and who is behind them).

Points per offensive play:
Jets rank 28th followed by
Jacksonville
Philadelphia
Arizona
Kansas City

Punts per offensive score
Jets rank 28th followed by
Cleveland
Jacksonville
Carolina
Arizona

Red zone efficiency:
Jets rank 25th followed by
Dallas
Philadelphia
Oakland
St.Louis
Arizona
Cleveland
Kansas City

Pewsterbaby

Holy crapola. Hey, how's about scoring efficiency when the barometer is falling and the moon is in a new phase? And don't forget to take the time to list all the teams' particular positions in a long column. Thank you.