Are we legit? We have had 4th easiest schedule in league so far...

[Dutchmaster617]

I didn't realize that the league awarded Ws and Ls based on depth charts! Who cares how much "talent" there is if that talent isnt producing?

You're trying to tell me the Vikings are a good team???

And when SD kept making mistakes that peewee kids wouldn't be stupid enough to make, none of them counted because SD has talent right?

Face it guys, you've run up against TWO teams that are/were playing high level football when you played them. The Ravens and the Jets. One lost to you, one didn't.

The rest of the teams you've played are all bumbling and stumbling over themselves this year. Regardless of their talent, SD has been playing losing because they screw up all the time. Regardless of their talent, the Vikings have been awful and find ways to lose. Buffalo is a joke. Cinci is a joke. Miami is a decent team but not yet good enough to be a playoff team.

So why not just face it? The pats have played 2 good teams. Teams that are playing winning football. They're .500 against them.

Keep hanging on to last years numbers all you want. I'm sure at the end of the year when Minnesota missed the playoffs the league will let them in anyways based on last years numbers. Right?? Right??

How come we didn't get a ring for blowing out everyone and going 18-0?

Thats right it doesn't matter who you beat, ignore that we improve every week. Adversity > Blowouts

 

[Brady_12]

I didn't realize that the league awarded Ws and Ls based on depth charts! Who cares how much "talent" there is if that talent isnt producing?

You're trying to tell me the Vikings are a good team???

And when SD kept making mistakes that peewee kids wouldn't be stupid enough to make, none of them counted because SD has talent right?

Face it guys, you've run up against TWO teams that are/were playing high level football when you played them. The Ravens and the Jets. One lost to you, one didn't.

The rest of the teams you've played are all bumbling and stumbling over themselves this year. Regardless of their talent, SD has been playing losing because they screw up all the time. Regardless of their talent, the Vikings have been awful and find ways to lose. Buffalo is a joke. Cinci is a joke. Miami is a decent team but not yet good enough to be a playoff team.

So why not just face it? The pats have played 2 good teams. Teams that are playing winning football. They're .500 against them.

Keep hanging on to last years numbers all you want. I'm sure at the end of the year when Minnesota missed the playoffs the league will let them in anyways based on last years numbers. Right?? Right??

Tough question, SammyBS: Who's your team? You've been asked a few times during your troll....

 

[SammyB29]

Idc about last season.
You're making it seem like the best team (I'm not saying we are) should win every game. Teams lose to teams they shouldn't all the time....does that make them a bad team?

When you're talking about 2-5 teams (or Lord have mercy on them, 0-7 teams) then YES, they're bad teams.

SD, Minnesota, Buffalo, Cincinnat are all BAD teams. I don't care how many talented individual players they have or what the SOS was based on their W-L from LAST year.

I'm talking about how they're playing this year. All of those teams are playing BAD football. They're either bad teams playing bad football or they're talented teams killing themselves. It does not change the fact though.

The Pats are ONE OF the best teams in the league. Top 5-6 for sure. But to say they're the best right now, with the cakewalk they've played thus far, is way off.

Wait til they play some more of these other 5-2 teams (there are a LOT out there) and THEN see where they sit.

 

[Dutchmaster617]

Our only loss is to the Jets who were in their 2010 prime week 2 and went on to win 5 straight.

Pittsburgh lost to the Saints who couldn't handle CLE or ARI, when we beat them you will make an excuse of course. You say last year doesn't matter so respect this year and our top winning percentage.

 

[WhiteWesWelker88]

we are a team geared for another dynasty run....... no matter how we finish the future looks beautiful



some one was saying how old he is like 60's.......


BS... he finished Acton 1 yr before my Dad PG'd their




Dad is 57 I think????


so BB is 58 very young compared to the 60 's guesses.

 

[SammyB29]

And the coward is back. Either shutup about it or name your team so we can compare schedules.

Use your noggin and figure it out for yourself.

Why would I tell you my team? If I did that, then all you'd do is attack my team rather than attack my arguments.

Alright I'll give you one hint: They're 4-3 or better but NOT 6-1 (as I'm sure you realize lol) and their schedule has been significantly more difficult than New Englands.

 

[Joker]

Zero Zorro-chez rides again......

 

[WhiteWesWelker88]

Use your noggin and figure it out for yourself.

Why would I tell you my team? If I did that, then all you'd do is attack my team rather than attack my arguments.

Alright I'll give you one hint: They're 4-3 or better but NOT 6-1 (as I'm sure you realize lol) and their schedule has been significantly more difficult than New Englands.

Miami..... name Sammy is Morris prolly.... Did Miami win SB 29????



oh so long ago if that is your team

 

[Dutchmaster617]

AKA your team sucks and would get steam rolled by an unimpressive struggling overachieving piece of sh NE team.

The NFL must be pathetic because we are one of the only to lose to a tough division rival tied for second best in the NFL, on the road.

 

[TheBeers]

Sammy Baugh - Redskins

 

[mgcolby]

Use your noggin and figure it out for yourself.

Why would I tell you my team? If I did that, then all you'd do is attack my team rather than attack my arguments.

Alright I'll give you one hint: They're 4-3 or better but NOT 6-1 (as I'm sure you realize lol) and their schedule has been significantly more difficult than New Englands.

I just wrote out a long explanation and the post was lost when the I hit post and the page went to a blank page.

