Predict Patrots 2010 record

[Ring 6]

I also think that the thing that escapes your attention, Andy, is that if Belichick truly thought this was the fifth ranked defense in the NFL last season, then we wouldn't have seen Pees get issued his walking papers, we wouldn't have seen Belichick HIMSELF take over primary duties with the defense, and we wouldn't have seen the vast majority of our high round picks spent on the defensive side of the ball. Belichick clearly agrees that this wasn't a top defense last year and has done something about it. Belichick can see it, I can see it, the vast majority of people that watch this team can see it. Why can't you?

Again, that is weak logic.
Because there is change that means you are right that the 5th ranking is inaccurate?
There are changes every year.
The defense probably would have ranked better than 5th with BB running it. Where is the line? If he feels he can improve the defense he will whether its 1st,5th, 20th, or 32nd.

 

[Ring 6]

I also think that the thing that escapes your attention, Andy, is that if Belichick truly thought this was the fifth ranked defense in the NFL last season, then we wouldn't have seen Pees get issued his walking papers, we wouldn't have seen Belichick HIMSELF take over primary duties with the defense, and we wouldn't have seen the vast majority of our high round picks spent on the defensive side of the ball. Belichick clearly agrees that this wasn't a top defense last year and has done something about it. Belichick can see it, I can see it, the vast majority of people that watch this team can see it. Why can't you?

I can do the same thing.
BB wants a #1 defense. So if he thought the defense was so bad why did he bring back every single player except Adalius Thomas, and Jarvis Green, who he made an offer to?
If the defense was so bad why did he invest so much money in keeping his own players in Wilfork and Bodden, and give Guyton an extension even though he didn't have to.
Compared to other seasons he has pretty much stood pat this year, so I guess he feels the D is pretty awesome huh?

See the I can prove my point by puicking out a few decisions and pretending I know the reasoning behind it approach is a double edged sword.

 

[IcyPatriot]

... 13 -3 ...
​

 

[JFK]

I think the defense would get better Mid Season and I also think the Offense will give us wins while the Defense gets better. 12-4

 

[Kontradiction]

Part I

2009 NFL Standings, Team & Offensive Statistics | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Competition adjusted, we were ranked BETTER. End of that story.
Your 2 flaws are A) You are counting the points they scored against us which brings down the average unfairly because we were ranked 5th.

What are you rambling on about here? You posted the offensive rankings of all the teams, which I already knew, and then told me that I was counting the amount of points "they" scored against us. Who is "they"? The Texans?

B) You dont seem to understand that rankings compiled against exactly average competition (16.5 would be exactly average, and you are joking or lying if you think our schedule wasn't as close to average in socring points as could be) exactly justifies the ranking and it doesnt need to be competition adjusted.

First of all, are you serious? 16.5 rounds out to 17. There are 32 teams in the NFL right now. If our average opponent ranked 17th in team offense, then that is a below average offensive schedule. An average of 16th would be right around "average" and anything above 16th is considered above average. I would think that this point would be really simple to understand. And secondly, if my point about the fifth place ranking is that it is skewed, we absolutely need to look at the competition. I did the math, we faced a below average schedule, and the end result is that our ranking was skewed. The math agrees here. Sorry if it's upsetting to the point you're trying to make.

Yes you are. I argued that 3rd WR was not one of our major problems BECAUSE we had a 1 and a 2 that caught 200 passes, so a #3 was muchless consequential. I never called Aiken a good 3rd option. You should go find the thread rather than than continuing to bismearch me becuase your memory blows.

Andy, when you defend the way the passing offense was last year and defend the minimal need for a third option, you're defending what we had in place, which was Sam Aiken. If the WR3 position was not a major problem, how come we were able to but shut down by a decent defense like the Saints when they doubled up on Welker and Moss? The third, fourth, fifth, and so on options were absolutely a problem last year. The fact that two guys caught 200 passes actually shows how easily teams would be able to effectively close up shop on our offense. Furthermore, the drafting of Taylor Price, the pick-up of Torry Holt, and the drafting of two pass catching options at TE and H-Back shows your point to be what it was: horribly wrong.

No you went through and said when we played well it was because the other team didnt show up.

Actually, I only said that about one game. That was the Falcons game. I then went on to say that if you were going to throw out the Houston game, which I didn't think you should, you should then throw out the Tennessee game because that was the team that really didn't show up. Who's memory blows again?

Yes they were average competition. Do you understand what that means? It justifies the ranking. Our ranking was neither helped or huert by the level of competition.

Sure it was. Look what having to play Green Bay twice did to the Minnesota defense. The average competition absolutely helps to skew results in either direction. This is elementary statistics we're talking about here. Really simple stuff.

If you are talking about a ranking then of course you have to look at the other teams, duh.

You do realize that you're once again directly contradicting yourself here, right? First you don't want to say that the average offensive competition skews the results for our defensive ranking either way... then you go on to say that we have to look at other teams when making decisions because it agrees with your point. That's convenient, to say the least. Not a really solid approach to this debate, but convenient nonetheless.

Actually all you have given is your opinion. I get it, you think it so that makes it so.

Actually, that's not the case. If the results weren't skewed and if we were actually looking at a Top 5 defense last year, my opinion would be that this defense was Top 5. Unfortunately, it wasn't. I showed the statistics to prove it, I've weighed other defensive statistics prove it, I've weighed our offensive competition to prove it, and I weighed our results against the run and against the pass against particular teams last year. They did good in some games, they did piss poor in others. They allowed more 100 yard rushing games than they didn't last year. They got torched by Matt Schaub, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, and allowed the likes of Chad Henne and Kyle Orton to post career days against them. They directly blew four leads going into the fourth quarter, something this team simply didn't do before last year. And at the end of the day, they limped into the playoffs only to get their asses completely handed to them by a team that couldn't use it's quarterback and still buried us on the ground to the tune of the worst blowout suffered at home by the Patriots in quite some time. Yes, I've weighed all of these factors and my opinion reflects that.

