Pats deserve * for easy schedule???

[Lloyd_Christmas]

I hate asterisk columns, but his guy has a new spin... we should get one because of our easy schedule.

Can't say I'm buying it, but it was a suprising spin:
http://www.theheraldbulletin.com/sports/local_story_332233401.html?keyword=secondarystory

Here are some snippets:

"The reason is [for the asterisk] that the Patriots’ schedule is easy enough that many teams over the past 10 years could have come close to Miami’s unbeaten mark. New England’s division gives “weak” a bad name."

"Brady managed one touchdown pass [vs the Eagles]. But that’s understandable. Mostly Brady is playing against defenses that would have trouble stopping running water with a tap."

"Staff member Richard Torres put together some stats that show that the season Manning set the record, he had faced teams, to this point, with a combined record of 30-23. Brady has faced teams with combined records of 30-26. There are two things misleading about those stats."

... I'll let you read the article to discover his 2 points about Manning's achievements being better ...

 

[OnTheHeights]

Wow. Pure idiocy. The 72 Dolphins played one of the easiest schedules EVER. Shula's squad should have about three asterisks.

 

[oldskool138]

Well, the Pats can be blamed for the division they play in...That's beyond their control. And the schedules are made up years in advance so they can't be blamed for that either.

The Jets, Chargers, and Colts were all play-off teams last year. The Steelers are always competitive and Cincy was a decent team last year.

 

[xmarkd400x]

This is just another dope going for sensationalism. I mean really. When the Pats went 14-2 they lost to two crappy teams (Miami and Washington in '03, iirc). Should those losses have an asterik because they were against bad teams and the Pats should have won? No. Should wins have an asterik because they were against crappy teams? No.

This guy's just looking for messageboard posts like this to generate hits. Don't do him the favor of clicking on the link.

 

[upstater1]

Funny thing is, the Patriots have the toughest schedule in the league this year if you go by the ESPN rankings.

Indy Colts
Chargers
Steelers
Cowboys
Giants
Browns

The only team of any note that we don't play is the Packers.

We play every single good team in the league, except for the Packers...

Then, to top it off, you have to consider that 11 of the losses of our opponents come courtesy of playing the Patriots.

What a ridiculous article.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

This is just another dope going for sensationalism. I mean really. When the Pats went 14-2 they lost to two crappy teams (Miami and Washington in '03, iirc). Should those losses have an asterik because they were against bad teams and the Pats should have won? No. Should wins have an asterik because they were against crappy teams? No.

This guy's just looking for messageboard posts like this to generate hits. Don't do him the favor of clicking on the link.

The Pats' schedule is neither ridiculously easy nor ridiculously hard; it's actually right about in the middle of the pack. [Of course, it "helps" that the Pats account for 12 of the losses in their SOS (since division opponents count twice). ]

 

[bobmal99]

ooooooopsss

 

[Ishdul]

Our schedule isn't weak at all. Record wise, any schedule in which you win 16 games is going to look bad because you accounted for 0 wins and 16 losses for your opponents. Based on last year, we had the 3rd toughest schedule in the league. We've played 2 consensus top 5 teams with another to come, we got matched up with the toughest division in football (and are now 3-0 against them)... What the **** do they want? We can't play ourselves...

 

[37Harrison]

Can't say I was surprised to see this coming out of Indy.

 

[bradmahn]

Secondly, even though some of the Colts’ foes in Manning’s record season were less than stellar, like Tennessee, those teams still had staunch defenses. The records were poor because of ineffective offenses.

What? The Titans were ranked 30th in points allowed in 2004.

In fact, if you go back and look at points against, the average ranking of each team on the Colts 2004 schedule was 17th. The average ranking of teams the Patriots beat in 2007? 19th.

 

[patsfan13]

Well lets presume for the time being that the Pats do indeed run the table, 19-0 lets lok at what the total schedule will look like. They will have beaten the Cowboy's who could be the NFC SB rep and would project to be in the conference finals, once or twice, they also would have beaten the NYG who look to be a playoff team also. So we have 3 wins against NFC playoff teams. Then let's look at the AFC. They will have beating the teams leading all the other AFC divisions and Cleveland who could be a playoff team also. They will also have defeated 2 AFC playoff teams getting to the SB. This would be 9 of their 19 games against teams that will qualify for the playoffs. The Bills, Eagles and Redskins could also finsih the season at .500 or better.

