Debunking the "easy competition" theory

[workhorse]

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.

Why are you talking about 2004? We were talking about this season. I guess you are done talking about Tampa.

 

[ATippett56]

Why are you talking about 2004? We were talking about this season. I guess you are done talking about Tampa.

I guess you are done talking about the Colts since this is a New England Patriots message board.

 

[ATippett56]

Turner was not 100%, who else?

If Turner was not 100%, he would have not returned kickoffs. In other words, you are lying once again!

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/boxscore?game_id=29225&displayPage=tab_box_score&season=2007&week=REG2

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I started this thread to simply measure our offense and defense.

 

[ATippett56]

I started this thread to simply measure our offense and defense.

Meanwhile the Colts trolls ambush this thread into a Colts deification. The PatsFans message boards mods need to banish these Colts trolls to the visitors locker room.

 

[workhorse]

I started this thread to simply measure our offense and defense.

I agree. I simply asked a question.

 

[workhorse]

Meanwhile the Colts trolls ambush this thread into a Colts deification. The PatsFans message boards mods need to banish these Colts trolls to the visitors locker room.

Actually it was Danny88 that brought up the Colts.

 

[Fixit]

Incidentally, this thread has been linked on coldhardfootballfacts.com in the Quick Outs section under the heading "NE fans try to ignore team's weak schedule."

Don't even get me started on their "Quality Wins" travesty. Right now, the Pats haven't played a quality opponent which means they're "untested." However, a month from now when San Diego, Cincinnati, and maybe Cleveland are probably all above .500, they'll have three "quality wins" without doing anything.

 

[solman]

1. The points differential stat does NOT place New England head and shoulders above its competition, merely better.

2. Who cares about points anyway. Its wins that matter. At #2, Pittsburge isn't even undefeated.

 

[He Ban Me]

If Turner was not 100%, he would have not returned kickoffs. In other words, you are lying once again!

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/boxscore?game_id=29225&displayPage=tab_box_score&season=2007&week=REG2

I think they must have spoken of his ankle problem he had the previous week. My guess is he was NOT 100%, as he only carried it one time. Again, I think they alluded to his health on that broadcast. In any event, seems like you have a pretty strict interpretation of lying, yet are pretty lenient when it comes to defining cheating, why do you suppose that is?

 

[He Ban Me]

Incidentally, this thread has been linked on coldhardfootballfacts.com in the Quick Outs section under the heading "NE fans try to ignore team's weak schedule."

Don't even get me started on their "Quality Wins" travesty. Right now, the Pats haven't played a quality opponent which means they're "untested." However, a month from now when San Diego, Cincinnati, and maybe Cleveland are probably all above .500, they'll have three "quality wins" without doing anything.

Therein lies part of the dilemma. Do any of these systems take into account the "quality win" at time the game took place? IOW, let's say Colts are w/o Manning, Harrison, the entire o/line, etcc..., and let's say they lose their first 4 games. Obviously they were not a quality opponent for the first four games. Now lets say they get everyone healthy, and they win 11 of 12. Well, those opponents who beat them in weeks 1-4 should not get an improved SOS based on an improved Colts team. Agree? It cuts both ways for all teams, but two teams could play the exact same 16 opponents, and have two different SOS's, don't you agree?? Hell, look at SD, did they "get well" versus Denver, and rip off several in a row? If so, and Colts go to SD and get beat, will you say "we're better" and sight this common opponent? Not trolling, just asking an opinion, as stated, cuts both ways. IIRC, we really only have 2 common opponents this season, Balt and SD??

 

[Oswlek]

The schedule has been easy, but even crappy teams are hard to annihilate the way that NE has been. When you can play a D+/C- game against a decent team, and still win by 17 points, you don't have all that much more to prove.

Regardless, with Dallas/Washington/Indy all in the next 4 games, this topic will be dead shortly.

 

[alamo]

Meanwhile the Colts trolls ambush this thread into a Colts deification. The PatsFans message boards mods need to banish these Colts trolls to the visitors locker room.

Waaaaahhhh!! Mommy make him stop!

 

[FrreeeBird]

Therein lies part of the dilemma. Do any of these systems take into account the "quality win" at time the game took place? IOW, let's say Colts are w/o Manning, Harrison, the entire o/line, etcc..., and let's say they lose their first 4 games. Obviously they were not a quality opponent for the first four games. Now lets say they get everyone healthy, and they win 11 of 12. Well, those opponents who beat them in weeks 1-4 should not get an improved SOS based on an improved Colts team. Agree? It cuts both ways for all teams, but two teams could play the exact same 16 opponents, and have two different SOS's, don't you agree?? Hell, look at SD, did they "get well" versus Denver, and rip off several in a row? If so, and Colts go to SD and get beat, will you say "we're better" and sight this common opponent? Not trolling, just asking an opinion, as stated, cuts both ways. IIRC, we really only have 2 common opponents this season, Balt and SD??

It doesn't work that way, Quality wins are based on your opponents record at the time you play them, IIRC.

That being said, the Pats wrecked two 2006 playoff teams, dismantled a bills team that were it not for their coaching staff should have beaten the 5-0 cowboys last night, walked all over near 2006 playoff team cincy and played flat and not consistently against the scrappy browns and still won by a large margin.