You are pulling out anecdotal examples as if we are the only team a player you dont like ever succeeded against. Thats ridiculous.

So wait, Kyle Orton and Chad Henne posted career days, that's career days against other defenses last year? Please show me who they did that against.

Are you seriously saying you would rather that we give up more points but have prettier stats?

Absolutely not. What I'm saying is that I would expect a Top 5 defense to show up against the Little Sisters of the Poor as well as against the better offensive competition too. This defense did exactly one half of that last year.

Do you make this stuff up?
We were better in allmost every pass defense stats, so by a lot, including ints 18-11, 40+ plays allowed 5-9 comp % 58.6-63.7, QB Rating 81.7-92.5

Unfortunately, Andy, I couldn't make this stuff up. But since you brought those stats up, let's go with it. In interceptions, we ranked about 11th in the league. That's around where I would have put 2009's defense among all the other defenses (11-13). In 40+ yard plays allowed we did pretty good. We were ranked 5th. Want to know the other teams ranked ahead of us? The Bears, Broncos, Seahawks, and Jets. That should prove to you right there how a lot of defensive statistics could be skewed. Unless you want to go on 40+ yard plays to make your point and try to tell me that the likes of the Seahawks and the Bears were better defenses than we were because they allowed less big plays. In the end, though, we're looking at Minnesota's defense vs. our own. In the games that counted, the Vikings shut down the Cowboys, who actually had a quarterback as well as a running game at their disposal, and had the #1 offense in the league (and future Super Bowl champions) on the ropes. Meanwhile, we got torched by the same #1 offense in the regular season to the tune of 5 passing TD's and almost 500 yards allowed and then proceeded to get run over by a team that didn't even have their quarterback at their disposal in the Wild Card round. Yes, I would say that the Vikings had the better defense.

Wow. Just wow.


How did that big game work out for Cincy against a crappy O?

About the same as it worked out for our defense against and equally crappy offense. The difference is that the Bengals actually had to account for a quarterback and a passing game and they didn't get a 30burger hung on them.

 

[Kontradiction]

Part II :rocker:

Pitt lost 5 straight to cost it a playoff spot including loss to the Chiefs, Browns and Raiders, sure I want them in a big game.

You're all about points allowed, right? The most points that Pittsburgh allowed their opponents last season was 36 (to the Packers). Coincidentally, that was the only 30+ point game they allowed last season. In those three games you mentioned: they allowed 27 points to the Chiefs (while the offense was only able to put up 24 against a terrible defense), 27 to the Raiders (who were actually playing well at that point), and 13 to the Browns. Those 27 point totals were the third most points they allowed all season (next to 28 by the Chargers). The Pats, on the other hand, allowed 30+ points three times. The second most they allowed after that was 24 (to the lowly Bills).

Umm, I already did. You wrote stories about why teams didnt show up against us, I posted comeptition adjusted defensive rankings based on points allowed.

No you didn't. You gave me ProFootballReference's offensive and defensive rankings. Nothing was competition adjusted in there. But then again, you didn't have to. I already gave you competition adjusted rankings of the opposing offenses we faced. You might remember that they were slightly below average.

What were they ranked in the most important statistic? That is what I have said all along.

Points allowed is important. I've never said it wasn't. But you're acting as if it's the be-all, end-all when it really isn't. There are a ton of other factors to take into consideration. Once again, if points allowed is the only ranking worth considering then what you're telling me is that the Colts fielded a top ten defense. Do you really believe that to be the case?

I have not contradicted myself at all.

You've contradicted yourself multiple times in this thread, including this very post.

When you incoorectly describe my argument then show my real argument of course it looks like a contradiction, but that was manufactured by you.

LMAO. How did I incorrectly describe your argument? I quoted your very words. Here they are again...

I have not said that the Patriots were or were not the 5th best defense in the NFL. I have said based upon the most important factor about a defense they finished 5th best​

Andy, if the most important factor in weighing a defense is scoring, then what you are saying is that this defense was the 5th best. Now, if you are saying that this defense wasn't the fifth best, then you are agreeing with me. So which is it? Were you contradicting yourself or were you yielding to me?

The purpose of the game is points.
Are you seriously telling me you would rather have a defense that allows more points but looks better in the other rankings?

Once again, I haven't said this. What I want is a 5th ranked defense that shuts down the lesser offenses as well as the better offenses they face. This team simply did not do that.

If I told you that the Patriot defense could be #1 in any statistic this season, are you serioulsy saying you would chose somethng other than points?

No, I would choose for them to be #1 in that statistic. But I would also choose for them to help that #1 ranking by stopping the better offenses they face and allowing under 30 points to those said offenses.

No, you are thoroughly missing the point.
If you say X doesnt deserve to be ranked 5th and go on to describe X you have done nothing to indicate why anyone else is any better.

That hasn't been the basis of my argument. The basis of my argument has been the show how easily those statistics, particularly scoring defense, could be skewed and to show you why this wasn't the fifth best defense in the NFL last season in doing so. But, as expected, it's flying right over your head. Either that or you're being willfully obtuse on the subject. If I had to bet, I'd say it's the latter. God forbid I say anything less than glowing about the New England Patriots, right?

Thats just wrong. Starters did not play the whole game. But I AM including it.

I didn't say they were in for the whole game. I said they were in there for the vast majority of the game and that we clearly went into the game with the intention to win it. As a matter of fact, I truly believe that if Welker didn't get hurt, Bill would have left the starters in for the entire game. As it stands, Welker got hurt and he didn't. But still, it's good that you're including it. Having to throw away that shutout would be heavily damaging to the ranking which is already skewed.

Then throw out New Orleans because I say we didnt show up.
You cant have it both ways. You cant cun he bad games and just say the other team didnt show up when we play well. Dont the Patriots get credt for destroying them? Or are you so negative that you have to pretend when we are good there is an excuse?