IOW this article is a joke.

 

[hambone1818]

That is HILARIOUS...does he not realize that, by seasons end, the Pats will have played the #1 (Pitt), 3 (Indy), 9 (Philly), 10 (Dal), 12 (SD)and 14 (Wash) defenses in the league (as of now, using PPGA as the measuring point)?

Now, to further the point, the Patriots are clearly demolishing teams so to include their score in the equation is a bit misleading. How about this for a stat: take out the Patriots game from the schedule of each one of those teams...now take the average points allowed for EVERY team they've played. Patriot opponents are allowing an average of 20.99 points per game in non-NE games, better than 19 NFL teams and lower than the average points allowed (21.4) this season...if anything, the Patriots have played slightly above average defenses.

From there, take the Patriots scoring average of 40.2, how much more are they scoring than their opposition allows, on average? 19.21 points, or more than 13 teams are AVERAGING this season.

Now, just for the hell of it (and because this columnist decided to compare the two) lets a look at Indy circa 2004: their opponents, in non-Colts games, averaged 20.91 points allowed, or almost exactly what Patriot opponents allowed (and, the same as the Patriots, that average was better than 19 teams and beat the NFL average points allowed, 21.4). They scored 32.6 points a game, so only managed to 'beat' their opponents' average defensive effort--again, by the same measure as I used above--by 11.5 points.

Finally, the 'record' thing. He's off-base even on his premise because you shouldn't compare Patriots and '04 Colts opponents records, because it wasn't the '04 Colts who went undefeated. Instead, look at the '72 Dolphins, who's opponents had a woeful .396 winning percentage (compared to the .481 the Pats' opponents currently possess). And finally, his records are all wrong...Pats opponents are 53-57 as of right now (or, if you'd like, 53-46 not including all the Patriots games).

Conclusion: this writer is a hack, pretending as though his 'analysis' is the end-all, be-all of this discussion.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

That is HILARIOUS...does he not realize that, by seasons end, the Pats will have played the #1 (Pitt), 3 (Indy), 9 (Philly), 10 (Dal), 12 (SD)and 14 (Wash) defenses in the league (as of now, using PPGA as the measuring point)?

Now, to further the point, the Patriots are clearly demolishing teams so to include their score in the equation is a bit misleading. How about this for a stat: take out the Patriots game from the schedule of each one of those teams...now take the average points allowed for EVERY team they've played. Patriot opponents are allowing an average of 20.99 points per game in non-NE games, better than 19 NFL teams and lower than the average points allowed (21.4) this season...if anything, the Patriots have played slightly above average defenses.

From there, take the Patriots scoring average of 40.2, how much more are they scoring than their opposition allows, on average? 19.21 points, or more than 13 teams are AVERAGING this season.

Now, just for the hell of it (and because this columnist decided to compare the two) lets a look at Indy circa 2004: their opponents, in non-Colts games, averaged 20.91 points allowed, or almost exactly what Patriot opponents allowed (and, the same as the Patriots, that average was better than 19 teams and beat the NFL average points allowed, 21.4). They scored 32.6 points a game, so only managed to 'beat' their opponents' average defensive effort--again, by the same measure as I used above--by 11.5 points.

Finally, the 'record' thing. He's off-base even on his premise because you shouldn't compare Patriots and '04 Colts opponents records, because it wasn't the '04 Colts who went undefeated. Instead, look at the '72 Dolphins, who's opponents had a woeful .396 winning percentage (compared to the .481 the Pats' opponents currently possess). And finally, his records are all wrong...Pats opponents are 53-57 as of right now (or, if you'd like, 53-46 not including all the Patriots games).

Conclusion: this writer is a hack, pretending as though his 'analysis' is the end-all, be-all of this discussion.

Great Analysis! Very informative. You don't need the facts to realize that the writer is full of S.h.i.t, but it is satisfying to see it none-the-less.

