Next year's schedule is brutal - has BB even looked at it?

[Metaphors]

We'll know NOTHING til they all hit the field, that's my prediction

Well that hardly Leaves No Doubt!

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Exactly why you can't really predict ANYTHING, but I don't see 8-8 either no matter what the schedule appears like at this early stage. Plus the other teams change and sometimes a players' level of play changes too.

We'll know NOTHING til they all hit the field, that's my prediction

actually, they're unrelated, but I understand your point........but it is still not true......you can pretty safely assume the saints will be better than the rams......you can safely assume the colts will be better than the raiders and that the ravens will be better than the browns...through progressions like these, you can base opinions on how well a team will do.....nobody decided that this is how its going to be, but going back to the original point, the 2010 schedule looks alot tougher than the 2009 one......to refuse to acknowledge that the point is actually valid (different than saying it will certainly be that way) is to basically be ignoring common sense

 

[Deus Irae]

First, injuries are a big part of the game. So you can't dismiss them. Odds are a large number of teams will have injuries to key players that knock them out for significant time or a rash of injuries that will affect their win loss records.

First, here are the betting numbers from April of last year:

Betting lines posted for NFL team season wins - Sports: Upon Further Review - Las Vegas Sun

Now, onto my response:

In my original assessment, I noted that injuries would be a factor. You then pointed to the Steelers, which made my point, and I used the exact same language: "barring major injuries". Now you're bringing it back up again.

Hell, given that we had the Brady injury for 2008, do you really think I'd be missing that angle?

I disagree with your assessment with a lot of the teams. Many people said that the Broncos might surprise a lot of people and get 8-9 wins. People can't be surprised if they were expecting it. After the Cutler and Marshall things, most had them winning 3-4 games.

I don't recall a single person worth listening to/reading that had the Broncos at 3-4 games. They may have existed, but I don't remember them. I certainly had them higher than that. Betting line: 7.5

As for the Pats and Eagles, both were disapointments compare to where the consensus had them. Both were supposed to be elite teams in their conference and both ended up on the low end of playoff teams. They both underachieved based on their expectations. Both were supposed to be strong Super Bowl contenders. Neither were.

So, if you completely ignore what I posted, you come up with your post. As I noted:

Most teams play somewhat near expectations, barring major injury or spectacular offseason additions.

Everybody pointed to Brady as the key in New England. New England's ability to compete for the title would depend largely on how well he bounced back. They generally had the team at 10-12 wins (betting line 12). That's where the team ended up.

As for the Eagles (betting line 9.5), they were 11-5 and tied for the division title with another team that was highly rated. That other talented team happened to be the Cowboys, who swept them in the regular season and then got to face them again in the first round of the playoffs. There was nothing outside the box of expectations there.

No one had the Jets going to the AFC Championship Game. They may have backed into the playoff, but overachieved based on expectations in the playoffs.

They were about a .500 team, which is about where they were expected to be (Betting line was 8). I had them ranging from 5-8 wins, depending upon the QB play. That's where they'd quite possibly have been (8) if the Colts hadn't decided to quit early. The playoffs are irrelevant when talking about strength of schedule.

Both Miami was supposed to be 10-11 win team and contending for a division title. Few had them as 7 wins team.

I had them as #3 in the division, with 6-7 wins.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/240831-question-afc-east-team.html#post1389433

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/250714-state-teams-miami-dolphins.html#post1430324

I will conceed the Falcons.

The Colts were a preseason favorite to be the biggest team on the decline, but some still had them in the Super Bowl. For arguments sake, I will conceed them.

As for the Bengals, no one expected them to win the AFC North and most had them around 8-8.

8-8 while facing a healthy Pittsburgh v. 10-6 with that banged up Pittsburgh team. You're acting as if that's a seismic shift when it's not, and I already conceded that they finished better than expected even though improvement was expected. The betting line was 5.5, which supports both of our positions, oddly enough.

As for the Panthers, they were a division favorite with Delhomme.

Betting line had them at 8.5. They finished at 8-8.