You really can't be serious with this. Anybody with two eyes could see that Tennessee clearly wasn't there to win that game. It was so bad that media pundits were openly criticizing the Titans for it. They were like a dog laying on it's side and showing another dog it's neck because they just wanted to get out of there. I didn't see anybody out there wondering if the Patriots mailed it in. Therefore, it isn't just me saying that the Titans didn't show up. It would be you and you alone saying that the Patriots didn't show up because it would agree with your point. Not surprising.

Colts were easily a top 10 D last year. Probably top 5 when you account for the points they allowed when they gave up.
Do you think they could be 14-0 with a terrible D? What leaguie are you watching?

The Colts were not a top ten defense at all last year. But thanks for playing. I bet that was painful having to admit that just out of spite for me. They, like us, were a middle of the road defense that was immensely helped out by a deep offense and Peyton Manning. Their defensive flaws were shown throughout the year then finally blown open in the Super Bowl when Brees picked them apart.

Can you misrepresent what I am saying any more dramatically?
How am I holding on to anything.
I am stating a fact. We allowed the 5th fewest points. You play the game to win, so points allowed is most important.
I dont need methodology.

And like I keep telling you, points allowed is important, but it isn't the be-all, end-all to judging a defense. But please, keep pretending like it is.

I thought you said I was arguing that Aiken was good?

You were. When you're defending the status quo, you're also defending the parts and pieces that go along with it. If you're saying that the need for a quality third option is minimal then what you're saying is that you're fine with Aiken since his production was also minimal. This really isn't rocket science.

How does drafting a TE and a 3rd round WR when we have zero healthy WRs under contract beyond this year and indcation that 3rd WR was a big issue?

Third, fourth, and fifth options were all a HUGE need. You disagreed with that. Because of that need, the team brought in Torry Holt (who would have been a third option when he was brought in), drafted two pass catching TE's as other options, brought back David Patten, and drafted Taylor Price. I'd say that you were pretty thoroughly wrong on that one and the team proved that to be the case with their free agent acquisitions and drafting.

My argument was that corner was a big need. Didn we take one of those a little earlier?

Why was corner a big need? I thought we were the fifth best defense in the NFL that has just returned all of their corners from the previous year? I guess Belichick saw, like I see, and like many others see, that there were some pieces missing and decided to bring those pieces in.

 

[Kontradiction]

Part III

I'll take my apology now for you saying I argued that Aiken was a good #3. because you knew all along that was wrong.

Why would I apologize for saying that you defended the status quo when you did?

Actually is it. I don't know how much better to explain this to you.
Add up all the statistics, weight them however you want. List the ones that you like to see good or bad, the ones that you feel are more important.
THEN PLAY A FOOTBALL GAME. And the team that allows the fewest points wins. Your analysis of what the stats mean is irelevant. 24 out of 32 teams allowed more than 100 yards rushing per game. Some of them were better than some of the 8 that didnt because the werent letting the other team SCORE AS MANY POINTS.

Yes, the team that allows fewest points does win. I haven't denied that. My problem with this defense last year is that they allowed fewer points to teams like the Falcons, Titans, Bucs, Jets, and so on but couldn't allow fewer points than teams like the Saints, Dolphins, Colts, and Texans. We could beat up on the lesser teams, which we played a lot of, but couldn't step up against the bigger competition. That is something you don't seem to understand and I don't know much better to explain it to you.

If we are 20th ranked in points allowed this year, giving up 7 more a game than we did last year, but never give up 100 rushing yards, and all those other stats improve are you telling me that is better defense?

You still don't seem to get it. Like I said, you're being willfully obtuse. Hold onto the fifth ranking all you want. But Top 5 defenses in the NFL don't allow that many 100 yard rushing games. Top 5 defenses in the NFL don't get smoked by a crippled team in the playoffs at home.

And we were the best at not allowing them to get to the red zone.
You seem to be implying that letting teams into the red zone before stopping them is better than never letting them there tio begin with.
Your opinions get more and more curious as you dig further to malign the team/

No, we really weren't. Quality teams were able to get into the red zone against us at an alarming rate. The cornerstone to this defense used to be that they could get into the red zone, but they weren't getting into the end zone. That wasn't the case this year. Once teams got into the red zone, it usually went for 7 points. And no, I'm not digging deeper just to malign the team. If I was all about that, I would be negative all the time and would be waxing the Jets' asses. If anything, your opinions get more and more curious as you dig deeper to try to convince yourself that nothing was wrong last season.

I dont care who thought what. I am saying that this defense allowed the 5th fewest points, and that they deserve that ranking because they went out on the field and did it. How difficult is that to understand?

Not difficult at all. Your opinion, like the statistic you keep quoting, is flawed. I understand that they ranked 5th. My problem is how skewed that ranking really is. And I've done my damndest to help you understand it but you clearly don't want to.

My point was that we were so spoiled by success, that most fans have a ridiculous expectation that the Patriots are supposed to be perfect.

I am, and have been, pretty clearly, not one of those fans. But I'm not going to ignore issues in this defense last year just to hang on to a single ranking. You are. This is where we disagree.

Note that nowhere did I say this is the X best defense in the NFL.

Yes you are. You've been saying this the whole time. When you say that the most important statistic is points allowed and that we ranked 5th in that, you're really telling me that you truly believe this to be the 5th best defense in the league. Now, if you really don't believe that this was the 5th best defense in the league then please give me your top five and tell me where you would rank the Patriots.

All I have said is that they allowed the 5th fewest points and deserve the ranking because it is what they actually did, and there are not competition factors indicating it was only based on weak opponnents.
Of course you come along and cant stand the fact that this sounds positive and turn it into this.
ITs crazy.

Yes because clearly all I do is go around the forum to say negative things about the team. Are you hearing yourself at this point? You do realize that when you say things like this, it earns you the title of King Homer, right? And that really isn't a term that I throw around a lot. But I have been anything bot constantly negative about this team. I agree on just as many, if not more, things that this team has done right lately as the things they have done wrong. In this instance, this team was CLEARLY not the fifth best defense in the league.

Again, that is weak logic.

For such weak logic, you sure can't seem to stop responding to it.

Because there is change that means you are right that the 5th ranking is inaccurate?

