Debunking the "easy competition" theory

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A END-ALL CONCLUSION... NO ONE NEEDS TO PROVE THE PATRIOTS HAVE BEEN GREAT THIS SEASON... BUT THIS IS TO LEVEL THE FIELD TO FIND OUT WHERE TEAMS STAND BASED ON THE COMPETITION THEY'VE PLAYED.

There are so many message board amateurs, mostly fans of other teams, that are claiming the Patriots have beaten up on a bunch of weak teams, citing that these teams are statistically among the worst in the league.

So I used a simple formula. How many points and points allowed have the Pats opponents averaged, when they are NOT playing the Pats... and therefore what is the Patriots margin of victory, adjusted against what those teams' averages are.

Here is what I concluded:

Average point differential for Jets, Chargers, Bills, Bengals, Browns: 22.9 - 24.1 (-1.2)

These teams vs. the Patriots- 13 - 36.4 (-23.4)

So all of these "horrible" teams have, on a given Sunday when not playing us, are basically scoring the same as they are allowing.

The Patriots point differential is 22.2 above what you should expect from an average team. A difference of over three touchdowns. Basically the Patriots have caused these teams to look statistically bad, and then have been discredited because the teams look bad on paper.

Here is a rundown of some of the other teams that claim they've been as good as the Patriots thus far.



Colts
Opponents average- 18.5 - 18.1 (+.4)
Opponents average vs. Colts- 17.6 - 32.8 (-15.2)
Colts adjusted differential- 15.6

The Colts defense, you may note, is allowing only .5 points less than average. And so much for the powerhouse teams they've been playing. For all the talk about a difficult schedule, the Colts' opponents have been barely better than the Pats' opponents. However the Colts are scoring 14.3 adjusted, while the Pats are at 14.2.

Cowboys
Opponents average- 15.3 - 22.9 (-7.6)
Opponents average vs. Cowboys- 18 - 37.8 (-19.8)
Cowboys adjusted differential- 12.2

You might have noticed that the Cowboys have a below average defense, allowing almost three points more per game than these teams are putting up. Also, these teams are averaging a loss of over over a TD to other teams. A very easy schedule so far.

Steelers
Opponents average- 20.4 - 21.1 (-.7)
Opponents average vs. Steelers- 9.4 - 26.4 (-19)
Steelers adjusted differential- 18.3

They have a difference of 11 less points allowed than average. The Patriots still have a slight edge with 11.1 less points allowed, but it's close. The Steelers have been statistically better than the Colts and Cowboys, not considering their loss to Arizona.

Conclusion:

Using objective analysis, and taking into account the strength of of schedule, the Patriots are currently 3.9 points ahead of the Steelers, 6.2 points ahead of the Colts, and 10 points ahead of the Cowboys.

 

[patsox23]

Don't confuse the simpletons with facts and stats. It's not fair.

 

[workhorse]

What happens to those numbers when you take that Bengals/Browns out of the mix? That game was close to the highest combined total if it wasn't the highest and it involved 2 Patriot oppenents. I'm just wondering if that skews things.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

What happens to those numbers when you take that Bengals/Browns out of the mix? That game was close to the highest combined total if it wasn't the highest and it involved 2 Patriot oppenents. I'm just wondering if that skews things.

I don't have time right now to do the numbers.

The offensive success and defensive failures of the Bengals and Browns are inflated by that game, but over the course of a season it becomes less inflated.

 

[workhorse]

I don't have time right now to do the numbers.

The offensive success and defensive failures of the Bengals and Browns are inflated by that game, but over the course of a season it becomes less inflated.

Ya, I realize that, I was just wondering how that effected things since it was so out of the norm.

 

[reflexblue]

I don't have time right now to do the numbers.

The offensive success and defensive failures of the Bengals and Browns are inflated by that game, but over the course of a season it becomes less inflated.

You need to e-mail your material to espn. I started to listen to a recap of todays games and the first one they did was the Pats/Bengals. J. Schmit started off by saying "the Patriots continue to beat weak team" No respect I say.No respect.

 

[alamo]

There are so many message board amateurs, mostly fans of other teams, that are claiming the Patriots have beaten up on a bunch of weak teams, citing that these teams are statistically among the worst in the league.

I think that's a "straw man" argument, because that's not the most commonly cited reason I seen for saying we have played weak opponents.

