11-5 vs. 8-8

[Pat the Pats Fan]

I remember a team finishing a full season with 1 loss and missing the playoffs. It was the Baltimore Colts, finishing 11-1-2, tied with the LA Rams. Their one loss was to the Rams, the last game of the season......

 

[jcdavey]

ya know sd has lost 8 games by a combined 34 points, so it's not like their 7-8 is that far away from your 11-5

we're one of the few teams who haven't been blown out all season

hopefully we don't get blown out sunday lol, you just never know what defense is going to show up with sd since merriman got hurt, but in primetime at home, we're 3 outta 4

34-7 over oakland, 30-10 over NE, 48-29 over Jets, 23-20 loss to indy

we just don't get blown out this season (knock on wood)

 

[QuinielaBox]

I covered this topic thoroughly in my previous topic. I'm cool with the Patriots finishing 11-5 and quite possibly not get a playoff opportunity in January. This was kind of a fun season to follow. Last year was stressful with all the negative publicity that came with the potential perfect season.

 

[Miguel]

The Patriots still played 6 games against the AFC East (a tougher division) and 4 games against the AFC West. Let's look at the gimme games from this 10 game schedule: Oakland, KC. Now, compare that to the Chargers who played 4 games against the AFC East and 6 games against the AFC West: they had 4 gimme games against the AFC West.

So, if you're going to account for the difference in either team's NFC schedule (the Chargers had a tougher NFC schedule), you also have to look at their AFC difference and realize that the Patriots had a tougher AFC schedule by two games. Say the Patriots had played KC and Oakland again, would they still be 10-6? I bet they would beat both those teams again. So, I'd take their record to 11-5 (trading a Buffalo win and a Jets loss for two wins over KC and Oakland).

Again, New England finishes ahead of the Chargers. You can't only look at the NFC difference without accounting for the AFC difference.

It now seems to me that when you thought that the Patriots had the tougher SOS SOS was important now it is not. It is precisely because the Patriots played the NFC West and the Chargers played the NFC South that the Chargers had the tougher SOS. My point is that teams' schedules affects team's records and that the main reason that the Patriots ended up with a better record than the Chargers is that they had an easier schedule. The
Chargers played more teams with at least 11 wins,
with at least 10 wins,
with at least 9 wins
with at least 8 wins

Both teams played a 2-win team twice, a 4-win team twice. Both teams had the same number of gimme games.

Chargers Opponents
Team Wins
Carolina 11
Indy 11
Pittsburgh 11
Dolphins 10
Atlanta 10
Patriots 10
Jets 9
Tampa Bay 9
Broncos 8
New Orleans 8
Broncos 8
Bills 7
Raiders 4
Raiders 4
Chiefs 2
Chiefs 2

Indy 11
Pittsburgh 11
Dolphins 10
Dolphins 10
Jets 9
Jets 9
Broncos 8
Arizona 8
Bills 7
Bills 7
Chargers 7
San Francisco 6
Raiders 4
Seattle 4
Chiefs 2
St. Louis 2

Can a team control who is on their schedule??? No. Can a team benefit from who is on their schedule?? Yes. I just happen to think that the Patriots benefited from playing the AFC West and NFC West this year. Their 7-1 record against those division shows that. And I am not sure that record is impressive given that the Dolphins have the same record against those 8 teams.

I'm really not a stickler for this one way or the other

From reading your posts in this thread I thought otherwise. Anyone who writes "Think about what you wrote" is indeed a stickler, IMO.

 

[upstater1]

It now seems to me that when you thought that the Patriots had the tougher SOS SOS was important now it is not.

From reading your posts in this thread I thought otherwise. Anyone who writes "Think about what you wrote" is indeed a stickler, IMO.