You're acting as if a game or two is an enormous difference even taking factors into account, when it's not. It's a blown play, or a bad call. The teams you are pointing to here either fit what I said or were the excecptions I noted.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

the 2010 schedule looks alot tougher than the 2009 one

Regardless,my money won't be on any schedule predictions made in March. You can though.

 

[Kontradiction]

I agree with more or less everything you've written here. I expect additions to be made through FA and supplemented by the draft.

However, the entire premise of this thread is ridiculous. To assume that BB would try harder to improve the team due to a difficult SOS (in concept) is asinine.

As you can see, I already knew where the thread was going when I made that post.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Here's a stat for ya, Deus:

Saints were 8.5, went 8-8 last year

2009 13-3 superbowl champs

 

[ausbacker]

Is it really that surprising that the Patriots FO decided that the free agent class wasn't laden with talent that fir the Patriot way and didn't want to commit money to players they didn't want too? There's plenty of time left in free agency let alone the incredibly strong position the Patriots are in at the draft.

Strength of schedule = meh. Last year matters for little when it comes to the form guide for next season.

 

[Bostonian1962]

No disrespect intended, but these kinds of posts just boggle my mind.

Let me get this straight. The Bears made Peppers, by some reports the highest paid defensive player in NFL history. The Patriots don't top that, along with not topping what Baltimore gave up (draft picks plus nearly $9M per year extension) for oft-injured Anquan Bolden (missed 5 out of the last 6 years with injuries).

And, your take on that is that the Patriots are packing it in until 2012? Come on man, seriously?

$42 M of Peppers contract was guaranteed, maybe the Patriots should have given him a $120M contract with $50M guaranteed, and then given up a second rounder plus for Boldin and perhaps offered him a $10M or $11M a year extension?

Forget that there will again be a cap next year, and the team has to sign somebody named Tom Brady to a huge new contract.

I'm not bashing you personally, because I don't do that, but the thing is we will never really appreciate what NOT doing certain things, allows the team to do to improve the team. I do know that over the years, my local team (Redskins) invariably wins the offseason free agent signing period, but they continue to lose, and continue to have no depth throughout their roster.

If they really were waiting until 2012, why sign Wilfolk? Why beat out other teams for Leigh Bodden? Banta-Cain? Neal? Faulk?

No, this team tries very hard to win every year. From my view, it's not in their DNA to throw in the towels on the season before it even begins.

This team signed some much needed players of their own. This team has several young players like Pryor, Butler, Chung, Edelman, Vollmer, and others who will no longer be rookies, coming back. They have other young talented players who were out injured last year that will be in the mix in 2010 (Crable, Tate, McKenzie). And on top of all that, they have 4 draft picks between rounds 1 and 2 alone.

NO WAY BB and Co. are waiting to 2012 to try to win. They want to win this year, and will do everything that makes sense to do that. We'll need some luck, like players staying healthy, and desired draft picks sliding to them in the manner they hope happens. But, this team will continue to be a great team THIS YEAR, and in the forseeable future.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Regardless,my money won't be on any schedule predictions made in March. You can though.

gee thanks.......save your predictions until after things happen

 

[tanked_as_usual]

NO WAY BB and Co. are waiting to 2012 to try to win. They want to win this year, and will do everything that makes sense to do that. We'll need some luck, like players staying healthy, and desired draft picks sliding to them in the manner they hope happens. But, this team will continue to be a great team THIS YEAR, and in the forseeable future.

I don't know.....depending on luck in the NFL almost never works....at least not in the manner you suggest

I sincerely doubt that when he traded away Seymour that what was running through his head was 'with a little luck, it won't matter' if he does everything to 'win now', then seymour would have stayed here last season

unless he's lost his mind, it seems as though he's working on a current model with a big eye on the future.

 

[ausbacker]

No disrespect intended, but these kinds of posts just boggle my mind.

Let me get this straight. The Bears made Peppers, by some reports the highest paid defensive player in NFL history. The Patriots don't top that, along with not topping what Baltimore gave up (draft picks plus nearly $9M per year extension) for oft-injured Anquan Bolden (missed 5 out of the last 6 years with injuries).