 

[Pats_AZ]

the Pats strength of schedule was ranked 3rd toughest coming into season by ESPN. It's not the teams fault if some of these teams have underachieved this year.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

Funny thing is, the Patriots have the toughest schedule in the league this year if you go by the ESPN rankings.

Indy Colts
Chargers
Steelers
Cowboys
Giants
Browns

The only team of any note that we don't play is the Packers.

We play every single good team in the league, except for the Packers...

You could add Jacksonville to the list of good teams NE doesn't face. That makes two.

It amazes me how eager people are to ignore this point. NE is playing a #1 schedule (Indy and SD), the toughest NFC division, and an AFC division with Pitt and Cleveland. Yes their division is weak, but their opponents outside the division are probably better than any other team (though SD would have a good argument there).

 

[BradyManny]

Funny thing is, the Patriots have the toughest schedule in the league this year if you go by the ESPN rankings.

Indy Colts
Chargers
Steelers
Cowboys
Giants
Browns

The only team of any note that we don't play is the Packers.

We play every single good team in the league, except for the Packers...

Then, to top it off, you have to consider that 11 of the losses of our opponents come courtesy of playing the Patriots.

What a ridiculous article.

Good post.

Another thing to consider is that the defensive rankings of the teams we have faced (particularly teams we face twice, ie Buffalo) are very skewed. We're murdering teams, and when they've only played 10 games, that is going to mess up their defensive numbers.

 

[hambone1818]

Good post.

Another thing to consider is that the defensive rankings of the teams we have faced (particularly teams we face twice, ie Buffalo) are very skewed. We're murdering teams, and when they've only played 10 games, that is going to mess up their defensive numbers.

Check out my post, this is almost exactly what I broke down into numbers.

 

[BradyManny]

Check out my post, this is almost exactly what I broke down into numbers....

from above:

now take the average points allowed for EVERY team they've played. Patriot opponents are allowing an average of 20.99 points per game in non-NE games, better than 19 NFL teams and lower than the average points allowed (21.4) this season...if anything, the Patriots have played slightly above average defenses.

From there, take the Patriots scoring average of 40.2, how much more are they scoring than their opposition allows, on average? 19.21 points, or more than 13 teams are AVERAGING this season.

Yup, well done, that's good stuff.

 

[Metaphors]

The Pats' schedule is neither ridiculously easy nor ridiculously hard; it's actually right about in the middle of the pack. [Of course, it "helps" that the Pats account for 12 of the losses in their SOS (since division opponents count twice). ]

The Pats schedule is pretty evenly distributed.

At the top: DAL, IND, PIT, SD, CLE

At the bottom: NYJ(2), MIA(2), CIN

In the middle: BUF(2), WAS, NYG, PHI, BAL

You can move them around however you want (BUF down, NYG up, etc.), but you will generally come out with an even spread.

In comparison, let's look at Dallas:

At the top: NE, GB

At the bottom: MIA, STL, NYJ, CAR

In the middle: NYG(2), WAS(2), PHI(2), BUF, CHI, MIN, DET

The Dallas schedule is middle-heavy...meaning a top team should beat them unless they cough up a hairball (at Buffalo). Also notice that Dallas got their top teams at home, while the Pats had to travel to Indy and Dallas. Certainly not as difficult as NE, but has more "trap" games.

The Indy schedule has some top teams...NE, JAX(2), SD...and a whole bunch in the middle. Indy's schedule is harder than the Pats since they had to have a pretty consistent effort (except for the last 2 weeks) to avoid upsets.

The Pitt schedule is full of cupcakes...the NFC west, CIN(2), MIA, NYJ...and they avoided Indy and SD by finishing 3rd in their division last year (DEN and JAX instead). They were also lucky to be at Cleveland before Derek Anderson took over. Much easier than the Pats.

Just as a side note...how frustrating is it for Cincinnati? They get the NFC west, the AFC east, KC and TEN (2nd place finishers last year). The schedule doesn't get set up any better than that and they still pooped the bed. Thanks for playing, Marvin. Your services will no longer be required.

 

[Fixit]

My God, I'm actually overqualified to be a sports columnist.