Uh, no. In the thread that I brought up SOS, and to which you responded, I even wrote that though the actual SOS # (which I obviously had wrong, by the way) was higher for this year's schedule, I thought that last year's schedule was tougher. It ended up being that last year's was tougher regardless. So, I'm not paying that much attention to SOS at all. The best way to judge, IMO, is to look at the actual games. The main difference between the Chargers and Patriots is that the Patriots faced the NFC West and that the Chargers had 2 extra games against weak patsies in their own division. When I add those two factors up, it's the same difference. The Patriots had to play the Jets and Bills twice. They didn't get to play the Chiefs and Raiders twice. This difference mostly offsets the advantage the Patriots had in playing 3 games against the NFC West. That was my point.

It is precisely because the Patriots played the NFC West and the Chargers played the NFC South that the Chargers had the tougher SOS. My point is that teams' schedules affects team's records and that the main reason that the Patriots ended up with a better record than the Chargers is that they had an easier schedule.

I don't disagree with the point that schedule affects record. I disagree with the idea that this is the main reason the Patriots had a better record than the Chargers. Now, I agreed though (obviously in my last post) that if the Chargers had the Patriots schedule they would have won more games (one or two) but not 3. I even agreed earlier in this thread that the difference between 10-6 and 8-8 is arguable, but when the difference goes to 11 wins to 8, then I'm not buying the argument. You wrote that with a switch between playing the NFC West and NFC South, the Chargers would be at 10-6 and so would the Patriots. But that analysis left out the division games in which the Chargers got to play the Chiefs and Raiders twice. So, I still see the Patriots coming out ahead even with a switch of schedules. Just as a hypothetical, you can take this argument to the next level and say that, clearly, had the Patriots won against, for instance, the Jets, and had a 12-4 record, they would still have had a weaker schedule, they would still have had no out of division wins over strong teams, but could you argue at that point that 12-4 is no different than 8-8 because of the weak schedule? We're a coin flip away from that argument. If you could argue that, then kudos to you, but if you draw a line there (at 12-4 versus 8-8) then this is the same kind of logic I'm using at 11-5 and 8-8. Looking at the two teams' schedules, I just don't think there are 3 wins difference between them.

As for your last sentence, no, I'm not a stickler at all on this. I've stated lots of times that the Patriots were more impressive this year, and more deserving of the playoffs. I'd say the vast majority of people agree with that in the media (not that they are the final judges of anything). But that doesn't mean the Patriots should get in. The rules are the rules. One of my earliest posts in this thread was about how the NFL might address this issue (not by changing the current division structure but by changing the number of wild card teams). That would make more sense to me. And yet, if that system were in place this year, you could still have two 8-8 teams getting in over a 10-6 team. I'm fine with that. And this is precisely why I'm not a stickler for fixing the divisions in another way.

By the way, my "think about what you wrote" comment was to someone who said that one head-to-head win made a team more deserving of the playoffs. I asked him to think about the logic there. There are big upsets in the NFL in any given year. I'm sure the Titans are not ready to give up their playoff spot to the Jets right now.

Don't you think a claim such as the one made by the Chargers poster deserves a little more thought?

 

[Miguel]

Uh, no. In the thread that I brought up SOS, and to which you responded, I even wrote that though the actual SOS # (which I obviously had wrong, by the way) was higher for this year's schedule, I thought that last year's schedule was tougher. It ended up being that last year's was tougher regardless. So, I'm not paying that much attention to SOS at all. The best way to judge, IMO, is to look at the actual games. The main difference between the Chargers and Patriots is that the Patriots faced the NFC West and that the Chargers had 2 extra games against weak patsies in their own division. When I add those two factors up, it's the same difference.

And yet the Chargers had the tougher SOS and played more actual games against better teams.

We will have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[upstater1]

And yet the Chargers had the tougher SOS and played more actual games against better teams.

Acknowledged, and agreed.

The point is, they went 8-8, not 9-7, not 10-6. If they performed a little better against a tougher schedule, then yes, there's a strong case for them. The worse you do, however, the less of a case that you have.

I agreed fairly early on in the thread that 10-6 and 8-8 could be comparable under certain circumstances. All I'm saying here is that, looking at the Patriots schedule and Chargers schedule this year, the Patriots 11-5 record is more deserving and impressive even if the Chargers 8-8 record happened under a more difficult schedule.

