This COULD Happen
 

O.K., I'm not thrilled that Wes Welker got injured, but hear me out. Let's say, for discussion's sake that Edelman does an adequate job replacing Welker.

Well, for those of you who remember, the Pats were at or near the tops in the league, for man hours lost to injuries in the years they won their Super Bowls.

If you think about this year, however, things shape up much better, IMHO.

The offensive line is deep and healthy right now. Matt Light, Volmer, Kaczur, and Neal had their injuries early on, missed a little bit of time (essentially resting), and are now back healthy.

Same thing with the D Line. Wolfolk and Warren will be back healthy, and while they were out, the backups got some very invaluable playing time. The unit should be fully intact for the playoff run.

Linebacking corp is fully healthy, Mayo's injury having come early in the season.

For DBs, Springs is back. Bodden was a healthy scratch last week, and will be fresh. Sanders is over his injury, so the entire defensive backfield is finally healthy.

Look at the RBs. Faulk and Maroney were healthy scratches last week, as they recharged their batteries. Now Taylor and Morris are back, and the entire backfield is finally healthy, again just in time for the playoffs.

TEs: Fully healthy.

There is a better than average chance that Baker, Aiken, Edelman, and Watson etc. pick their game up a notch, as a result of the Welker injury. Moss wants a ring really bad.

What a great time of year to be this healthy. I would not be remotely surprised to see this team playing their best football from here through the Super Bowl. Call it glass full. Call it wishful thinking. Call it homerism. But, you have to admit, they seem to have a relatively full assortment of players, save for Welker.

Has anybody else noticed this?

Re: This COULD Happen:
 

Being healthy is one thing. Playing as a team with an identity is another.

Re: This COULD Happen:
 

Thanks for letting us all borrow these for the moment

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3557/...249048ba72.jpg

Re: This COULD Happen:
 

Great points. Plus the Patriots have played a tough schedule so they are better than their stats show, imo. Check this out on the CMB....

Breakdown of our Possible Divisional Game Opponents... - The Official San Diego Chargers Forum

This is the interesting post (if you want the conclusion look at the bolded second to last sentence)

"As I promised, some findings...

I was looking at a way to improve the scoring rankings. My idea was to take data on points scored and points allowed for many years, paired with the NFL ranking for that year, and come up with an average historical ranking to be assigned to teams. Basically, it's like looking at the raw PPG stat and giving it context for comparison. That way, if you had a wide discrepancy between teams, it would be reflected as the difference in historical ranking would be greater than that year's difference in ranking. And, likewise, we'd probably see the defenses this year between #4 and #16 more bunched up in ranking reflecting how many above-average defenses there were that performed similarly.

I used the last decade's worth of data (2000-2009), and may add more if I get the time.

For both the offenses and defenses, there was a generally linear trend for teams that ranked between the top-5 and bottom-5. But, as you go to the extremes, teams stood out as exceptionally good/bad. For the offense and defense, a linear fit produced a high R² value. But, to best account for the extremes, a cubic fit was much better, and produced the highest R² value.

RANKING vs. POINTS SCORED

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/705...tranking00.jpg


Quote:
HIST.RANK = (1.754×(10^ -6))×[₧]³ ― 0.00177×[₧]² + 0.447×[₧] ― 0.0999

R² = 0.9413

Outliers: '07 Patriots (589 pts.)

RANKING vs. POINTS ALLOWED

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/142...tranking00.jpg


Quote:
HIST.RANK = 103.61 ― 1.153×[₧] + 0.003978×[₧]² ― (3.932*(10^ -6))×[₧]³

R² = 0.9509

Outliers: '00 Ravens (165 pts.)
Outliers: '08 Lions (517 pts.); '09 Lions (494 pts.); '01 Colts (486 pts.)

Applying this historical rating system to the playoff teams, we get...

Hist. Offensive Rankings ('09 NFL ranking)

Saints: 1* (1)
Vikings: 1.1 (2)
Packers: 1.7 (3)
Chargers: 2.1 (4)
-
Eagles: 4.4 (5)
Patriots: 4.6 (6)
Colts: 5.8 (7)
-
Ravens: 8.9 (9)
-
Cardinals: 11.1 (11)
Cowboys: 13.1 (14)
Jets: 15.0 (17)
-
Bengals: 21.3 (22)

* the actual ranking for the Saints was 0.2, meaning that they were better than the average #1 scoring offense in the league

Quick take: This was definitely an offensive-favored year. There were two teams on par with #1 scoring offenses, and two more on par with #2 scoring offenses. A total of six offenses would be on average rated top-5 in a given year. After that the ratings fell closer to the NFL ranking, which really highlighted the difference in the elite offenses this year versus those that were fairly average - or, in the case of the Bengals, below-average.

