Patriots Cake Schedule / NFL Decline in Quality

[Vindicate]

So I was watching the Howe piece that was talking about the Patriots' schedule thus far, which has been rather cake. Looking at a metric which considers winning % of opponents, we have the second easiest schedule.

This metric, while valid, also doesn't explain a lot of unobserved confounders, such as the noticeable decline in quality of competition in the NFL. So I'm posing two questions here -

1 - What contributed to this decline in quality? I mean, we all know about Goodell's transgressions and how his recent antics may have affected public opinion, but this is an issue that has been becoming more and more true each year. Why are QB's being groomed in college a completely different way than a pro-style offense works? That seems to be a big trend as well.

2 - Considering this decline in quality, do you think the strength of schedule metric is becoming more and more moot? In theory, it makes sense that a team with a pretty good record against a strong schedule might be more battle tested than a excellent record against weak competition. But when the league is lagging behind in terms of performance, I would assume that would not outright invalidate SOS, but it becomes a weaker measuring stick.

I, myself, have no issue saying that, while the Patriots may have had a weak schedule, they are still favorable by a large margin. What matters most is our offense clicking and we've gone against some stingy defenses and haven't been really held back all that much. Our defense is starting to fire on all cylinders (thanks to the schedule prolly lol). I have a hard time finding a team as complete, save for MAYBE Dallas.

 

[Danger Zone]

As someone pointed out in regards to our strength of schedule, the Patriots have been beating these "bad" teams by larger offensive/defensive margins than the other teams that have played them.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

But hey.... must be the easy schedule, right?

 

[ALP]

Lol at fins and Texans point diff

 

[patfanken]

Would you have written this same post back in 1972 when the Dolphins managed to go undefeated while beating only 2 winning teams.....INCLUDING the superbowl.

During its current cupcake schedule the Pats have already beaten 4 teams (Miami, Texas, Ravens, Denver) with winning records, and will play another 4 if they get to the Superbowl, and this doesn't count teams who HAD winning records when the Pats played them.

All that being said, the schedule strength is what it is. Most of us believed it was a very difficult one when it came out last season. Ravens, Cardinals, Steelers, Denver, Rams, were all supposed to be contenders. The Jets were coming off a 10-6 season, the Bills off an 8-8, plus they won the off season, and the Dolphins had been a sleeping giant with all kinds of talent for a few years now. Well it turned out, not so much. You can only play the teams on your schedule. And it is a perfect example of how you can't predict how strong your schedule.

The game has changed drastically as well as the conditions the game is played under. Stupid rules, directives and schedules have all diminished the game and they have all eminated out of 354 Park Ave. No doubt he's been a disaster for the game itself as well as Pats fans. But the "so called" weak schedule has nothing to do it.

 

[Kontradiction]

The decline in quality teams has a number of factors. For one, ownership is very quick nowadays to move on from a previous coaching/front office change which means players that are there, particularly players on offense, have to learn and adapt to new schemes on the fly. This happening can ****** a young quarterback's growth. Lack of quality prospects coming out of college in another issue that is beginning to crop up. We've only seen the tip of the iceberg with the concussion blowback and more and more guys are going to retire early or simply choose to end their careers before coming to the NFL.

 

[Joey007]

All that being said, the schedule strength is what it is. Most of us believed it was a very difficult one when it came out last season. Ravens, Cardinals, Steelers, Denver, Rams, were all supposed to be contenders.

Okay come on now. Anyone with a simple elementary knowledge of Jeff Fisher mathematics knew this wasn't going to happen.

 

[Vindicate]

Would you have written this same post back in 1972 when the Dolphins managed to go undefeated while beating only 2 winning teams.....INCLUDING the superbowl.

During its current cupcake schedule the Pats have already beaten 4 teams (Miami, Texas, Ravens, Denver) with winning records, and will play another 4 if they get to the Superbowl, and this doesn't count teams who HAD winning records when the Pats played them.

All that being said, the schedule strength is what it is. Most of us believed it was a very difficult one when it came out last season. Ravens, Cardinals, Steelers, Denver, Rams, were all supposed to be contenders. The Jets were coming off a 10-6 season, the Bills off an 8-8, plus they won the off season, and the Dolphins had been a sleeping giant with all kinds of talent for a few years now. Well it turned out, not so much. You can only play the teams on your schedule. And it is a perfect example of how you can't predict how strong your schedule.

The game has changed drastically as well as the conditions the game is played under. Stupid rules, directives and schedules have all diminished the game and they have all eminated out of 354 Park Ave. No doubt he's been a disaster for the game itself as well as Pats fans. But the "so called" weak schedule has nothing to do it.

Unfortunately, it is arguable if I was even a zygote in 1972, but with that said, that team did pop into my mind when posing the question.

I also do remember thinking this was a vaunted schedule, and of course, it is what it pans out to be and there isn't much one can do about it.

Luckily I agree, I don't think it really effects the Pat's chances of successes, but I just miss when more than 10% of games on any given Sunday were worth watching. Losing Carr and Mariota make the AFC seem barren of talent at QB, beyond the other few contenders.

 

[TheOutsider]

Problem is Pats are a pro team playing in a college league, c'mon are there really any doubts they are going to the SB this year and most likely winning it?It was a much different league when you had the Elway's,Montana's,Marino's,Aikman's,Kelly's and much better teams and coaches overall.Would have been interesting to see how these Pats of today would fair back then.