 

[pao]

Acknowledged, and agreed.

The point is, they went 8-8, not 9-7, not 10-6. If they performed a little better against a tougher schedule, then yes, there's a strong case for them. The worse you do, however, the less of a case that you have.

I agreed fairly early on in the thread that 10-6 and 8-8 could be comparable under certain circumstances. All I'm saying here is that, looking at the Patriots schedule and Chargers schedule this year, the Patriots 11-5 record is more deserving and impressive even if the Chargers 8-8 record happened under a more difficult schedule.

The one thing you refuse to acknowledge is the Chargers SHOULD be 9-7. All of your arguments against the Chargers should be based on 9-7, not 8-8. The Chargers won the game against Denver, the ref took it away. All of your arguments against the Chargers at 8-8 are irrelevent within the context of the discussion. You are saying that the Chargers could only go 8-8 even though the schedule they played was "weaker" than the Patriots'. Before you respond to anything else answer this question... Do you believe the Chargers should be 9-7(looking at it within the context of this discussion)?

 

[upstater1]

The one thing you refuse to acknowledge is the Chargers SHOULD be 9-7. All of your arguments against the Chargers should be based on 9-7, not 8-8. The Chargers won the game against Denver, the ref took it away. All of your arguments against the Chargers at 8-8 are irrelevent within the context of the discussion. You are saying that the Chargers could only go 8-8 even though the schedule they played was "weaker" than the Patriots'. Before you respond to anything else answer this question... Do you believe the Chargers should be 9-7(looking at it within the context of this discussion)?

Should be, eh?

We could play that game all day. Even the announcers saw a ridiculous call at the end of the game against Vrabel that gave the Jets a touchdown instead of a field goal.

We could play these blown call referee scenarios all day if you like. I could pretend the Patriots are really 12-4 because of that, and I could pretend they really beat the Colts a couple years ago to make it to the Super Bowl, but that gets us nowhere. If I take into account bad calls against the Chargers, then I not only have to take into account bad calls against the Patriots, but bad calls against their opponents, and every bad call in the entire NFL this year that may have affected the final records.

I'm not going to play this ridiculous game.

 

[pao]

Should be, eh?

We could play that game all day. Even the announcers saw a ridiculous call at the end of the game against Vrabel that gave the Jets a touchdown instead of a field goal.

You trying to compare the two?? Sorry, they aren't close to the same. One would have ended the game, the other not. No comparison.

We could play these blown call referee scenarios all day if you like. I could pretend the Patriots are really 12-4 because of that, and I could pretend they really beat the Colts a couple years ago to make it to the Super Bowl, but that gets us nowhere.

This is not within the context of this discussion.

If I take into account bad calls against the Chargers, then I not only have to take into account bad calls against the Patriots, but bad calls against their opponents, and every bad call in the entire NFL this year that may have affected the final records.

No call this year has so clearly resulted in a standings affected result. Not one. It is a classic diversionary response when you have no answer.

I'm not going to play this ridiculous game.

Of course not, you can't respond to it because it blows your premise. The Chargers, within the context of this discussion, are 9-7.

 

[upstater1]

You trying to compare the two?? Sorry, they aren't close to the same. One would have ended the game, the other not. No comparison.

This is not within the context of this discussion.
No call this year has so clearly resulted in a standings affected result. Not one. It is a classic diversionary response when you have no answer.

Of course not, you can't respond to it because it blows your premise. The Chargers, within the context of this discussion, are 9-7.

So clearly resulted, eh? You can attempt to try to prove that in your next post. I'm sure it's not forthcoming.

Blows my premise?

Dude, stop whining about a bad referee call. Jeez, you blame the Chargers 8-8 record on a bad call? The Patriots have missed Super Bowls because of bad calls, and you're talking about an early season call as the reason your team didn't have a 9-7 record?

That's just pathetic.