And, your take on that is that the Patriots are packing it in until 2012? Come on man, seriously?

$42 M of Peppers contract was guaranteed, maybe the Patriots should have given him a $120M contract with $50M guaranteed, and then given up a second rounder plus for Boldin and perhaps offered him a $10M or $11M a year extension?

Forget that there will again be a cap next year, and the team has to sign somebody named Tom Brady to a huge new contract.

I'm not bashing you personally, because I don't do that, but the thing is we will never really appreciate what NOT doing certain things, allows the team to do to improve the team. I do know that over the years, my local team (Redskins) invariably wins the offseason free agent signing period, but they continue to lose, and continue to have no depth throughout their roster.

If they really were waiting until 2012, why sign Wilfolk? Why beat out other teams for Leigh Bodden? Banta-Cain? Neal? Faulk?

No, this team tries very hard to win every year. From my view, it's not in their DNA to throw in the towels on the season before it even begins.

This team signed some much needed players of their own. This team has several young players like Pryor, Butler, Chung, Edelman, Vollmer, and others who will no longer be rookies, coming back. They have other young talented players who were out injured last year that will be in the mix in 2010 (Crable, Tate, McKenzie). And on top of all that, they have 4 draft picks between rounds 1 and 2 alone.

NO WAY BB and Co. are waiting to 2012 to try to win. They want to win this year, and will do everything that makes sense to do that. We'll need some luck, like players staying healthy, and desired draft picks sliding to them in the manner they hope happens. But, this team will continue to be a great team THIS YEAR, and in the forseeable future.

Some people like to spend money because it's deemed they have to. Any smart person knows that when you are running a business or a household, you don't spend money on something that isn't what you want or the value you place on it.

Society is punctuated by the obsessive buy. I'm glad the Patriots don't run their business this way.

 

[Bostonian1962]

Some people like to spend money because it's deemed they have to. Any smart person knows that when you are running a business or a household, you don't spend money on something that isn't what you want or the value you place on it.

Society is punctuated by the obsessive buy. I'm glad the Patriots don't run their business this way.

Very well said. I totally agree with you.

 

[Rob0729]

First, here are the betting numbers from April of last year:

Betting lines posted for NFL team season wins - Sports: Upon Further Review - Las Vegas Sun

Now, onto my response:

In my original assessment, I noted that injuries would be a factor. You then pointed to the Steelers, which made my point, and I used the exact same language: "barring major injuries". Now you're bringing it back up again.

Hell, given that we had the Brady injury for 2008, do you really think I'd be missing that angle?



I don't recall a single person worth listening to/reading that had the Broncos at 3-4 games. They may have existed, but I don't remember them. I certainly had them higher than that. Betting line: 7.5



So, if you completely ignore what I posted, you come up with your post. As I noted:



Everybody pointed to Brady as the key in New England. New England's ability to compete for the title would depend largely on how well he bounced back. They generally had the team at 10-12 wins (betting line 12). That's where the team ended up.

As for the Eagles (betting line 9.5), they were 11-5 and tied for the division title with another team that was highly rated. That other talented team happened to be the Cowboys, who swept them in the regular season and then got to face them again in the first round of the playoffs. There was nothing outside the box of expectations there.



They were about a .500 team, which is about where they were expected to be (Betting line was 8). I had them ranging from 5-8 wins, depending upon the QB play. That's where they'd quite possibly have been (8) if the Colts hadn't decided to quit early. The playoffs are irrelevant when talking about strength of schedule.



I had them as #3 in the division, with 6-7 wins.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...40831-question-afc-east-team.html#post1389433

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...4-state-teams-miami-dolphins.html#post1430324



8-8 while facing a healthy Pittsburgh v. 10-6 with that banged up Pittsburgh team. You're acting as if that's a seismic shift when it's not, and I already conceded that they finished better than expected even though improvement was expected. The betting line was 5.5, which supports both of our positions, oddly enough.



Betting line had them at 8.5. They finished at 8-8.