 

[TheOutsider]

Unfortunately, it is arguable if I was even a zygote in 1972, but with that said, that team did pop into my mind when posing the question.

I also do remember thinking this was a vaunted schedule, and of course, it is what it pans out to be and there isn't much one can do about it.

Luckily I agree, I don't think it really effects the Pat's chances of successes, but I just miss when more than 10% of games on any given Sunday were worth watching. Losing Carr and Mariota make the AFC seem barren of talent at QB, beyond the other few contenders.

QB play in this league is at an all time low, could be on the rise in the coming future with the Carrs,Mariotas and Winston's but we'll see.

 

[Vindicate]

The decline in quality teams has a number of factors. For one, ownership is very quick nowadays to move on from a previous coaching/front office change which means players that are there, particularly players on offense, have to learn and adapt to new schemes on the fly. This happening can ****** a young quarterback's growth. Lack of quality prospects coming out of college in another issue that is beginning to crop up. We've only seen the tip of the iceberg with the concussion blowback and more and more guys are going to retire early or simply choose to end their careers before coming to the NFL.

To anyone who is very knowledgeable of NFL history - when did ownership transition to a trend of high turnover rate? I feel as if this has severely damaged franchises - is there a history of success with this idea that lead it to happen so often?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

So I was watching the Howe piece that was talking about the Patriots' schedule thus far, which has been rather cake. Looking at a metric which considers winning % of opponents, we have the second easiest schedule.

This metric, while valid, also doesn't explain a lot of unobserved confounders, such as the noticeable decline in quality of competition in the NFL. So I'm posing two questions here -

1 - What contributed to this decline in quality? I mean, we all know about Goodell's transgressions and how his recent antics may have affected public opinion, but this is an issue that has been becoming more and more true each year. Why are QB's being groomed in college a completely different way than a pro-style offense works? That seems to be a big trend as well.

2 - Considering this decline in quality, do you think the strength of schedule metric is becoming more and more moot? In theory, it makes sense that a team with a pretty good record against a strong schedule might be more battle tested than a excellent record against weak competition. But when the league is lagging behind in terms of performance, I would assume that would not outright invalidate SOS, but it becomes a weaker measuring stick.

I, myself, have no issue saying that, while the Patriots may have had a weak schedule, they are still favorable by a large margin. What matters most is our offense clicking and we've gone against some stingy defenses and haven't been really held back all that much. Our defense is starting to fire on all cylinders (thanks to the schedule prolly lol). I have a hard time finding a team as complete, save for MAYBE Dallas.

You can only play the schedule you're given. The rest is for the talking heads on Sunday.

They're 5--1 against teams with winning records (MIA, PIT, BAL, HOU, DEN, SEA). The net point differential in those games is +58. If you take out the 11 point win over PIT because Ben was out, it's still +47.

Put that in the context of +170 across the board and I think the SOS is more or less irrelevant. If they were +17 against that entire schedule, yeah, maybe I'd pay attention.

 

[Kontradiction]

To anyone who is very knowledgeable of NFL history - when did ownership transition to a trend of high turnover rate? I feel as if this has severely damaged franchises - is there a history of success with this idea that lead it to happen so often?

By my view, it's gotten worse since the millennium but I'm 30 and wasn't around long enough to recollect before then. Best guess is it has more to do with the "I want it now", immediate satisfaction, mentality of fans.

 

[Joker]

the trend is static if not declining

 

[Vindicate]

the trend is static if not declining

Hopefully franchises are getting the idea that to win you need a good coach, to SEE how good of a coach they are, you need a good coaching staff, to have a good coaching staff you have to get everyone on the same team philosophy, to execute said philosophy you need to construct a team of largely 1-3 year players on low contracts (successive drafts) that are willing to buy in, you then need to groom said players who may not look all that great at the start (Cannon, Edelman).

Thank F*** we have a owner who is down for that.

Football, especially at a professional level, is not a quick turnaround league - it takes a good amount of time to rebuild a team, period.

 

[AtomicDawg]

This was the Howe piece the OP was referring to:

Could the Patriots' easy schedule hurt them in the playoffs?

 

[Clonamery]

The game has changed drastically as well as the conditions the game is played under. Stupid rules, directives and schedules have all diminished the game and they have all eminated out of 354 Park Ave. No doubt he's been a disaster for the game itself as well as Pats fans. But the "so called" weak schedule has nothing to do it.

1 quibble. 345 Park Ave is NFL League offices. 354 Park Ave is the Hess Bldg.

 

[ScottishPatriots]

Coaching and offensive line play is brutal, there's so many teams who should be a lot better but their coaching is just flat out horrible.

 

[mosslost]

Problem is Pats are a pro team playing in a college league, c'mon are there really any doubts they are going to the SB this year and most likely winning it?It was a much different league when you had the Elway's,Montana's,Marino's,Aikman's,Kelly's and much better teams and coaches overall.Would have been interesting to see how these Pats of today would fair back then.

Anything could happen. They could easily lose a playoff game, no question.

 

[mosslost]

QB play in this league is at an all time low, could be on the rise in the coming future with the Carrs,Mariotas and Winston's but we'll see.

Hell even Andrew Luck might not suck eventually.