 

[pao]

So clearly resulted, eh? You can attempt to try to prove that in your next post. I'm sure it's not forthcoming.

It's pretty obvious to most, but I'll explain it to you. I'll make it simple too. The Broncos fumbled the ball, the Chargers recovered, game over. Chargers win, Broncos lose. Chargers get a win, the Broncos get a loss. Chargers 9-7 vs the Patriots' 11-5 or 10-6. But that's not what happened is it? See how it resulted in a change in the standings?

Blows my premise?

Your premise..."...between 10-6 and 8-8 is arguable, but when the difference goes to 11 wins to 8, then I'm not buying the argument."

Dude, stop whining about a bad referee call. Jeez, you blame the Chargers 8-8 record on a bad call? The Patriots have missed Super Bowls because of bad calls, and you're talking about an early season call as the reason your team didn't have a 9-7 record?

Again, you are out of context. For the sake of this discussion I made a point, your contention that I am whining and shouldn't be and that the Patriots have missed Super Bowls, has nothing to do with this discussion. Within the context of this discussion the Chargers should be viewed as having a 9-7 for the purpose of schedule/record comparison. If you are truly comparing schedules/record then it is the only way to look at it and be fair. Btw, what Super Bowls did the Patriots miss due to a bad calls and what were the calls?

That's just pathetic.

I think you may be one of few that believes that.

 

[upstater1]

It's pretty obvious to most, but I'll explain it to you. I'll make it simple too. The Broncos fumbled the ball, the Chargers recovered, game over. Chargers win, Broncos lose. Chargers get a win, the Broncos get a loss. Chargers 9-7 vs the Patriots' 11-5 or 10-6. But that's not what happened is it? See how it resulted in a change in the standings?

Your premise..."...between 10-6 and 8-8 is arguable, but when the difference goes to 11 wins to 8, then I'm not buying the argument."

Again, you are out of context. For the sake of this discussion I made a point, your contention that I am whining and shouldn't be and that the Patriots have missed Super Bowls, has nothing to do with this discussion. Within the context of this discussion the Chargers should be viewed as having a 9-7 for the purpose of schedule/record comparison. If you are truly comparing schedules/record then it is the only way to look at it and be fair. Btw, what Super Bowls did the Patriots miss due to a bad calls and what were the calls?

I think you may be one of few that believes that.

If you really believe I'm one of the few who thinks the current records, 8-8 and 11-5, are proper, then I imagine you live in a fantasy. The trouble is, you believe this is a viable discussion.

Seattle was ripped off in the Super Bowl more than the Chargers were this season. The Raiders fans feel they were ripped off in 2001. Do you think Patriots fans believe that game was any less of a victory because of a referee's decision? Heck no. There are countless bad calls in football, many of them have a direct impact on who won or lost, some are more egregious than even Hochuli's call, and even though the call was bad as he admitted, at the very least it was just an error in judgement since he thought it was a forward pass.

Please stop it with this nonsense that the Chargers are really 9-7. They're not. If they win they'll be 8-8. If you actually believe that I'm the only one who sees it this way (as stated in your post above) you're in fantasyland.

 

[pao]

I'd still be interested in hearing about the "SBs the Patriots have missed due to bad calls".

If you really believe I'm one of the few who thinks the current records, 8-8 and 11-5, are proper, then I imagine you live in a fantasy. The trouble is, you believe this is a viable discussion.

Of course the way you put it is not in context in which I meant it. Do you understand what it means to reply within context? It doesn't look like you do. If we were having a discussion about whether the 8-8 is a proper record, and just that, that would be one thing. But that isn't the discussion we are having, is it?

Seattle was ripped off in the Super Bowl more than the Chargers were this season. The Raiders fans feel they were ripped off in 2001. Do you think Patriots fans believe that game was any less of a victory because of a referee's decision? Heck no. There are countless bad calls in football, many of them have a direct impact on who won or lost, some are more egregious than even Hochuli's call, and even though the call was bad as he admitted, at the very least it was just an error in judgement since he thought it was a forward pass.