No. It just seems to suggest that things aren't all peachy with this defense. It seems that Belichick agrees with me (that there were a lot of problems with this defense) a lot more than he agrees with you. The draft picks as well as the release of bad apples who weren't producing should bear that out.

There are changes every year.
The defense probably would have ranked better than 5th with BB running it. Where is the line? If he feels he can improve the defense he will whether its 1st,5th, 20th, or 32nd.

And in this case, he believes that the defense could use quite a bit of improvements. I agree with him.

I can do the same thing.
BB wants a #1 defense. So if he thought the defense was so bad why did he bring back every single player except Adalius Thomas, and Jarvis Green, who he made an offer to?

I really got you with this one, huh? Every couple of minutes you keep coming back to it.

Probably because Adalius wasn't producing and Jarvis was terrible against the run and not much better against the pass last year. Belichick saw all the same problems that we did. He saw issues in the secondary, so he drafted a CB and brought back our best CB from last year. He saw issues at OLB so he drafted Cunningham with a high pick. He saw issues with ILB so he drafted Spikes. If defense wasn't such a problem, he wouldn't have invested that many high picks on it, fired his defensive coordinator, and took over duty himself. He CLEARLY thinks there were issues on the defense.

If the defense was so bad why did he invest so much money in keeping his own players in Wilfork and Bodden, and give Guyton an extension even though he didn't have to.

Why would he make an already bad enough problem even worse by letting the best NT in the game go, the best CB on the market go, and letting our best coverage ILB go? What a piss poor attempt at making a point.

Compared to other seasons he has pretty much stood pat this year, so I guess he feels the D is pretty awesome huh?

Yeah, either that or he didn't want to compound something that was already a problem.

:bricks:

See the I can prove my point by puicking out a few decisions and pretending I know the reasoning behind it approach is a double edged sword.

LOL. BB's moves this offseason are pretty indicative that he feels there were problems on the defense. I think I'll take his word and his actions over the actions of AndyJohnson from PatsFans.com

Have fun.

 

[SammyBlueCat]

Interesting thread about the Patrots. Can the Patriots beat them?

 

[goheels22002]

Part III



Why would I apologize for saying that you defended the status quo when you did?



Yes, the team that allows fewest points does win. I haven't denied that. My problem with this defense last year is that they allowed fewer points to teams like the Falcons, Titans, Bucs, Jets, and so on but couldn't allow fewer points than teams like the Saints, Dolphins, Colts, and Texans. We could beat up on the lesser teams, which we played a lot of, but couldn't step up against the bigger competition. That is something you don't seem to understand and I don't know much better to explain it to you.



You still don't seem to get it. Like I said, you're being willfully obtuse. Hold onto the fifth ranking all you want. But Top 5 defenses in the NFL don't allow that many 100 yard rushing games. Top 5 defenses in the NFL don't get smoked by a crippled team in the playoffs at home.



No, we really weren't. Quality teams were able to get into the red zone against us at an alarming rate. The cornerstone to this defense used to be that they could get into the red zone, but they weren't getting into the end zone. That wasn't the case this year. Once teams got into the red zone, it usually went for 7 points. And no, I'm not digging deeper just to malign the team. If I was all about that, I would be negative all the time and would be waxing the Jets' asses. If anything, your opinions get more and more curious as you dig deeper to try to convince yourself that nothing was wrong last season.



Not difficult at all. Your opinion, like the statistic you keep quoting, is flawed. I understand that they ranked 5th. My problem is how skewed that ranking really is. And I've done my damndest to help you understand it but you clearly don't want to.



I am, and have been, pretty clearly, not one of those fans. But I'm not going to ignore issues in this defense last year just to hang on to a single ranking. You are. This is where we disagree.



Yes you are. You've been saying this the whole time. When you say that the most important statistic is points allowed and that we ranked 5th in that, you're really telling me that you truly believe this to be the 5th best defense in the league. Now, if you really don't believe that this was the 5th best defense in the league then please give me your top five and tell me where you would rank the Patriots.



Yes because clearly all I do is go around the forum to say negative things about the team. Are you hearing yourself at this point? You do realize that when you say things like this, it earns you the title of King Homer, right? And that really isn't a term that I throw around a lot. But I have been anything bot constantly negative about this team. I agree on just as many, if not more, things that this team has done right lately as the things they have done wrong. In this instance, this team was CLEARLY not the fifth best defense in the league.



For such weak logic, you sure can't seem to stop responding to it.



No. It just seems to suggest that things aren't all peachy with this defense. It seems that Belichick agrees with me (that there were a lot of problems with this defense) a lot more than he agrees with you. The draft picks as well as the release of bad apples who weren't producing should bear that out.



And in this case, he believes that the defense could use quite a bit of improvements. I agree with him.



I really got you with this one, huh? Every couple of minutes you keep coming back to it.

Probably because Adalius wasn't producing and Jarvis was terrible against the run and not much better against the pass last year. Belichick saw all the same problems that we did. He saw issues in the secondary, so he drafted a CB and brought back our best CB from last year. He saw issues at OLB so he drafted Cunningham with a high pick. He saw issues with ILB so he drafted Spikes. If defense wasn't such a problem, he wouldn't have invested that many high picks on it, fired his defensive coordinator, and took over duty himself. He CLEARLY thinks there were issues on the defense.



Why would he make an already bad enough problem even worse by letting the best NT in the game go, the best CB on the market go, and letting our best coverage ILB go? What a piss poor attempt at making a point.



Yeah, either that or he didn't want to compound something that was already a problem.

:bricks:



LOL. BB's moves this offseason are pretty indicative that he feels there were problems on the defense. I think I'll take his word and his actions over the actions of AndyJohnson from PatsFans.com

Have fun.

Why don't you guys get a room? Your debate is tedious and sort of weird. The Pats are retooling on defense because guys got old or left for more money. It's what the game, the cap and free agency in all its complexity requires every team to do. The D was okay last year, not terrible and not great. Looks the same this year as the youngsters grow into their jobs. Next year watch for the offense to start the same process with the RBs all leaving, the O-line on the aging/money side a la Mankins, Moss outta here etc. I like the way the Krafts and BB are addressing things in a methodical way. They are not reacting to rankings or that sort of thing. Follow the money.