The logical and obvious reason for saying our opponents have been bad is that they have a 7-16 record, 7-11 when not playing us. That's not good.

So all of these "horrible" teams have, on a given Sunday when not playing us, are basically scoring the same as they are allowing.

So logic says they should as a group be playing basically .500 ball when not playing us. They are not. Perhaps your analysis is missing something?

Besides which... your point was supposedly to debunk the idea that the Pats are beating up on weak teams. You proved they are beating up on them. You didn't (IMO) prove they are not weak teams.

 

[Fencer]

Their collective records except against each other still stink.

And I made an error in another thread when I said the Browns were something of an exception to that. I was forgetting that one of their wins was against Cincy.

It's something like a 5-13 W/L record against teams that aren't each other. I'm sorry, but that's weak competition until proven otherwise.

 

[danny88]

What happens to those numbers when you take that Bengals/Browns out of the mix? That game was close to the highest combined total if it wasn't the highest and it involved 2 Patriot oppenents. I'm just wondering if that skews things.

Colts fans still pounding there chests for beating teams with major injuries? Remember when the colts beat the Texans minus the texans offense? Or how about when they barley beat the titans? The Saints?

 

[sanvara]

Anyone can come up with stats to say whatever they want. All that matters is wins and losses, period.

 

[signbabybrady]

Just because we are supperior doesn't mean that every other teams talent isnt realy close to each other....This is the NFL where on any givin sunday anyone can win........except those playing the pats.

 

[PatsWSB47]

We should have lost to the Browns so next week when we play the Cowboys we can say we played against a team with a winning record.

 

[He Ban Me]

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A END-ALL CONCLUSION... NO ONE NEEDS TO PROVE THE PATRIOTS HAVE BEEN GREAT THIS SEASON... BUT THIS IS TO LEVEL THE FIELD TO FIND OUT WHERE TEAMS STAND BASED ON THE COMPETITION THEY'VE PLAYED.

There are so many message board amateurs, mostly fans of other teams, that are claiming the Patriots have beaten up on a bunch of weak teams, citing that these teams are statistically among the worst in the league.

So I used a simple formula. How many points and points allowed have the Pats opponents averaged, when they are NOT playing the Pats... and therefore what is the Patriots margin of victory, adjusted against what those teams' averages are.

Here is what I concluded:

Average point differential for Jets, Chargers, Bills, Bengals, Browns: 22.9 - 24.1 (-1.2)

These teams vs. the Patriots- 13 - 36.4 (-23.4)

So all of these "horrible" teams have, on a given Sunday when not playing us, are basically scoring the same as they are allowing.

The Patriots point differential is 22.2 above what you should expect from an average team. A difference of over three touchdowns. Basically the Patriots have caused these teams to look statistically bad, and then have been discredited because the teams look bad on paper.

Here is a rundown of some of the other teams that claim they've been as good as the Patriots thus far.



Colts
Opponents average- 18.5 - 18.1 (+.4)
Opponents average vs. Colts- 17.6 - 32.8 (-15.2)
Colts adjusted differential- 15.6

The Colts defense, you may note, is allowing only .5 points less than average. And so much for the powerhouse teams they've been playing. For all the talk about a difficult schedule, the Colts' opponents have been barely better than the Pats' opponents. However the Colts are scoring 14.3 adjusted, while the Pats are at 14.2.

Cowboys
Opponents average- 15.3 - 22.9 (-7.6)
Opponents average vs. Cowboys- 18 - 37.8 (-19.8)
Cowboys adjusted differential- 12.2

You might have noticed that the Cowboys have a below average defense, allowing almost three points more per game than these teams are putting up. Also, these teams are averaging a loss of over over a TD to other teams. A very easy schedule so far.

Steelers
Opponents average- 20.4 - 21.1 (-.7)
Opponents average vs. Steelers- 9.4 - 26.4 (-19)
Steelers adjusted differential- 18.3

They have a difference of 11 less points allowed than average. The Patriots still have a slight edge with 11.1 less points allowed, but it's close. The Steelers have been statistically better than the Colts and Cowboys, not considering their loss to Arizona.

Conclusion:

Using objective analysis, and taking into account the strength of of schedule, the Patriots are currently 3.9 points ahead of the Steelers, 6.2 points ahead of the Colts, and 10 points ahead of the Cowboys.