My point in a nutshell is that your argument is pointless. Its a big *********** that you can round and round with. Because you can look at the SoS of your opponents, opponents and then rip apart a 5-2 because they played a week schedule. Or you can look a 2-5 Browns team that should be a cup cake by your logic. Yet they have only played 1 losing team and that losing team was the only team they have played with less than 4 wins. Yet two of those teams TB and KC have played week schedules to get to 5-2.

Your argument is week. You play who you are scheduled to play, how the other team is playing is out of your control.

 

[mgcolby]

Sammy Baugh - Redskins

Went there last night. Baugh was number 33.

 

[SammyB29]

Sammy Baugh - Redskins

Very good guess but wrong. I should say out of fairness that the SammyB in my screen name is not THAT Sammy B.

Also, for anyone talking about the SOS calculation from before the season compared to the SOS as calculated 8 weeks INTO the season. If ANYONE can make a good argument as to why it makes any sense to use a statistic a year out of date compared to a statistic calculated based on current results, please do so.

If the Pats go 19-0 one year and win the big prize, and then the next year Brady and BB retire and Brad Childress and Trent Edwards get hired and the Pats go 0-8 to start the season, what matters more? the 19-0 from the previous year or the 0-8 from the present?

So lets all get off this idea that the SOS as calculated before the season based on last years numbers is in someway more valid than the SOS calculated 8 weeks into the current season.

And again, not Sammy Baugh

 

[SammyB29]

Your argument is week. You play who you are scheduled to play, how the other team is playing is out of your control.

Absolutely true. And no one is going to pretend the Pats should have to give up those Ws or something just because they played a bunch of crap teams. They're Ws all the same.

BUT

When it comes time to talk about who the top teams in the league are, you DO have to take it into effect.

If 2 teams were both 7-0 right now and one had played the 7 worst teams in the league and one had played the 7 other best teams in the league, which one would you say was a more legit contender?*

You can't ignore SOS. And there is no more valid SOS than the most current one.

*Example exaggerated for demonstration purposes.


And boy oh boy if at any point the Pats fall down to 3 or 4th in the league I can't WAIT to hear all the people who will all of a sudden be true believers in SOS. In fact I've already seen "yea but look who they've played" tossed around quite a bit.

But then again, this is a Pats board so why should I ever expect any kind of objectivity?

Clue #2: The Pats have not yet played my team. (but that doesn't necessarily mean they will)

 

[mgcolby]

Use your noggin and figure it out for yourself.

Why would I tell you my team? If I did that, then all you'd do is attack my team rather than attack my arguments.

Alright I'll give you one hint: They're 4-3 or better but NOT 6-1 (as I'm sure you realize lol) and their schedule has been significantly more difficult than New Englands.

I really hope it isn't the Steelers.

 

[Brady_12]

.... Alright I'll give you one hint: They're 4-3 or better but NOT 6-1 (as I'm sure you realize lol) and their schedule has been significantly more difficult than New Englands.

How so? Back up your contention that they have a tougher schedule.

 

[SammyB29]

How so? Back up your contention that they have a tougher schedule.

They've played teams with better records playing better football. Not teams like the bumbling stumbling Vikings and their past-expiry QB, the bumbling stumbling Chargers and their comedy of errors, the joke "back to normal" Bungles and the joke "I honestly hope they can turn things around" Bills.

 

[SammyB29]

How so? Back up your contention that they have a tougher schedule.

Also, I should clarify that when we say "tougher schedule", I mean THUS FAR. Looking down the stretch, I don't know if their schedule is tougher than NEs. But as this past week, it absolutely has been.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

If 2 teams were both 7-0 right now and one had played the 7 worst teams in the league and one had played the 7 other best teams in the league, which one would you say was a more legit contender?*

That doesnt tell you anything, the team with the weak schedule that is 7-0 may be better than the other team thats 7-0, you really dont know. These arguments are usually pointless, the only thing that matters is whos holding the Lombardi at the end of the year.

 

[Metaphors]

That's a fact folks. Try and justify it all how you will. But it is a fact.

SOS (actually SOV since the Jets aren't included in your evaluation) is a flawed measure when used to determine the relative strength of a team. You are only giving the Pats credit for beating "good" teams, but when the Pats win a game, the opponent's record is affected and they become "less good". The Pats have contributed 20% of the losses for their opponents. They "suck" more because the Pats were on their schedule.

Also, SOV doesn't give give credit in a proportional way. Beating Arizona (3-4) doesn't hurt your SOV too much, while beating Buffalo (0-7) absolutely kills it. Even though Buffalo is a comparable (and arguably better) team. Would victories against Pitt (5-2) or TB (5-2) mean the same to you? An Arizona (3-4) win make you a better team versus a SD (3-5) win?

Try using the FO DVOA ratings instead. While not perfect, it generally passes the eyeball test. Good teams are at the top, mediocre teams are in the middle and suckish teams are at the bottom, regardless of record. It does overvalue some teams (KC, PHI) while undervaluing others (BAL, NO). But it does give appropriate credit for beating a tough 3-5 SD team while not getting excited over beating a crappy 4-3 Bears squad.

So using DVOA ratings, the Pats have played the #14 schedule so far (little tougher than average) while they are looking at the #12 schedule ahead. Of interest to the Pats:

• The Jets schedule is about the same (#18 to #16) while the Fins' is easier (#7 to #14)
• Pitt has a much easier road (#4 to #27)
• Indy's road is a bit bumpier (#12 to #3)
• For the draft watchers, the Raiders go from #28 to #1.