New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard

New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/)

- PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/patsfans-com-patriots-fan-forum.html)

- - Expectations (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/580927-expectations.html)

With all the uncertainty surrounding the Patriots, I thought it would be interesting to look back at performance trends over the past few years. This is going to be pretty long, but I hope it will be informative.

The Patriots will have a top 10 scoring offense in 2010.

No matter how you feel about the youth movement on defense, this statement is about as close to fact as a prediction can be. The last time they ended the season out of the top 10 was their 12 place finish in 2003. They didn't drop out in 2006 when Reche was the leading receiver, nor in 2009 when the guys were all banged up and ineffective. Hell, they still finished 8th in points scored in 2008 without TFB!

So, taking it is a given that the Patriots will finish with a top 10 offense, I set out to see how top 10 offensive teams have done since 2005. Why 2005? Partly due to laziness, and partly because I wanted to see trends during the years since NE last won a SB. For those years, I've tabulated how many made the playoffs, average wins and what the lowest win total was.

2009
NO, Minny, GB, SD, Philly, NE, Indy, NY, Balt, Hou

Playoff Teams - 8
Average wins - 11
Lowest win total - 8

2008
NO, SD, NYG, Ariz, GB, Philly, Carolina, NE, NYJ, Atanta

Playoff Teams - 6
Average wins - 9.5
Lowest win total - 6

2007
NE, Dallas, Indy, GB, SD, Jax, Ariz, Cleve, Pitt, Seattle

Playoff Teams - 8
Average wins - 11.5
Lowest win total - 8

2006
SD, Chicago, Indy, Dallas, NO, Philly, NE, Cincy, Jax, StL

Playoff Teams - 7
Average wins - 10.4
Lowest win total - 8

2005
Sea, Indy, NYG, Cincy, SD, KC, Denver, Caro, Pitt, NE

Playoff Teams - 8
Average wins - 11.3
Lowest win total - 8

Not too shabby. An average season with 10.74 wins with 37 of a possible 50 teams making the playoffs. Remarkably, only one team finished under .500 the entire time.

Now, defense wins championships, right? So let's take a look at teams with top 10 Ds.

2009
NYJ, Dall, Balt, SF, NE, Cincy, GB, Indy, Car, Minny

Playoff Teams - 8
Average wins - 10.2
Lowest win total - 8

2008
Pitt, TN, Balt, Phill, NYG, Wash, Indy, NE, Miami, TB

Playoff Teams - 7
Average wins - 10.8
Lowest win total - 8

2007
Indy, Pitt, TB, NE, SD, GB, Seattle, TN, Philly, Jax

Playoff Teams - 9
Average wins - 11.1
Lowest win total - 8

2006
Balt, NE, Chic, Jax, Miami, NYJ, SD, Denver, Caro, Buff

Playoff Teams - 6
Average wins - 10
Lowest win total - 6 (with another at 7)

2005
Chic, Indy, Denver, Pitt, Car, Jax, Seat, TB, Wash, Balt

Playoff Teams - 9
Average wins - 11.2
Lowest win total - 6

Not really a big difference. The defensive teams put 39 teams into the playoffs over 37 for the offensive. That's the only category they win, though. Offensive teams have a higher average win total (10.74 to 10.66) and less teams under .500 (1 to 3). Interestingly, in every year but 2008 the offensive teams have a higher average win total.

But Oswlek, there is a lot of overlap in those charts and NE's defense is going to BLOW this year!

Fair enough. Then let's isolate the teams that had a top 10 O, but were not in the top 10 D. Those teams include:

2009 - NO, SD, Philly, NYG, Hou
2008 - NO, SD, Ari, GB, Carolina, NYJ, Atlanta
2007 - Dallas, Ariz, Cleve
2006 - Indy, Dallas, NO, Philly, Cincy, StL
2005 - NYG, Cincy, SD, KC, NE

26 total teams with 15 making the playoffs. The average win total was 9.8. For ****s and giggles, I did the same exercise with all defense/no offense teams. 27 teams, 17 playoff participants and an average win total of 9.7.

So a big discrepancy must rear its head in the playoffs. That's where defensive teams make hay, right?

To test this, I gave each team a point for every round they advanced in the playoffs. One and done? Zero points. Get a bye? An automatic one point before playing a game. Winning the SB gets you 4 points whether you were a wildcard or a team resting the first week.

The teams with a top O but an out of the money D earned a total of 18 points. All D all day teams? 13.

So the defensive teams earned 5 less advancements despite having an extra team in the big dance? Yup.

The long and short of it is this. Unless you are willing to step out on the branch and say that this will be the first Patriot team since 2003 to not be in the top 10 in total points, the odds are seriously in their favor of winning 10 games and making the playoffs. Even if the defense sucks.

I welcome your thoughts.

Re: Expectations

Interesting stuff. Thanks.

Re: Expectations

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oswlek (Post 2129585)

Another fine post that we come to expect from you.:rocker:

Sure the defense this year does concern me. I think the offense will be better than last year. If the O can carry the team for the 1st half of hte season, I think the D will keep improving and be better than last years defense by the last quarter of the season season.

The schedule is tougher this year but I expect 10-11 wins and an improving team going into the playoffs.

Re: Expectations

Quote:

Originally Posted by I_Bleed_Blue (Post 2129595)

Your post is excellentl It, obviously, was a lot of work to put it together, and you did a good job.

However, I am not one who looks at statistics and says that black is always black and white is always white..... and I am a firm believer that what happens on the field, with all of the potential intangibles, is where one gets an accurate and a true measure.

Statistics from days gone past are, for all intents and purposes, meaningles. in present day.

Do they show trends? Possibly, yes. But the only trend that counts, IMO, for the Pats is the one that begins this Sunday. From that game, onward, we can draw a much better measure, and picture

In either case, job well done with your stats.

I agree with you, but I think what this shows is that the doom and gloom mentality that you CAN'T win with a great offense and below average defense, is flawed. The numbers show it can happen either way.

Re: Expectations

Great job with the stats.....!!

I'd also add a point in for the team that had BB as it's HC :cool:

Re: Expectations

can you put this up against the success of top 10 defenses?

Re: Expectations

15-11 isn't reason for the extremists on either side to be overly certain in their positions.

Re: Expectations

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oswlek (Post 2129585)

The question to me, is NOT whether this Defense is as good as the 2005 team. It is whether it is better or worse than the 2009 team on Defense.

I would wager no one would argue the 2010 Offense is better with TEs, WRS , healthy RBs but tempered by the loss of Mankins and Kaczur, each or both, for all or some portion of the season.

I maintain this Defense is significantly better, too.

I see signs of a pass rush from the DL and ILBs and S where there was none last year. I like the ILBs much better. Mayo and Spinks with a reserve Guyton, is vastly preferable to dinged Mayo and Guyton, and no one else.

The secondary was clearly better before Bodden was lost, but the S situation is better and the CB situation is at least equal. Last year, Springs and Wheatly were dinged, and Chung and Butler were raw rookies. Now only McCourty is.

At OLB, you pick 'em. Is TBC and Cunningham and maybe Crable better than last year? I also have a hunch that DB will be back, resigned after game 1.

But most of all, the DL has had steps taken to stop the run, to fill the hole created by Seymour's last minute departure.

Re: Expectations

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllegalContact (Post 2130213)

can you put this up against the success of top 10 defenses?

Its in there, just read further.

Re: Expectations

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzPatsFan (Post 2130241)

I agree that this defense will be better than the perception seems to be.

But I pray you are incorrect about Burgess. He was terrible.