Ho hum, we are not having a discussion about whether the Chargers, or any other team, was ripped off. Don't know why you keep bringing it up.

Please stop it with this nonsense that the Chargers are really 9-7. They're not.

Within the context of this discussion, they most certainly would be, if they win this week against Denver.

If they win they'll be 8-8. If you actually believe that I'm the only one who sees it this way (as stated in your post above) you're in fantasyland.

Well, first, I didn't say you were the only one. Second, I do believe that you are one of the FEW that believe that I don't have a valid point.

 

[upstater1]

I'd still be interested in hearing about the "SBs the Patriots have missed due to bad calls".Of course the way you put it is not in context in which I meant it. Do you understand what it means to reply within context? It doesn't look like you do. If we were having a discussion about whether the 8-8 is a proper record, and just that, that would be one thing. But that isn't the discussion we are having, is it?

Ho hum, we are not having a discussion about whether the Chargers, or any other team, was ripped off. Don't know why you keep bringing it up.

Within the context of this discussion, they most certainly would be, if they win this week against Denver.
Well, first, I didn't say you were the only one. Second, I do believe that you are one of the FEW that believe that I don't have a valid point.

Patriots-Colts two years ago. Multiple ridiculous calls.

We sure are having a discussion about whether the Chargers were ripped off. You're the one saying the record should be 9-7 because they were ripped off.

Are you not saying that?

Should I go back and think about all the ways the season should have gone if referees hadn't made big errors. Yeah that would be fun.

The Patriots would be in dire straits right now if it weren't for Walt Coleman overturning the ruling on the field in the Steelers-Ravens game with instant replay. Jeez.

Stop it with this 9-7 nonsense.

 

[pao]

We sure are having a discussion about whether the Chargers were ripped off. You're the one saying the record should be 9-7 because they were ripped off

Are you not saying that?

Again, look to the context of the discussion and your premise. Here it is again, ..."...between 10-6 and 8-8 is arguable, but when the difference goes to 11 wins to 8, then I'm not buying the argument." That is the discussion, the premise of this thread.

Should I go back and think about all the ways the season should have gone if referees hadn't made big errors. Yeah that would be fun.

And again, none had the direct and undeniable impact that the Hochuli call did. There is no disputing that fact.

The Patriots would be in dire straits right now if it weren't for Walt Coleman overturning the ruling on the field in the Steelers-Ravens game with instant replay. Jeez.

Irrelevent.

Stop it with this 9-7 nonsense.

I will if you stop with this answering out of context nonsense.

 

[upstater1]

Again, look to the context of the discussion and your premise. Here it is again, ..."...between 10-6 and 8-8 is arguable, but when the difference goes to 11 wins to 8, then I'm not buying the argument." That is the discussion, the premise of this thread.

And, so? How does your point about the Chargers should be 9-7 if it weren't for a blown call change that?

And again, none had the direct and undeniable impact that the Hochuli call did. There is no disputing that fact.

This fact is irrelevant to th entire thread. The thread title is 11-5 versus 8-8. The San Diego Chargers are 8-8. If you're going to bring what could have or should have been into it, you open up a whole can of worms that isn't even up for discussion. You can fantasize all you want about 9-7, but you should really get the FACTS straight. The Chargers are going to be 8-8 with a win, no matter how much you want to consider them 9-7 for the sake of this argument. The call in the Chargers game was not exceptional.

Irrelevent.

So you're being hypocritical now? A call that goes against the Ravens at the last second and gives the Steelers the win is irrelevant, but the other call isn't? yeah right.

I will if you stop with this answering out of context nonsense.

The idea that the Chargers should be considered 9-7 in the context of this thread is beyond stupid.

 

[nukin]

what the nfl should do is eliminate all divisions (not conferences) and the top 6 teams get into the playoffs

I must say - this is a silly post

 

[pao]

And, so? How does your point about the Chargers should be 9-7 if it weren't for a blown call change that?

