Our schedule has REALLY been easy so far

[Fencer]

Combined records of our first 3 opponents: 3-9
Combined records leaving out games against us and each other: 2-5
Total wins to date by the 2 teams they beat: 1 (Chicago over KC Week 2)

Add in Cincy, and it goes to:

Combined records of our first 3 opponents: 4-12 (if we win!)
Combined records leaving out games against us and each other: 3-7
Total wins to date by the 3 teams they beat: 3

-----------------------------------------------------------------

A number of folks have made similar points, but I just wanted to pull it all together.

 

[BTTA]

Another reminder that pre-season rankings and last year's performance don't make much difference in the NFL.

There is a lot of mediocrity in the league this year.

 

[reflexblue]

Another reminder that pre-season rankings and last year's performance don't make much difference in the NFL.

There is a lot of mediocrity in the league this year.

I was thinking the same the earlier,its not parity its mediocracy. You can no long predict whos going to be good from year to year with any accurace except for the usuall suspects. Our schedual was suppose to be the third toughest in the league so far it hasn't turned out that way. I hope it continues tonight. :rocker:

 

[Disco Volante]

None of the undefeated team’s combined opponent record is a winning one.

Cowboys- 3-13
Packers- 6-10
Colts- 6-9

 

[wistahpatsfan]

We need FRESH MEAT...Bring on the CARDINALS and AUBURN!!

 

[signbabybrady]

I dont care how easy a schedule is...you beat the teams you play and I don't think we could have beaten any of them much worse than we did...

Oh yeah and the schedule wasnt that easy....

 

[Fencer]

None of the undefeated team’s combined opponent record is a winning one.

Cowboys- 3-13
Packers- 6-10
Colts- 6-9

That would be 6-5 for the Colts' opponents in non-Colts games. Similarly 6-6 for the Packers.

 

[Slagathor]

We beat three bad teams by an average of 26 points.

Isn't that what good teams are supposed to do.

Take a look at the Dolphins in 72'. They didn't play a good team that whole season.

 

[mgteich]

Quite right. One should not include their own games, especially this early in the season.

That would be 6-5 for the Colts' opponents in non-Colts games. Similarly 6-6 for the Packers.

 

[BelichickFan]

On the other hand (and there's always another hand ), the teams we have played have lost to generally good teams.

SD has lost to 4-0 GB and 2-2 KC. 4-2 without the SD game.
Jets lost to a solid Baltimore team. I'll ignore Buffalo as we've played both NYJ and Buffalo.
Buffalo has lost to a solid Denver and Pittsburgh.

So while I agree that we schedule has generally been week, I think the teams we've played are a tough underated as their losses are mostly to good teams.

 

[JJDChE]

Take a look at the Dolphins in 72'. They didn't play a good team that whole season.

Well, yeah, except for those three playoff games they won.

 

[patsox23]

There's way too many of these threads, and all of them suffer from the same TOTALLY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE. We need to wait before evaluating our schedule. The Chargers ran with Green Bay and Green Bay's undefeated. We know NOTHING as of now.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I take your basic point, but we should remember that it's still early in the season, meaning that a 3--0 team (i don't see this happening to the Pats this year) could end up out of the playoffs and a 1--3 team could end up in the playoff mix.

The 1974 Pats started 5--0 and ended the season 7--7 and out of the Playoffs. In 99 we started 4--0 and ended up 8--8. In 2002, after the first SB win, they started 3--0, then lost 4 in a row and were eliminated from the playoffs on the last day of the season.

 

[naclone]

Let's also consider that there are a lot more bad teams in the NFL right now than good teams.

Our schedule may have been really easy so far, but I don't necessarily believe that means it's going to get all that harder.

There are 2 (arguably 3) great teams in the league. We are one of them. So how much tougher can the schedule get if we're just going by the team's record?

 

[Ring 6]

Very little makes sense in the NFL this year looking at the middle of the pack teams.
The Eagles scored 42 in the FIRST HALF on Detroit a week ago. What happens next? The mediocre Giants D manhandles the Eagles, and the Lions go and beat the Bears.
The Raiders, Browns, Ravens, Bills, Jets, Chiefs, Seahawks(on the road), Cardinals all looked very different yesterday than they had year to date, both in overall level of play, and strengths and weaknesses.

As of today, Indy beating Denver would be considered a quality win, and us beating SD a cream puff game. By the end of the year, there will be either no difference between those 2 teams, or SD will prove to be better.