Pats SOS is 28th, Colts 25th. I assume this takes into account the ass whipping put on their competition. Honestly, the Colts first 5 opponents were the easy part of the schedule. Thought NO and Donks would be better, but we need to go 5-0 to start.

I think both teams get their first true tests the next time they take the field. NE @ Dallas, and Colts @ Jax


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin.htm

 

[He Ban Me]

Colts fans still pounding there chests for beating teams with major injuries? Remember when the colts beat the Texans minus the texans offense? Or how about when they barley beat the titans? The Saints?

LOL, Pennington injured (who else in the opener??)
Turner was not 100%, who else?
Entire Buffalo team
Rudy and about 4 lber's, who else??
Jamal goes down early yesterday.

Point is, neither team has faced an opponent at 100%, and neither team has been 100%. It's the NFL, not every team is going to have every weapon every game.

Bucs were full throttle at the wideout spot and they have a vet QB, but it didn't seem to work for them. And no, they didn't double every receiver.

 

[ATippett56]

LOL, Pennington injured (who else in the opener??)
Turner was not 100%, who else?
Entire Buffalo team
Rudy and about 4 lber's, who else??
Jamal goes down early yesterday.

Point is, neither team has faced an opponent at 100%, and neither team has been 100%. It's the NFL, not every team is going to have every weapon every game.

Bucs were full throttle at the wideout spot and they have a vet QB, but it didn't seem to work for them. And no, they didn't double every receiver.

Yet Tampa Bay was without their starting running back nor their starting left tackle. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers second string running back goes down early against the Colts.

As for Pennington's injury, Chad played the first three quarters of the game unlike Pittman versus the Indianapolis Colts.

 

[He Ban Me]

Yet Tampa Bay was without their starting running back nor their starting left tackle. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers second string running back goes down early against the Colts.

As for Pennington's injury, Chad played the first three quarters of the game unlike Pittman versus the Indianapolis Colts.

You are skipping the point. Injuries happen, we can't help it, neither can you. Each team has faced each opponent minus some of their players. But of course, when it comes to the COlts opponent, it's that ONE player that would have overcome the 18-19 point blowout, right?

Hands down, Colts are a better team than last season.

 

[desi-patsfan]

Okay, we need to stop saying that injuries and what not are the reason either of these teams is 5 and 0. If all of our opponents were fully healthy i still think we will both be 5 and 0.

 

[He Ban Me]

Okay, we need to stop saying that injuries and what not are the reason either of these teams is 5 and 0. If all of our opponents were fully healthy i still think we will both be 5 and 0.

You guys for sure, and I think Colts too, although Tippett might not buy it. Texans were minus some guys, and only lost by 6. What he fails to realize is that Colts were up 27-10 going into the 4th. They had some monster 15-18 play drive in the 4th to cut it to 6. Schaub was 14-14 on that drive I think. But what does that tell you? His average YYP was very low. I don't think a team will win many ball games like that. Might get you a score now and then, but it is no formula for success week in and week out. Anyway, yeah, probably need to move on. Each is 5-0, and I think each has caught the attention of football fans everywhere. Pats for destroying their opponents, Colts for going 5-0 after having lost so many "key" guys in the off season.

 

[workhorse]

Yet Tampa Bay was without their starting running back nor their starting left tackle. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers second string running back goes down early against the Colts.

As for Pennington's injury, Chad played the first three quarters of the game unlike Pittman versus the Indianapolis Colts.

Did you notice the the Colts were playing without five starters? Addai, Marvin, Sanders, Morris, and Keiaho. You could also throw in the fact the Moorehead, Marvin's back-up, didn't even dress either.

 

[ATippett56]

Did you notice the the Colts were playing without five starters? Addai, Marvin, Sanders, Morris, and Keiaho. You could also throw in the fact the Moorehead, Marvin's back-up, didn't even dress either.

I'm so impressed. Did you notice the Patriots were without starters Maroney, Koppen, and Seymour against the Cleveland Browns? You could also throw in the fact that Troy Brown and Chad Jackson have yet to play this season.

Did you also notice the Patriots beat the Colts in the 2004 AFC Divisional Playoffs without their two best defensive players?

Moorehead sucks and could not even compete for a roster spot on the New England Patriots.