Pats 4-3 vs. teams with winning records at the time they played them.

[Richard Camembert]

A lot has been made of the stats that despite their gaudy record (13-3), the Pats have only one win against playoff teams, and are 1-2 against playoff teams, this year. This info disheartens Pats fans because it suggests that NE beats up on the palookas while taking it on the chin from the serious contenders, the more so because DEN is not considered to be a serious contender. Never mind that NE has won eight straight games and have earned the #1 seed in the AFC, that's not reassuring enough. I wanted to see if NE won in any challenging situations. I present the Pats' record against teams with winning records when they played them.

WEEK 2: SD was 1-0 when NE beat them.
WEEK 3: BUF was 2-0 when NE lost to them.
WEEK 4: OAK was 2-1 when NE beat them.
WEEK 8: PIT was 5-2 when NE lost to them.
WEEK 9: NYG was 5-2 when NE lost to them.
WEEK 10: NYJ was 5-3 when NE beat them.
WEEK 15: DEN was 8-5 when NE beat them.

"But ****, half the numbers are from week 4 and before, you ****." True. And those three teams they played were not exactly lighting the world on fire last year either, thus militating against the quality of those wins. Fine. Their record against teams with winning records when they played them, after the first quarter of the season, is 2-2.

"****, you cherry picked this stat, it doesn't mean anything, you cheesy homer, they haven't beaten anyone good." Maybe. But I could cherry-pick other reassuring stats too, such as NE's record against playoff teams from last year (5-1), or their record against teams which contended until the last week of this season (5-2), or their record against teams which have doomed coaches (4-0, I count MIA, SD, OAK there) (thus making the Pats coach-killers). I think this is the best measure of their schedule along the way.

The Pats only played one of the top 5 teams (GB, NO, SF, PIT, BAL) this year. However, they did play some games in challenging circumstances, in which the other team was fighting for something, and NE won over half of those games. They have shown some spine this year.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

A lot has been made of the stats that despite their gaudy record (13-3), the Pats have only one win against playoff teams, and are 1-2 against playoff teams, this year. This info disheartens Pats fans because it suggests that NE beats up on the palookas while taking it on the chin from the serious contenders, the more so because DEN is not considered to be a serious contender. Never mind that NE has won eight straight games and have earned the #1 seed in the AFC, that's not reassuring enough. I wanted to see if NE won in any challenging situations. I present the Pats' record against teams with winning records when they played them.

WEEK 2: SD was 1-0 when NE beat them.
WEEK 3: BUF was 2-0 when NE lost to them.
WEEK 4: OAK was 2-1 when NE beat them.
WEEK 8: PIT was 5-2 when NE lost to them.
WEEK 9: NYG was 5-2 when NE lost to them.
WEEK 10: NYJ was 5-3 when NE beat them.
WEEK 15: DEN was 8-5 when NE beat them.

"But ****, half the numbers are from week 4 and before, you ****." True. And those three teams they played were not exactly lighting the world on fire last year either, thus militating against the quality of those wins. Fine. Their record against teams with winning records when they played them, after the first quarter of the season, is 2-2.

"****, you cherry picked this stat, it doesn't mean anything, you cheesy homer, they haven't beaten anyone good." Maybe. But I could cherry-pick other reassuring stats too, such as NE's record against playoff teams from last year (5-1), or their record against teams which contended until the last week of this season (5-2), or their record against teams which have doomed coaches (4-0, I count MIA, SD, OAK there) (thus making the Pats coach-killers). I think this is the best measure of their schedule along the way.

The Pats only played one of the top 5 teams (GB, NO, SF, PIT, BAL) this year. However, they did play some games in challenging circumstances, in which the other team was fighting for something, and NE won over half of those games. They have shown some spine this year.

The reality is there are only three worthy playoff teams in the AFC this year, so the sample size is small for any team. Pats lost to the Steelers and Giants, but that was also the point in the season when their offense was struggling badly. You could really use these types of stats to figure out the NFC better, with all six teams being pretty darn good. The AFC is so bad that four of the five teams needing to win yesterday lost potential do-or-die games, with the fifth team winning on a botched snap, and the #2 seed went 4-4 on the road and has Joe Flacco as their starting QB.

 

[DaBruinz]

The Pats didn't play the 4-3 for an entirety of any one game so the thread is kinda meaningless. In fact, it's well publicized that the Pats moved from the 4-3 to the 3-4 in Denver and it was the 3-4 that shut Denver down for all intents and purposes..

 

[BHSL2]

The Pats didn't play the 4-3 for an entirety of any one game so the thread is kinda meaningless. In fact, it's well publicized that the Pats moved from the 4-3 to the 3-4 in Denver and it was the 3-4 that shut Denver down for all intents and purposes..

Are you sure he's talking about a 4-3 defense, or a 4-3 record..

 

[brdmaverick]

The Pats didn't play the 4-3 for an entirety of any one game so the thread is kinda meaningless. In fact, it's well publicized that the Pats moved from the 4-3 to the 3-4 in Denver and it was the 3-4 that shut Denver down for all intents and purposes..

He's saying 4-3 was their RECORD against teams above .500 at the time of kickoff.

 

[PatsChamp88]

The Pats didn't play the 4-3 for an entirety of any one game so the thread is kinda meaningless. In fact, it's well publicized that the Pats moved from the 4-3 to the 3-4 in Denver and it was the 3-4 that shut Denver down for all intents and purposes..

 

[jah]

The Pats didn't play the 4-3 for an entirety of any one game so the thread is kinda meaningless. In fact, it's well publicized that the Pats moved from the 4-3 to the 3-4 in Denver and it was the 3-4 that shut Denver down for all intents and purposes..

:agree::ditto:

 

[PatsChamp88]

 

[highlander2190]

This is why at the end of the season the team records do not indicate the difficulty of the games people played. I still think the Packers had the easier schedule even though the official one says they have the 3rd easiest. People forget that it's a lot harder to beat a team while they are hot rather than when they have cooled off.

the Packers have faced 1 team coming off a win streak(2 wins or more) this season and that was the lions yesterday coming off 3 wins.

Where as both the Saints and Patriots have had 5 games where they have faced opponents coming off a win streak

The Pats opponents had streaks of 2,2,3,3,6 (pats were away for 4 of them)
The Saints opponents had streaks of 2,2,2,2,3 (saints were home for 3)

The only thing that works against this stat for the pats here is that they were 2-3 in those games, where as the saints were 5-0. You could make the argument though that those loses came in the first half of the season when the team is still settling down and trying to find itself. After starting 0-3 against teams on a winning streak we won 2 games on the road against teams with streaks as long or longer than the longest of the previous ones we had faced.

This certainly indicates that although we may not have won against teams with winning records at the start of the season, the team has improved to the point where we can beat teams that are winning in our house or in theirs.