 

[Kontradiction]

Why don't you guys get a room? Your debate is tedious and sort of weird. The Pats are retooling on defense because guys got old or left for more money. It's what the game, the cap and free agency in all its complexity requires every team to do. The D was okay last year, not terrible and not great. Looks the same this year as the youngsters grow into their jobs. Next year watch for the offense to start the same process with the RBs all leaving, the O-line on the aging/money side a la Mankins, Moss outta here etc. I like the way the Krafts and BB are addressing things in a methodical way. They are not reacting to rankings or that sort of thing. Follow the money.

Thanks for siding with me. As for where we should conduct our debate, I don't know why you have your choad in a bunch. Who forced you to read it? If you don't like it, predict a record then hit the road. Nobody is putting a gun to your head asking you to read our posts.

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

Dear Andy,
I agree, our defense allowed fewer points than most other teams last year.
However, you just can't honestly say you think our defense was good last year. I'm not a football guru and I'm too lazy to read all of your arguement, as there really is only one real question that needs to be answered:
As a Patriots fan, were YOU happy with how our defense performed last year?
If you can honestly answer yes to that, you might want to become a Jets fan because you have apparently had a lobotomy.
Sincerely,
TB

 

[Ring 6]

Part I



What are you rambling on about here? You posted the offensive rankings of all the teams, which I already knew, and then told me that I was counting the amount of points "they" scored against us. Who is "they"? The Texans?

You need to read all of the post.
The link shows DSRS, which is COMPETITION ADJUSTED points allowed. The Patriots allowed 4.5 less than their opponents scored in all of their other games, That is tied for 4th best.
This is the statistically relevant adjustment to points allowed.

Counting the points they scored against us is very simple.
If you are comparing competition, you must exclude the game played agaisnt you, because it skews the number.


[/quote]First of all, are you serious? 16.5 rounds out to 17. There are 32 teams in the NFL right now. If our average opponent ranked 17th in team offense, then that is a below average offensive schedule.[/quote]
16.5 is the actual midpoint of 32 teams.

An average of 16th would be right around "average" and anything above 16th is considered above average. I would think that this point would be really simple to understand.

It is easy. How do you not understand 16.5 is the midpoint of 1-32?

And secondly, if my point about the fifth place ranking is that it is skewed, we absolutely need to look at the competition. I did the math, we faced a below average schedule, and the end result is that our ranking was skewed. The math agrees here. Sorry if it's upsetting to the point you're trying to make.

This is where you just make no sense.
If the average team we faced ranked exactly in between the 16th and 17th, that is 16 were better and 16 were worse, we faced exacty an average schedule. That means our results are competition neutral.
Please don't tell me you think 16.5 is a weak schedule, because thats just ignorant.
By the way you seem to be implying that we would only justify being 5th ranked if we compiled those #s against the 5th rank offense on average.
Well, its impossible for the average competition to be 5th in a 16 game schedule.

Andy, when you defend the way the passing offense was last year and defend the minimal need for a third option, you're defending what we had in place, which was Sam Aiken.

No I am not. I am saying 3rd WR was not a critical position. If I said backup ILB was not a big need even if the guy sucked I am not defending the guy, I am stating that his role is not critical.
You know as well as I do that I was not defending Aiken. You chose in the middle of an argument about something else to make that up and used it as a reason to state that you think I am a moron. Dont apologize if you feel low class shots based on lying are your way to be.

If the WR3 position was not a major problem, how come we were able to but shut down by a decent defense like the Saints when they doubled up on Welker and Moss? The third, fourth, fifth, and so on options were absolutely a problem last year. The fact that two guys caught 200 passes actually shows how easily teams would be able to effectively close up shop on our offense. Furthermore, the drafting of Taylor Price, the pick-up of Torry Holt, and the drafting of two pass catching options at TE and H-Back shows your point to be what it was: horribly wrong.

None of that has anything to do with your scummy comment. I am not rehashing the importance of the 3rd WR on a team that has 2 allpros. I am saying your comment was wrong, and you know it, and you used it to try to deflect the argumjet, and make me look stupid by attributing an ignorant opinion to me that I never had.
It was a scumbag move. Accept it or don;t, I on't care.

Actually, I only said that about one game. That was the Falcons game. I then went on to say that if you were going to throw out the Houston game, which I didn't think you should, you should then throw out the Tennessee game because that was the team that really didn't show up. Who's memory blows again?

The reason to not count the Houston game is that they scored 13 points in the first 3 quarters then 21 in the 4th when all our top players were out. If you really think that those 21 points reflect well on our #1 units, good for you. Tennessee played all their players. I'm discounting a game because we removed players, you are discounting game because we did well, so the other team must not have tried. Big difference. And Houston was included in everything I have said and calculated other than that one comment.

Sure it was. Look what having to play Green Bay twice did to the Minnesota defense. The average competition absolutely helps to skew results in either direction. This is elementary statistics we're talking about here. Really simple stuff.

It is elementary statistics that our competition was tougher than Minnesotas. You are arguing as if its the opposite.

You do realize that you're once again directly contradicting yourself here, right? First you don't want to say that the average offensive competition skews the results for our defensive ranking either way... then you go on to say that we have to look at other teams when making decisions because it agrees with your point. That's convenient, to say the least. Not a really solid approach to this debate, but convenient nonetheless.

Wow, jut wow.
Average competition does not skew our results because they were against AVERAGE competition. If they were against less than average, it would skew them, if they were against better than average it would skew them.
In other words, the net adjustment for the competition we faced was ZERO.
You have to look at the other teams and see if their competition warrants an adjustment. Luckily Profootballreference did that for us, but you dont seem to want to look at that. DSRS adjust points allowed to the competition and the points they scored against everyone else.

