Four Points away from being 11-0

[ctpatsfan77]

The Patriots have fielded a 16-0 offense and a 1-15 defense for much of this season. They were destined to lose games, and it's good that they did. Without the losses, there would have been less incentive to go get Talib.

If the Patriots D had been good enough that the Pats went 11-0, they arguably wouldn't have needed Talib in the first place. . . .

 

[Deus Irae]

If the Patriots D had been good enough that the Pats went 11-0, they arguably wouldn't have needed Talib in the first place. . . .

Your post is precisely the sort of thinking that I was referring to when I mentioned there being less pressure to make the move, and it's the reason that I'm fine with the losses. Winning is the ultimate anti-perspirant, right up until you lose.

 

[jnug]

Not sure I would call Talib insurance for Dowling cause it appears to me that Talib has to play. BB's apparent strategy of allowing opposing QB's to blow up before our eyes really without much pressure from the d-line has seemingly worked out pretty well. I do think BB did not like the separation receivers were getting on his secondary and LB's, did not like the PI calls and saw better QB's coming at him in the post season forcing his hand on the talent end of the equation for DB's. I just hope BB has figured out that he will always need more athletic talent in that secondary than he has drafted. But essentially it is hard to argue with what BB has done defensively with the one exception of drafting to many of his multitasking, learn the defensive schemes players for his secondary without feeding in enough pure athletic talent.

 

[ivanvamp]

I brought up this thread not really to complain about the three losses, but to point out how good this Patriots team has been. When they've been at their worst, they have lost a two-point game on a missed chip-shot FG. When they've been at their best, they have won by 38 points. That's a 36 point margin between best and worst. Let's compare that to other teams' best and worst:

New England
- best: win by 38
- worst: lose by 2
- margin: 36

Denver
- best: win by 31
- worst: lose by 10
- margin: 21

Baltimore
- best: win by 35
- worst: lose by 30
- margin: 5

NY Giants
- best: win by 29
- worst: lose by 18
- margin: 11

Green Bay
- best: win by 18
- worst: lose by 28
- margin: -10

San Francisco
- best: win by 42
- worst: lose by 23
- margin: 19

Chicago
- best: win by 38
- worst: lose by 25
- margin: 13

Houston
- best: win by 30
- worst: lose by 18
- margin: 18

Atlanta
- best: win by 16
- worst: lose by 4
- margin: 12

The Patriots at their best are consistently better than anyone else in the league. And their worst is still significantly better than anyone else's worst. Only if other teams play well and, at the same time, the Pats play poorly, do the Patriots lose. If the Pats play well, they virtually never lose. I cannot recall the last time the Pats played pretty well and still lost.

 

[Deus Irae]

I brought up this thread not really to complain about the three losses, but to point out how good this Patriots team has been. When they've been at their worst, they have lost a two-point game on a missed chip-shot FG. When they've been at their best, they have won by 38 points. That's a 36 point margin between best and worst. Let's compare that to other teams' best and worst:

New England
- best: win by 38
- worst: lose by 2
- margin: 36

Denver
- best: win by 31
- worst: lose by 10
- margin: 21

Baltimore
- best: win by 35
- worst: lose by 30
- margin: 5

NY Giants
- best: win by 29
- worst: lose by 18
- margin: 11

Green Bay
- best: win by 18
- worst: lose by 28
- margin: -10

San Francisco
- best: win by 42
- worst: lose by 23
- margin: 19

Chicago
- best: win by 38
- worst: lose by 25
- margin: 13

Houston
- best: win by 30
- worst: lose by 18
- margin: 18

Atlanta
- best: win by 16
- worst: lose by 4
- margin: 12

The Patriots at their best are consistently better than anyone else in the league. And their worst is still significantly better than anyone else's worst. Only if other teams play well and, at the same time, the Pats play poorly, do the Patriots lose. If the Pats play well, they virtually never lose. I cannot recall the last time the Pats played pretty well and still lost.

Your data doesn't prove your thesis. Just for example:

The Texans have 1 loss, and it was to the Packers and their offense


You're ignoring SOS differences, among other things (styles, etc...).

 

[Uncle Rico]

The Patriots have fielded a 16-0 offense and a 1-15 defense for much of this season. They were destined to lose games, and it's good that they did. Without the losses, there would have been less incentive to go get Talib.

I thought based on the timing that the move was more tied to Dowling going to IR. Seemed to me that created the need and the roster spot.

 

[ivanvamp]

Your data doesn't prove your thesis. Just for example:

The Texans have 1 loss, and it was to the Packers and their offense


You're ignoring SOS differences, among other things (styles, etc...).