You're acting as if a game or two is an enormous difference even taking factors into account, when it's not. It's a blown play, or a bad call. The teams you are pointing to here either fit what I said or were the excecptions I noted.

Betting odds and predictions are not the same thing. I am talking all the experts. Vegas sets the line based on where they expect the money to go not what they think will happen. So all you are stating is how they expect the betters to bet not where anyone expected them to finish off.

Here are the ESPN columnist predictions

NFL: For the 2009 season, many of our experts contend that Tom Brady is your MVP and the New England Patriots are your next Super Bowl champions. - ESPN

Note how many have Tennessee wininng the AFC South (forgot them), Atlanta going to the Super Bowl, Pittsburgh winning the North, Pittsburgh and Philly meeting up in the Super Bowl, etc.

Here is Peter King's predictions (he does it for SI)

SI's 2009 NFL Scouting Reports - NFL - SI.com

See him having Denver going 5-11, Chicago going to the Super Bowl, Patriots going 13-3 and winning the Super Bowl, Pittsburgh winning the South, etc. A lot of his predictions are the consensus among most of the preseason predictions by the media although some aren't.

Here are Whatifsports predictions for the playoff where they have the Pats losing to the Eagles in the Super Bowl. They have the Pats beating the Steelers in the conference championships with the Eagles beating the Cards. They also had Houston and the Giants making the playoffs

2009 NFL Predictions From WhatIfSports.com

 

[Snarf]

I don't get the point of this thread.

You're suggesting that the schedule is hard so we need good players?

Don't we need good players regardless?

And don't you think the coach probably has looked at the schedule?

Perplexed.

 

[shmessy]

gee thanks.......save your predictions until after things happen

Ummm, how 'bout season predictions in late August, after the rosters have more or less solidified?

Doing it in March when team rosters are only 25-50% known?

Sorry you're upset that many folks here aren't taking you seriously about this. And it has zero to do with how anyone feels (optimistic or pessimistic) about the Pats chances. Bottom-line is there is very little to correctly analyze at this point vis-a-vis team position.

 

[Brady2Welker]

Regardless of whether Belichick has seen next years schedule (Which I'm 100% positive hes seen). Is he supposed to use unicorn magic to magically conjure up teams? Or make a printing press to give money to Peppers or Boldin?

I really hate these "sky is falling" type of threads. Although it makes me glad our front office isn't fad happy.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Ummm, how 'bout season predictions in late August, after the rosters have more or less solidified?

Doing it in March when team rosters are only 25-50% known?

Sorry you're upset that many folks here aren't taking you seriously about this. And it has zero to do with how anyone feels (optimistic or pessimistic) about the Pats chances. Bottom-line is there is very little to correctly analyze at this point vis-a-vis team position.

heh...I'm not the OP, so I don't really care

the bottom-line is your opinion, so it really isn't a bottm-line at all

if you can't ascertain that the 2010 is more difficult than the 2009 schedule at this point, maybe you don't follow the NFL closely enough

 

[PatsCanDoIt]

The only "hard" road games are at San Diego and at Miami. I see no difference between playing the Steelers at home or on the road. The only dome team we play is at Detroit.

Some here talk about player aquisitions and progressing or degressing from 10-6. The only thing that I can see hurting this team from being better than last season is Wes Welker's injury. This team will still be prepared to win every week even against a "difficult" schedule.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

The only "hard" road games are at San Diego and at Miami. I see no difference between playing the Steelers at home or on the road. The only dome team we play is at Detroit.

Some here talk about player aquisitions and progressing or degressing from 10-6. The only thing that I can see hurting this team from being better than last season is Wes Welker's injury. This team will still be prepared to win every week even against a "difficult" schedule.

so at the jets won't be hard?

how about the colts, bengals, ravens, packers, vikings at home?

the pats ain't going 8-0 at home again

 

[alamo]

well.....I believe the 2010 schedule will be much tougher than the 2009 schedule......I really don't think its a stretch to say so

maybe the pats will get lucky and everyone else will stink

Maybe the Pats will get lucky, and everyone else in our division will also have to play the NFCN and AFCN, and thus will also have a tough schedule.