Pats would have been better off losing to Broncos

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

According to Kerry Byrne at CHFF, beating teams with a winning record is the most important indicator of postseason success. Unfortunately, this win put the Broncos at 9-9, whereas had we lost, we would have been eliminated, but at least they would be 10-8 and guaranteed us a win over a winning team.

Also, since we lost to the Giants this year, it's a loss against a winning team, but if we'd won, it would not be a win against a winning team since they would have been 8-8. We also ruined our chances of beating a winning team because we were dumb enough to defeat Oakland, San Diego, NYJ (twice) Dallas, and Philadelphia. Had we been smart enough to lose, they would count as winning teams, too. I think a 7-9 record would be well worth the confidence of playing all the +.500 teams and knowing we didn't have an easy schedule.

What do you think?

 

[jah]

I'm telling you, if we lost the the Jets just once we would be Super Bowl favorites.

 

[Dutchmaster617]

Gronkowski is an indicator of playoff success. You can't hold us to that usual 14 point crap anymore.

 

[shmessy]

According to Kerry Byrne at CHFF, beating teams with a winning record is the most important indicator of postseason success.

Evidently, this Kerry Byrnes genius did not see the 2010 Patriots season.

 

[Ivan]

No doubt, that's why NE won the SB last year..........................

 

[NYCPatsFan]

The reset button has been pressed once the playoffs started. Every team that made it - due to luck or talent - are playing at a level higher than the regular season and so cannot be looked with the same prism that we viewed them during the regular season.

So, stats be damned, it is the heart that matters from now. Just ask the 01 Pats or the 07 Gints.

In any case, I care about only one stat - wins.

As long as we win the next two, I don't care if the Pats O, D, ST and coaches are ranked 32 in every category.

 

[upstater1]

How about this: the Patriots singlehandedly relegated half the NFL to non-winning seasons!!!

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

You can only play the teams on your schedule. Blame fate for handing them teams that didn't "end" up with winning records.

Maybe the eye test should be used as well? If continue playing at the level they played last night, who's going to stop them?

 

[Reckedtrek]

According to Kerry Byrne at CHFF, beating teams with a winning record is the most important indicator of postseason success. Unfortunately, this win put the Broncos at 9-9, whereas had we lost, we would have been eliminated, but at least they would be 10-8 and guaranteed us a win over a winning team.

Also, since we lost to the Giants this year, it's a loss against a winning team, but if we'd won, it would not be a win against a winning team since they would have been 8-8. We also ruined our chances of beating a winning team because we were dumb enough to defeat Oakland, San Diego, NYJ (twice) Dallas, and Philadelphia. Had we been smart enough to lose, they would count as winning teams, too. I think a 7-9 record would be well worth the confidence of playing all the +.500 teams and knowing we didn't have an easy schedule.

What do you think?

Clearly the new jersey jets' front office gets this! Why is the Pats FO so dumb?! Let's face it- we're on a downward spiral.

 

[363839]

According to Kerry Byrne at CHFF, beating teams with a winning record is the most important indicator of postseason success. Unfortunately, this win put the Broncos at 9-9, whereas had we lost, we would have been eliminated, but at least they would be 10-8 and guaranteed us a win over a winning team.

Also, since we lost to the Giants this year, it's a loss against a winning team, but if we'd won, it would not be a win against a winning team since they would have been 8-8. We also ruined our chances of beating a winning team because we were dumb enough to defeat Oakland, San Diego, NYJ (twice) Dallas, and Philadelphia. Had we been smart enough to lose, they would count as winning teams, too. I think a 7-9 record would be well worth the confidence of playing all the +.500 teams and knowing we didn't have an easy schedule.

What do you think?

If you're going to use the quality wins metric, shouldn't use also use the quality of teams that the team being measured is?...And then the quality of teams that those teams met....and the quality of teams those teams faced and....OMG I need my meds.

 

[Disco Volante]

According to Kerry Byrne at CHFF, beating teams with a winning record is the most important indicator of postseason success. Unfortunately, this win put the Broncos at 9-9, whereas had we lost, we would have been eliminated, but at least they would be 10-8 and guaranteed us a win over a winning team.

Also, since we lost to the Giants this year, it's a loss against a winning team, but if we'd won, it would not be a win against a winning team since they would have been 8-8. We also ruined our chances of beating a winning team because we were dumb enough to defeat Oakland, San Diego, NYJ (twice) Dallas, and Philadelphia. Had we been smart enough to lose, they would count as winning teams, too. I think a 7-9 record would be well worth the confidence of playing all the +.500 teams and knowing we didn't have an easy schedule.

What do you think?