There is no data that can *prove* my thesis that the Patriots at their best are better than any other team at their best.

Since I realize that, you must know that I'm not trying to *prove* anything.

If you dispute my thesis, why don't you give us a comprehensive argument, including indisputable data, that proves your case?

 

[jbb9s]

As far as I can tell, zero starters have gone to IR (spare me RasI, he was marginal starter at best). If Mankins, Jones, SeaBass and Gronk come back in January, thats all I care about.

Road games AFFCG who cares. Bye on the other hand, would be nice. So would watching Denver and Houston beat up each other while we game plan against Dean Peas.....

 

[Deus Irae]

There is no data that can *prove* my thesis that the Patriots at their best are better than any other team at their best.

Since I realize that, you must know that I'm not trying to *prove* anything.

If you dispute my thesis, why don't you give us a comprehensive argument, including indisputable data, that proves your case?

Because my post was an attempt to gently and politely point out the flaws of your assertion

The Patriots at their best are consistently better than anyone else in the league. And their worst is still significantly better than anyone else's worst.

rather than just noting that it sucked. I wasn't really worried about disputing the overall notion since, as you, yourself, note in this post of yours "There is no data that can *prove* my thesis that the Patriots at their best are better than any other team at their best. " You knew it yourself, yet you still posted something that absolutely did not prove your claim.

 

[Ring 6]

Actually 4 points from being 8-0-3. Just sayin

 

[Patsrock]

But on the other hand -
McGahee fumbles when the Broncos are driving late in the game.
Stephen Hill flat out drops the ball which would have got the Jets into FG range to win the game.

McGahee even if he doesn't fumble. Broncos still would have needed to get the ball back. They were trailing by 10.

Hill's drop came when the Jets were still trailing by 3. His drop forced the Jets to take a FG to tie the game.

 

[ivanvamp]

Because my post was an attempt to gently and politely point out the flaws of your assertion



rather than just noting that it sucked. I wasn't really worried about disputing the overall notion since, as you, yourself, note in this post of yours "There is no data that can *prove* my thesis that the Patriots at their best are better than any other team at their best. " You knew it yourself, yet you still posted something that absolutely did not prove your claim.

I wasn't trying to prove anything, Deus. I was stating an opinion, just like you do all the friggin' time on this forum. I at least gave some reasons for why I have that opinion. Is that PROOF? Of course not, and there is no way to prove such an opinion.

Again, if you dispute it, and you think that another team's best is better than New England's best, then the onus is on you to make your case. Let's see if you can prove yours.

This should be fun.

 

[Deus Irae]

I wasn't trying to prove anything, Deus. I was stating an opinion, just like you do all the friggin' time on this forum. I at least gave some reasons for why I have that opinion. Is that PROOF? Of course not, and there is no way to prove such an opinion.

Again, if you dispute it, and you think that another team's best is better than New England's best, then the onus is on you to make your case. Let's see if you can prove yours.

This should be fun.

If all you were doing was stating an opinion, you wouldn't have brought the data along with it. Quit with the nonsense.

And your argument is a horrible one anyway, because of all the factors you had to ignore in order to make it.

2003: Patriots go 14-2, but have a 31-0 loss in the first game after Milloy was cut. Their only other loss was by 3.

2004: Patriots go 14-2, but have a 34-20 loss in a game where the CB was down. Their other loss was by 1.

2012 Texans are 10-1.

Small sample size alone eliminates your data from the realm of anything meaningful. You also ignore things like playing well in a loss, playing poorly in a win, the impact of style differences, and more.

 

[ivanvamp]

If all you were doing was stating an opinion, you wouldn't have brought the data along with it. Quit with the nonsense.

And your argument is a horrible one anyway, because of all the factors you had to ignore in order to make it.

2003: Patriots go 14-2, but have a 31-0 loss in the first game after Milloy was cut. Their only other loss was by 3.

2004: Patriots go 14-2, but have a 34-20 loss in a game where the CB was down. Their other loss was by 1.

2012 Texans are 10-1.

Small sample size alone eliminates your data from the realm of anything meaningful. You also ignore things like playing well in a loss, playing poorly in a win, the impact of style differences, and more.

Holy crap Deus, you love hearing yourself talk (or reading your own writing), don't you? For the last time, I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE ANYTHING. I'm stating an opinion.

If you disagree with that opinion, tell me which team you think is better than the Patriots, assuming both teams are playing their best ball. And show us why.

If you're just trying to be a ****, then please, continue on this path. Good god you're obnoxious.