Actually, that's not the case. If the results weren't skewed and if we were actually looking at a Top 5 defense last year, my opinion would be that this defense was Top 5.

Then what are they skewed by? IT wasn't competition.
The only argument you seem to want to make is that some games were worse than others and that you are valuing yards more than points.
Every team ranked 1-32 has good games and bad games. Pretty much they all do worse against good teams. Yards are not as important as points.

Unfortunately, it wasn't. I showed the statistics to prove it, I've weighed other defensive statistics prove it, I've weighed our offensive competition to prove it,

No, you didn't, I showed you weighted for competition, and you dismiss it.
Listing every game and giving your opinion is not weighting for competition.

[quoteand I weighed our results against the run and against the pass against particular teams last year. They did good in some games, they did piss poor in others. They allowed more 100 yard rushing games than they didn't last year. They got torched by Matt Schaub, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, and allowed the likes of Chad Henne and Kyle Orton to post career days against them. They directly blew four leads going into the fourth quarter, something this team simply didn't do before last year. And at the end of the day, they limped into the playoffs only to get their asses completely handed to them by a team that couldn't use it's quarterback and still buried us on the ground to the tune of the worst blowout suffered at home by the Patriots in quite some time. Yes, I've weighed all of these factors and my opinion reflects that. [/qutoe]

Kontra, you seem like a pretty smart guy, so I think you are purposely doing this.
We are talking about RANKING. You cannot claim that a ranking is skewed by describing what the team did. Thats all you did. Your argument amounts to it cant be fifth because I can name reasons that I dont think a 5th ranked team would do. You would have to look at the other teams and see they didnt do any of those things either. Its really simple.

So wait, Kyle Orton and Chad Henne posted career days, that's career days against other defenses last year? Please show me who they did that against.

All of the defesnes that allowed more points than us allowed players to succeed as well.

Absolutely not. What I'm saying is that I would expect a Top 5 defense to show up against the Little Sisters of the Poor as well as against the better offensive competition too. This defense did exactly one half of that last year.

Every defene does better against good teams than bad. Over our entire schedule we allowed 4.5 fewer points to our opponents than they scored in their other games. If you think we were exceptionally good against bad team and poor against good teams, then what does that mean about teams who allowed more points, and more compared to their competition.
You are pigheadedly sticking to the idea our competition was weak when the evidence contradicts that.

 

[Ring 6]

Unfortunately, Andy, I couldn't make this stuff up. But since you brought those stats up, let's go with it. In interceptions, we ranked about 11th in the league. That's around where I would have put 2009's defense among all the other defenses (11-13). In 40+ yard plays allowed we did pretty good. We were ranked 5th. Want to know the other teams ranked ahead of us? The Bears, Broncos, Seahawks, and Jets. That should prove to you right there how a lot of defensive statistics could be skewed. Unless you want to go on 40+ yard plays to make your point and try to tell me that the likes of the Seahawks and the Bears were better defenses than we were because they allowed less big plays. In the end, though, we're looking at Minnesota's defense vs. our own. In the games that counted, the Vikings shut down the Cowboys, who actually had a quarterback as well as a running game at their disposal, and had the #1 offense in the league (and future Super Bowl champions) on the ropes. Meanwhile, we got torched by the same #1 offense in the regular season to the tune of 5 passing TD's and almost 500 yards allowed and then proceeded to get run over by a team that didn't even have their quarterback at their disposal in the Wild Card round. Yes, I would say that the Vikings had the better defense.

That is a very long explanation or why you said they were better at every defensive stat when they were. "I was wrong" would save a lot of typing.

About the same as it worked out for our defense against and equally crappy offense. The difference is that the Bengals actually had to account for a quarterback and a passing game and they didn't get a 30burger hung on them.

So now you consider Sanchez a good QB?
Aboutthe same? You said that you would rather have them in a big game? Again "I was wrong" is a lot fewer keystrokes.

Part II :rocker:

You're all about points allowed, right?

No. The discussion is all about points allowed. I also happen to think it is the most important defensive statistic.

The most points that Pittsburgh allowed their opponents last season was 36 (to the Packers). Coincidentally, that was the only 30+ point game they allowed last season. In those three games you mentioned: they allowed 27 points to the Chiefs (while the offense was only able to put up 24 against a terrible defense), 27 to the Raiders (who were actually playing well at that point), and 13 to the Browns. Those 27 point totals were the third most points they allowed all season (next to 28 by the Chargers). The Pats, on the other hand, allowed 30+ points three times. The second most they allowed after that was 24 (to the lowly Bills).

So. We allowed fewer points. Counting up which games they were allowed in and making excuses for them is pointless.
OK so allowing 27 to the Chiefs and Raiders is good? If those teams we on our schedule, you would call them the little sisters of the poor.

No you didn't. You gave me ProFootballReference's offensive and defensive rankings. Nothing was competition adjusted in there. But then again, you didn't have to. I already gave you competition adjusted rankings of the opposing offenses we faced. You might remember that they were slightly below average.

I didnt think I needed to explain it, thought you could figure it out.
DSRS. Competition (ours was average) adjsuted ppg allowed.

Points allowed is important. I've never said it wasn't. But you're acting as if it's the be-all, end-all when it really isn't.

No, I am acting as if it is most important, and anecdotal whining about Chad Henne doesnt overcome its importance.

There are a ton of other factors to take into consideration. Once again, if points allowed is the only ranking worth considering then what you're telling me is that the Colts fielded a top ten defense. Do you really believe that to be the case?

Of course they were. Probably top 5 because its hard to count the 59 they allowed after they gave up in week 16 against them. Christ they were 14-0 of course they had a top 10 D, what league are you watching, and in what year?

You've contradicted yourself multiple times in this thread, including this very post.

Again, your misunderstanding of what I say contradicts with the things you interpret corerectly./ I cant help that.

LMAO. How did I incorrectly describe your argument? I quoted your very words. Here they are again...