 

[RayClay]

Of course two of those teams had high expectations based on last year and were whiners or accused us of things and we beat the tar out of both and made them look bad.

It's hard to take that out of the equation. Had they not played us they might have continued on with confidence from last year and been good teams by now.

Tara Reid looks like a semi-attractive alcoholic bag lady these days. Doesn't mean she wasn't the hawtness when Tommy was hitting it.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I kind of don't like to look at any NFL game as "easy". You still hit each other in the mouth during "easy" games for three hours on Sunday.

Did we struggle through some nail biting games? NO! But on the other hand, we also are getting our MOJO with a new team. I am thankful we have had a chance to get into a rythym without being beat down hard.

When the good teams come into town, we will be more prepared for them.

In 2002, for instance, we had a really average team at most positions, riding high on overconfidence, and with a chip on our shoulder. That helped us beat out some early opponents, but as soon as the media declared we would never lose again, we came back down to earth. The Chiefs completely exposed our defense. That game abruptly terminated the dynasty of 2001 in no uncertain terms, even though we won the game. We lost the next four games.

This year, we have a great team that is building momentum for the upcoming challenges.

I am glad our strength of schedule has allowed us to gell. I am not really concerned about our red zone defense issue, as I think that will turn around quite nicely. The easy schedule has given us a chance to look into this issue in practice without having to lose games.

 

[Ishdul]

We've faced teams with 10 wins, 14 wins, 7 wins and 8 wins last year. Yeah, it's worked out so that they've all been terrible thus far, but Buffalo aside there is quite a bit of talent on each of these teams and we've dished out 3 whoopings in 3 weeks so far.

 

[Ring 6]

I kind of don't like to look at any NFL game as "easy". You still hit each other in the mouth during "easy" games for three hours on Sunday.

Did we struggle through some nail biting games? NO! But on the other hand, we also are getting our MOJO with a new team. I am thankful we have had a chance to get into a rythym without being beat down hard.

When the good teams come into town, we will be more prepared for them.

In 2002, for instance, we had a really average team at most positions, riding high on overconfidence, and with a chip on our shoulder. That helped us beat out some early opponents, but as soon as the media declared we would never lose again, we came back down to earth. The Chiefs completely exposed our defense. That game abruptly terminated the dynasty of 2001 in no uncertain terms, even though we won the game. We lost the next four games.

This year, we have a great team that is building momentum for the upcoming challenges.

I am glad our strength of schedule has allowed us to gell. I am not really concerned about our red zone defense issue, as I think that will turn around quite nicely. The easy schedule has given us a chance to look into this issue in practice without having to lose games.

I guess this is the 'unknown'. We won 3 SBs because when games were hanging in the balance and plays that determined the outcome needed to be made, we made them. Those teams played their best football in 'crunchtime'.
How this team will play in 'crunchtime' is not yet known, because they have not faced it.
Its easy to say that when you dominate everyone you play, you are just THAT good, but at some point to win a SB we will be in a tough game. The character of this team will make the difference. That character hasnt been tested yet.
Is it better to beat a good team by 3 points or a mediocre team by 24?

My opinion is that we are playing so well, that we would be 3-0 no matter who we played in the first 3 games, and would have won hadily each week. Its hard for me to have watched those 3 games and envision any opponent who would have given us difficulty winning on those 3 days.

We will find out soon enough when we play the Colts, Steelers, Cowboys. Those IMO, are the only 3 challenging games on the schedule.

 

[spacecrime]

I was thinking the same the earlier,its not parity its mediocracy. You can no long predict whos going to be good from year to year with any accurace except for the usuall suspects. Our schedual was suppose to be the third toughest in the league so far it hasn't turned out that way.

But that is exactly what parity is. Parity is keeping the league fresh so that each year any team can be good. You don't know before hand which teams will be bad and which good. That is what parity is, what it was designed to do.

Under parity, most teams are within 2 games +- of 8-8. You have to work very hard to stay north or south of this parity zone two years or three years in a row. For the last few years in the NFCS, the last place team became the division winner the following year. That's parity.

It is working extremely well. They only way to beat parity (for better or worse) is by smart coaching and ownership. A front office would have to make poor decisions year after year to stay at the bottom, and a good team would have to make exceptionally good decisions to stay at the top.

Draft order does this in part, but free agency and the cap did the rest. Great teams have their players highly valued and therefore raided in free agency, and they can't keep all the good ones because of the cap.

The better players of poor teams are not valued as highly as players from great teams (a function of hype, I'm sure), and so the poor teams are able keep many of them. Unless they make poor decisions of course.