Er, it doesn't change it, it is within context. You are the one that was going off on tangents.

This fact is irrelevant to th entire thread. The thread title is 11-5 versus 8-8. The San Diego Chargers are 8-8. If you're going to bring what could have or should have been into it, you open up a whole can of worms that isn't even up for discussion.

Wow.

You can fantasize all you want about 9-7, but you should really get the FACTS straight.The Chargers are going to be 8-8 with a win, no matter how much you want to consider them 9-7 for the sake of this argument.

LOL. Too much. You are mixing real world vs. an attempt to make a fair assessment based on reality. Dang, man, it's not that hard. I don't know how I can be any clearer. I think you get it and are being disingenuous. That is the only rational explanation besides you are just dumb, but I don't believe that.

The call in the Chargers game was not exceptional.

I try not to speak in absolutes but I believe you are the ONLY person that believes that.

So you're being hypocritical now? A call that goes against the Ravens at the last second and gives the Steelers the win is irrelevant, but the other call isn't? yeah right.

It is irrelevent to the Chargers/Patriots discussion because it doesn't affect the Chargers/Patriots, 11-5/10-6 vs 8-8 premise. Not to mention it does not compare to the Hochuli call that was clearly and indesputedly wrong.

The idea that the Chargers should be considered 9-7 in the context of this thread is beyond stupid.

Good one. That single statement may have changed my mind, I might agree with you now. Yep, that was a zinger all right.

 

[upstater1]

Er, it doesn't change it, it is within context. You are the one that was going off on tangents.

Nah, I was giving wild speculative ridiculous hypotheticals. ie. proper comparisons with your Chargers are 9-7 theory.

Wow.
LOL. Too much. You are mixing real world vs. an attempt to make a fair assessment based on reality. Dang, man, it's not that hard. I don't know how I can be any clearer. I think you get it and are being disingenuous. That is the only rational explanation besides you are just dumb, but I don't believe that.

reality? Reality? REALITY!!! The reality is the Chargers are 7-8. How can you credulously call that reality? And you say I'm being disingenuous. LOL. They are 7-8!

I try not to speak in absolutes but I believe you are the ONLY person that believes that.

Wait a second. Let me get this straight. You think that was the worse referee blunder in NFL history? Am I understanding you correctly? Fella, that was a simple mistake that could happen each and every game. The referee thought in real time the QBs arm was moving forward. If the ref thinks that was an incomplete pass, he HAS to blow the whistle. He blew the call, no doubt, but you're the only I've seen rate that one of the biggest blunders in NFL history. It wasn't. It was the sort of error we see every year, certainly no worse than the blunders we saw in the Seahawks Super Bowl, and those happened during a big spot. In fact, one might argue that Walt Coleman overturning the ruling on the field 2 weeks ago was a much bigger referee blunder, since he went against the typical logic when it comes to replays. In fact, Coleman got a lot more abuse from commentators than Hochuli did. What does that tell you?

It is irrelevent to the Chargers/Patriots discussion because it doesn't affect the Chargers/Patriots, 11-5/10-6 vs 8-8 premise. Not to mention it does not compare to the Hochuli call that was clearly and indesputedly wrong.

This is such a stupid point I can't believe you're sticking by it. As ref calls are made, and as games are affected throughout the year, so are records affected. This is the whole point of what I'm saying. If the ref doesn't throw that idiotic flag on Vrabel, the Patriots can win in regulation, and right now, who know what the situation would be. The Jets and Ravens might have already thrown in the towel. The Patriots might have gotten ****y and lost to the Seahawks. We just don't know. It's dumb to assume the records happened out of the context of playing teams in games in which there may or may not have been calls that impacted the games. Just stupid.

Good one. That single statement may have changed my mind, I might agree with you now. Yep, that was a zinger all right.

No one is trying to zing you. Just trying to instill some sanity in your head. Not only that, but I fear for you at this point, since in this post you seem to believe that the Chargers are 9-7 in reality. Nothing more really needs to be said.