I have not said that the Patriots were or were not the 5th best defense in the NFL. I have said based upon the most important factor about a defense they finished 5th best
​

Andy, if the most important factor in weighing a defense is scoring, then what you are saying is that this defense was the 5th best. Now, if you are saying that this defense wasn't the fifth best, then you are agreeing with me. So which is it? Were you contradicting yourself or were you yielding to me?

Neither, of course.
Just because you want to take 2 statements and imply meaning to them does not make your implicaiton correct.
I did not say points was the ONLY factor, I said it was most important.
I have not commented whether the defense was 5th best, 2nd best, 28th best or anything else.
That is pretty much the point.
The discussion stated with me saying fans expectations have been elevated and they are overcritical, such as we allowed the 5th fewest points and many say our D sucked.
Thats it. You have proven my point.

I don 't know how I could 'yield to you' on a point I wasn't even discussing.
You appear to now be arguing with yourself in the middle of my comments.

Once again, I haven't said this. What I want is a 5th ranked defense that shuts down the lesser offenses as well as the better offenses they face. This team simply did not do that.

And the ones that allowed more points did either.
Perhaps, we should out it this way.
You didn't like our D, and you wouldn't have liked at least 27 other ones too. I'm good with that, and I probably feel the same way.



[qote]No, I would choose for them to be #1 in that statistic. But I would also choose for them to help that #1 ranking by stopping the better offenses they face and allowing under 30 points to those said offenses.

But defenses that allowed more points did not do that either.
Maybe 5th isnt good enough, but I'm pretty sure 11th isnt better.

That hasn't been the basis of my argument. The basis of my argument has been the show how easily those statistics, particularly scoring defense, could be skewed and to show you why this wasn't the fifth best defense in the NFL last season in doing so.

5th best by what measure? Yu keep saying the # is skewed. Its not.
Its a fact. Those ae the points they allowed. Whether they let up more or les rushing yards, had more or less sacks, etc doesnt change that fact.
We would not have won a single extra game last year if those underlying stats were better but we still allowed the same points. And you are saying teams that allowed MORE points are better because you like the way they allowed them better????????



But, as expected, it's flying right over your head. Either that or you're being willfully obtuse on the subject. If I had to bet, I'd say it's the latter. God forbid I say anything less than glowing about the New England Patriots, right?

I didn't say they were in for the whole game. I said they were in there for the vast majority of the game and that we clearly went into the game with the intention to win it. As a matter of fact, I truly believe that if Welker didn't get hurt, Bill would have left the starters in for the entire game. As it stands, Welker got hurt and he didn't. But still, it's good that you're including it. Having to throw away that shutout would be heavily damaging to the ranking which is already skewed.

They scored 13 points in the first 3 quarters. 21 in the 4th. Come on.
And the shutout was done at full strength of both teams, and is irrelevant.

You really can't be serious with this. Anybody with two eyes could see that Tennessee clearly wasn't there to win that game. It was so bad that media pundits were openly criticizing the Titans for it. They were like a dog laying on it's side and showing another dog it's neck because they just wanted to get out of there. I didn't see anybody out there wondering if the Patriots mailed it in. Therefore, it isn't just me saying that the Titans didn't show up. It would be you and you alone saying that the Patriots didn't show up because it would agree with your point. Not surprising.

You dont think the way the Patriots played had anything to do with it?
Your position is that one day 53 players from Tennessee decided to show up and not try?
When teams get killed the media always plays the didnt show up card. That doesnt mean anything.
How could you see with your 2 eyes that they didnt want to win? Because they played bad? Please clue me in on how you decipher the difference between poor play and not trying.

The Colts were not a top ten defense at all last year. But thanks for playing. I bet that was painful having to admit that just out of spite for me. They, like us, were a middle of the road defense that was immensely helped out by a deep offense and Peyton Manning. Their defensive flaws were shown throughout the year then finally blown open in the Super Bowl when Brees picked them apart.

They certainly were a top 10. You seem to be back in 2004.
I am beginning to see why we cant agree.
You seem to think that the point is to have to admit things or cover yourself so you dont
The Colts D was one of the best in the NFL, thats a fact. I dont think stating facts is painful, Get over that and maybe we can reach some agreement here.

 

[Ring 6]

And like I keep telling you, points allowed is important, but it isn't the be-all, end-all to judging a defense. But please, keep pretending like it is.

I have never said it is. It is the point of this discussion, and it is the most important defensive statistic. You are contradicting yourslef when you agree with that but say another team that allowed more points because it allowed less yards, or you dont know which QBs had good days against them, so we must be worse.

You were. When you're defending the status quo, you're also defending the parts and pieces that go along with it. If you're saying that the need for a quality third option is minimal then what you're saying is that you're fine with Aiken since his production was also minimal. This really isn't rocket science.

100% wrong.

Why was corner a big need? I thought we were the fifth best defense in the NFL that has just returned all of their corners from the previous year? I guess Belichick saw, like I see, and like many others see, that there were some pieces missing and decided to bring those pieces in.

We allowed the 5th fewest points. Where have I said I was satisfied with that ranking?
See heres the difference. I accept the fact. Whether I like it or not I accept it.
I was very unhappy with 2009, and the defense was half the problem. I was unhappy because I want SB Championships. That doesnt mean they didnt rank 5th in the most important defensive statistic, but it does mean 5th for what ever reason wasnt good enough.
Instead of trying to come up with some ridiculous argument about why they werent 5th, as they were, I accept that 5th wasn't good enough.

What this really has become is an argument about you finding some mystical reason to apply your gut instinct that what you saw isnt what 5th should be, and me saying it is what it is, whether thats good enough or not. You simply can't refute that they allowed the 5th fewest points and that it is not at all skewed. (Yards can be skewed by points, points really cant be skewed by yards, because points are the end objective)
5th was not good enough to win a SB, but it was far from awful.

I'll stop there because this has become pointless.

 

[RIP#40]

Not going game by game but home - away. I see 6-2 at home and 5-3 on the road for a division winning 11-5.

 

[Pewsterbaby]

Training camp has just started and the mighty KONTRADICTION bursts right outta the blocks. That's why I come over here.
I just sit back and get maself one hella edjumacaytion.
I just get tha heck outta tha way and learn me a thing or two as I read along.
Look at that multi-parter.