 

[Deus Irae]

Holy crap Deus, you love hearing yourself talk (or reading your own writing), don't you? For the last time, I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE ANYTHING. I'm stating an opinion.

If you disagree with that opinion, tell me which team you think is better than the Patriots, assuming both teams are playing their best ball. And show us why.

If you're just trying to be a ****, then please, continue on this path. Good god you're obnoxious.

Again, you weren't just stating an opinion. You were offering data in an attempt to buttress that opinion, and I was pointing out that the data didn't do that. I was pretty clear with my posts, and my first post was polite and easy to follow. You're the one tossing out words like "****", and trying to put the other person into a position of defending a claim they never made. It is what it is, but it's not what you claim.

 

[ivanvamp]

Again, you weren't just stating an opinion. You were offering data in an attempt to buttress that opinion, and I was pointing out that the data didn't do that. I was pretty clear with my posts, and my first post was polite and easy to follow. You're the one tossing out words like "****", and trying to put the other person into a position of defending a claim they never made. It is what it is, but it's not what you claim.

I was stating an opinion and I was giving a reason for that opinion. It was pretty obvious.

Well, except to you, because you apparently feel the need to argue with just about everything I post.

Hey, if it makes you feel better, feel free.......

I'd still love to know what team you think is better than the Patriots if both teams are playing their best. I guess I'm not going to get to hear the answer to that though, am I?

 

[mayoclinic]

All other things being equal, you wouldn't prefer have a bye and then two home games to get to the Super Bowl, rather than have to play three games, at least one of which would be on the road? Of those two options, isn't one a heck of a lot easier than the other?

Maybe, but preferences don't factor into it much. Those 3 games are water under the bridge. We can't affect them, so why worry about them? In fact, why worry about factors outside of our control at all? That's the BB way. We play the rest of the season like each game is a playoff game, and maybe we'll get home field advantage or a bye. If so, great. If not, big deal. We were the #4 seed in 2006 with a 12-4 record, and were 1 minute away from going to the Super Bowl. I worry much more about being healthy, hungry and in peak form than about whether we get a bye or HFA.

I truly believe that the talent and depth on this team is unlike anything anyone has seen. The team beat itself much of the first half of the season, but the offense now seems to be firing much better. The focus, consistency and mental toughness are there. The resiliency has been tested. It's a young group that is getting better, unlike the 2006 team which was old and wore out a bit at the end against Indy. The only problem I really worry about it getting everyone in sync and in peak form. The secondary has been our Achilles' heel, but now it's coming along - slowly, but definitely. Give BB 5 more weeks to tune this group up. San Francisco has a great defense, but they've never faced an offense with weapons like ours. The closest thing was New Orleans last year, and the Saints put up 32 points on them. Houston is a balanced and talented team, but they don't put up 40 points without breaking a sweat the way this team can. If this team is healthy and firing on all cylinders, they will make a mockery of HFA if they don't already have it.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Maybe, but preferences don't factor into it much. Those 3 games are water under the bridge. We can't affect them, so why worry about them? In fact, why worry about factors outside of our control at all? That's the BB way. We play the rest of the season like each game is a playoff game, and maybe we'll get home field advantage or a bye. If so, great. If not, big deal. We were the #4 seed in 2006 with a 12-4 record, and were 1 minute away from going to the Super Bowl. I worry much more about being healthy, hungry and in peak form than about whether we get a bye or HFA..

not to mention, has anyone pointed out we'd need 7 points to be 11-0 (4 points just gets you to 8-0-3 ties :bricks: )

 

[Deus Irae]

I was stating an opinion and I was giving a reason for that opinion. It was pretty obvious.

Well, except to you, because you apparently feel the need to argue with just about everything I post.

Your data doesn't prove your thesis...

...I wasn't really worried about disputing the overall notion since, as you, yourself, note in this post of yours "There is no data that can *prove* my thesis that the Patriots at their best are better than any other team at their best. " You knew it yourself, yet you still posted something that absolutely did not prove your claim.

...Small sample size alone eliminates your data from the realm of anything meaningful. You also ignore things like playing well in a loss, playing poorly in a win, the impact of style differences, and more.

I was discussing the insufficiency of your posted reasoning (your data), which is pretty standard for message boards. It had nothing to do with you personally, and you were the one who made things personal. If you can't handle having errors in your arguments pointed out to you, perhaps a personal blog with no comments allowed would be more suited to your style.

 

[ivanvamp]

Deus, what team in the NFL is better than the Patriots if both teams are playing at their highest level?