You can't change who you play, but I think a big win in dallas would silence a lot of the unfounded criticism coming from the media (not to say that CHFF is being critical, they're just saying "it is what it is")

 

[He Ban Me]

It doesn't work that way, Quality wins are based on your opponents record at the time you play them, IIRC.

That being said, the Pats wrecked two 2006 playoff teams, dismantled a bills team that were it not for their coaching staff should have beaten the 5-0 cowboys last night, walked all over near 2006 playoff team cincy and played flat and not consistently against the scrappy browns and still won by a large margin.

You can't change who you play, but I think a big win in dallas would silence a lot of the unfounded criticism coming from the media (not to say that CHFF is being critical, they're just saying "it is what it is")

I think the end is correct, for NE, Dallas will most likely (will be) their first true test. I know you cannot control who you play, you can only do what you do.

Jets, while they made the PO's, were not a PO team. Chargers are obviouslt reeling from the entire coaching staff change. Bengals, while talented offensively, WERE banged up, and certainly showed their immaturity. Bills?? Very banged up, came out on a FIRST MONDAY NIGHTER in years, and were obviously as pumped up as ever. Romo was horrible. But 6 turnovers, 3 defensive/ST's scores, and they still lost. Meaning?? The offense put 3 points on the board. LESS than what they put up on NE.

 

[FrreeeBird]

I think the end is correct, for NE, Dallas will most likely (will be) their first true test. I know you cannot control who you play, you can only do what you do.

At least we can agree on that . . . I'm not a regular on this board, but you're quickly looking like a Colts troll given your sig and what you posted below.

Jets, while they made the PO's, were not a PO team.

Logical fallacy. Please explain how they made the playoffs, but were not a playoff team. Remember, my original statement said they beat up on two 2006 PO teams.

Chargers are obviouslt reeling from the entire coaching staff change.
Bengals, while talented offensively, WERE banged up, and certainly showed their immaturity. Bills?? Very banged up, came out on a FIRST MONDAY NIGHTER in years, and were obviously as pumped up as ever. Romo was horrible. But 6 turnovers, 3 defensive/ST's scores, and they still lost. Meaning?? The offense put 3 points on the board. LESS than what they put up on NE.

Excuses much?

 

[Oswlek]

At least we can agree on that . . . I'm not a regular on this board, but you're quickly looking like a Colts troll given your sig and what you posted below.

Logical fallacy. Please explain how they made the playoffs, but were not a playoff team. Remember, my original statement said they beat up on two 2006 PO teams.

Excuses much?

In fairness, the "they weren't really a {playoff, division winner, SB team}" is a basic statement that means "they did it, but they weren't up to normal par and took advantage of of weaker circumstances to do it". I have no problem with someone countering a Jets point by saying that they weren't *that* good. Frankly, I have been using the exact same logic against the Colts SB win.

 

[Bostonian1962]

Appreciate all the effort you went to, as far as your numbers go.

I think it's much more basic and simple than that.

Watch the teams play, and make your assessment based on what you see. Half these fans, don't know squat, and the other half have to belittle the teams for whom they don't root.

Now, I'll expand beyond that, just because I feel like it.

The Patriots team that was a minute away from yet another Super Bowl last year has added Thomas on the defense. They've added Gay to the DBs. Seau is back on the LB corp. Bruschi isn't playing injured this year. Rodney Harrison is back. Seymour played injured last year, and is expected to be back and healthy soon. Add Wes Welker. Add Randy Moss. Add Stallworth. Add Sammie Morris.

I could go on, but I think the point is clear. Obviously, this is a great team, with a ton of talent. They didn't squeak by bad teams in their games. They blew out opponents, who aren't yet playing up to folks' expectations. Tell the Denver Bronco's or Chicago Bears that the Chargers are a bad team. Tell Dallas that the Bills stink. Tell the Baltimore Ravens that Cinncy is a horrible team. Gotta run.

 

[He Ban Me]

At least we can agree on that . . . I'm not a regular on this board, but you're quickly looking like a Colts troll given your sig and what you posted below.



Logical fallacy. Please explain how they made the playoffs, but were not a playoff team. Remember, my original statement said they beat up on two 2006 PO teams.



Excuses much?

As the next guy stated, basically, that Colts were not that great (maybe one of the "worst" SB Champs). Well, the friggin' Jets were not truely at the level of traditional playoff competition. They benefitted from a weak division (north - with Balt and Cincy, west with SD, Denver and KC) were more difficult divisions than the East, they won by attrition of these other teams.

 

[Ishdul]

The East last year wasn't a weak division. It had a 12 win team, a 10 win team, a 7 win team and a 6 win team (34 wins in the division, equal to the West and South and 1 ahead of the North). Not spectacular, but I don't quite get what people are talking about. I'd say the Jets were a pretty clear playoff team: the Chiefs and Broncos did little to prove they were better than the Jets and you're going into dangerous grounds if you want to argue that an 8 win team should go in the playoffs before them. That, and they were better than every NFC team except the Bears.