Hist. Defensive Rankings ('09 NFL ranking)

Jets: 1.4 (1)
Cowboys: 2.5 (2)
Ravens: 3.8 (3)
-
Patriots: 7.1 (5)
Bengals: 8.1 (6)
Packers: 9.1 (7)
Colts: 10.8 (8)
Vikings: 11.7 (10)
Chargers: 13.2 (11)
Cardinals: 14.1 (T-14)
-
Eagles: 16.3 (19)
Saints: 17.1 (20)

Quick take: It was said that there was no truly dominant defense this year, and I would tend to agree, but there were three that ranked top-5 for a given year. Like I mentioned before, the clustering between #4 and #16 in the NFL ranking led to the above-average defenses being historically ranked closer. These above-average defenses, as a result of a lack of elite defenses in the league this year, tended to be ranked 2-3 spots higher than in an average year. And, conversely, the below-average defenses by NFL ranking proved to be fairly average. This isn't that surprising. The dropoff between the #20 NFL-ranked defense (Saints) and the #21 NFL-ranked defense (Bears) is 34 points, roughly three-quarters of the difference between the #4 and #16 NFL-ranked defenses.

Revised Balance Rankings

Packers: 5.4
Patriots: 5.85
Ravens: 6.35
Vikings: 6.4
-
Chargers: 7.65
Cowboys: 7.8
Jets: 8.2
Colts: 8.3
Saints: 9.05
-
Eagles: 10.35
-
Cardinals: 12.6
-
Bengals: 14.7

Quick take: Unsurprisingly, 9 of the 12 playoff teams on average rank top-10, with the Eagles coming very close. The remaining two teams are very far apart, but share a big similarity. The Cardinals are balanced, but only average to above-average on both sides of the ball. The Bengals, on the other hand, are very unbalanced, riding a strong defense to the postseason. Those two teams are similar, though, in that they are both projected to be 1+ win overachievers using the net points statistic. And, both go up against teams whose records do not reflect the true quality of the team, again via the net points statistic. The Packers and Patriots might just be the quiet juggernauts in the postseason. We'll have to see how this translates to the field, though.

Enjoy!

Re: This COULD Happen:
 

Here's some cold water:

Sit back, imagine we have a lead in the second half.

(whispering) Now remember our defensive coordinator is Dean Pees and the offensive coordinator is Bill O'Brien and they have their hands around thier necks.

Personnel is not the reason the Patriots are not 15-1 this year. The only game this team lost on the field this year was New Orleans. The rest were botched lobotomies.

Re: This COULD Happen:
 

You're right, why be optimistic at all?

"What a great time of year to be this healthy. I would not be remotely surprised to see this team playing their best football from here through the Super Bowl. Call it glass full. Call it wishful thinking. Call it homerism. But, you have to admit, they seem to have a relatively full assortment of players, save for Welker."

Look at this part of his quote. Where is this out of line? Where is this "rose colored glasses"? Would not be surprised, seem to have a relatively full assortment of players, etc, is NOT homerism. It's an observation and it's a good one.

Re: This COULD Happen:
 

Good post. It's very well worth taking note that the Patriots are relatively healthy for this point in the season, though you've got to assume that just because the likes of Warren, Wilfork, etc., are going to play doesn't mean they're fully recovered. It would be great to get up on the Ravens early so BB can pick his spots resting people.

I'm most pumped for seeing what the healthy offensive line can do with Morris, Taylor and Faulk sharing touches. Gotta get that running game and short passing game going.

Re: This COULD Happen:
 

I'm so sorry.

I FULLY agree with Bostonian1962 points about the health of the personnel.

Can you help me out here, Sicilian, and tell me where I wrote that his post was "out of line", "homerism" or "rose-colored glasses".

Re: This COULD Happen:
 

Desire to win is the key to getting victories in the playoffs,I dont think the young players have that yet.

This is STILL a defense in transition,even in the playoffs and thats where the difference lies between winning and going home.

Re: This COULD Happen
 

If there is any team out there that can lose a player and actually play better it's the Patriots. Some fans just can't understand that, but it's been proven every year.

Also there's a lot to be said about the element of surprise when a new player steps on the field.