Righteous.

And the guy telling him to get a room in order to go have a football conversation. Oh, the irony. Kontra's in the right place right here. Board wouldn't be the same without him.
He even dropped a "choad" (bwah!) in reply.
Here's to walking tall and carrying a big stick.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Overall, I believe that this is a better team (With a healthy Welker) than the undefeated team of the 2007 regular season. But that being said, they will not go undefeated. I do believe that 11-5 or 12-4 is attainable.

Injuries, if any to key players, will obviously adjust the final count.

Get off the booze....its only 4:45pm

Your comment made me laugh more than a bit - dumbest post of the month candidate

 

[RhodyPatriot]

11 - 5

*Our QB has alot to prove after the way last year ended. Brady is healthy, highly motivated, very focused. Last year Tom was coming into the season after a year off and with the psychological battle of playing with a reconstructed knee. He also had the added distraction of his wife having a baby in the bathtub. None of those issues exist this season for Tom Brady. Think we'll see the "old" TB in action aka Mr. Clutch.
*Brady will have more weapons in the passing game than he's ever had. (including '07) These young TE's are going to be dynamic and with Wes back, Edelman a year wiser, dog Moss playing for a new contract and one of the young kids fighting for the 3rd WR spot this is going to be a scary scary passing game. And what are the chances we have the same number of injuries with the RB corp that we did last year??
This offense is going to be unstoppable
*Bad apples are gone from the roster.
*Love the LB corp on this team and I do expect Burgess back. Think Spikes is going to be a beast and I expect the D-ROY Jerod Mayo to return to his rookie form. One of the most underplayed stories from last year was Mayo's ineffectiveness due to an early injury and how his ineffectiveness really hurt the D. Expect Mr. Chung to step forward. BIG question is where will the pass rush come from. BB needs to scheme it. Overall this D is younger, tougher and more athletic. If they can get pressure on the QB this D will be just fine.
* The kicking game matters. LOVE the punter they drafted.
*BB had probably his worst game management season last year. I expect the hall of fame coach to bounce back strong.

The Patriots aren't sexy anymore. Nobody is picking them to win anything.
I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!! (and so does the coach and qb)

 

[Brettlax3434]

Patriots - 12-4 AFC East Champions
Dolphins - 11-5 Wild Card
Jets - 9-7 No playoffs

 

[Kontradiction]

Andy, you're flailing here. You're not even really making sense anymore at this point, and you're contradicting yourself (multiple times). So before I begin this post, in which I'll only address a few points once (being that confronting your whole post will lead to me repeating myself), I'll give you the chance to save both of us some time and effort by asking you to answer this one question: Do you really, truly, believe that this was a top five defense and was the fifth best defense in the league? If not, where do you rank them amongst other defenses in the league?

You need to read all of the post.
The link shows DSRS, which is COMPETITION ADJUSTED points allowed. The Patriots allowed 4.5 less than their opponents scored in all of their other games, That is tied for 4th best.
This is the statistically relevant adjustment to points allowed.

Counting the points they scored against us is very simple.
If you are comparing competition, you must exclude the game played agaisnt you, because it skews the number.

Actually, I found the rest of the defensive statistics a lot more interesting, as well as more easy to read than NFL.com. In scoring defense, we ranked fifth. In passing and rushing defense we ranked 12th and 13th, respectively. If that doesn't tell you that there is a skew in scoring defense (which is definitely based on offensive competition) than I really don't know what does. I mean, you've gone out of your way as to bluntly deny cold, hard math in this thread, though, so I really don't expect you to understand this either.

16.5 is the actual midpoint of 32 teams.


It is easy. How do you not understand 16.5 is the midpoint of 1-32?

Seriously? You're really going to go out of your way to skew basic arithmetic to try to make your point look stronger? Look, I'll make it really simple for you: there are 32 teams in the NFL. To find the actual midpoint, you would take 32 and divide by 2. The answer you would get is 16. This means that the actual midpoint of all teams in the NFL is 16. Anything less than 16 is above average. At 16, you're average. Anything below 16 is below average. In this case, we wouldn't stop at 16.5. We would have to round it out. That makes the average offensive rank that we faced go to 17. Being that 17 is below 16 in the discussion about offensive rank, that makes the average offensive rank of the teams that we faced on defense decidedly below average.

I hope that helps.

No I am not. I am saying 3rd WR was not a critical position. If I said backup ILB was not a big need even if the guy sucked I am not defending the guy, I am stating that his role is not critical.
You know as well as I do that I was not defending Aiken. You chose in the middle of an argument about something else to make that up and used it as a reason to state that you think I am a moron. Dont apologize if you feel low class shots based on lying are your way to be.

Again, it's no wonder that you've helped turn this into what it is. I really don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend here. You said that 3rd WR was not a critical position. Sam Aiken played WR3. Therefore, you are implying that it wasn't critical to replace Sam Aiken. When you defend the opinion that Sam Aiken's position wasn't critical to replace, you are defending the idea that Sam Aiken is not critical to replace. Again, just like basic arithmetic, this is not that hard to understand. And, again, you were wrong then just as you are wrong now.

None of that has anything to do with your scummy comment. I am not rehashing the importance of the 3rd WR on a team that has 2 allpros. I am saying your comment was wrong, and you know it, and you used it to try to deflect the argumjet, and make me look stupid by attributing an ignorant opinion to me that I never had.
It was a scumbag move. Accept it or don;t, I on't care.

I wouldn't rehash it either. I mean it was pretty obvious that you were thoroughly wrong on the subject. So not rehashing it makes sense here. Secondly, that comment had nothing to do with my original argument. It was a comment that I directed toward BradyFTW! about how wrong you've been about concepts regarding this team in the past. And it wasn't meant to be scummy either. If I wanted to be a scumbag or a douchebag, I would have just laughed you off and said that you were a humongous homer.

The reason to not count the Houston game is that they scored 13 points in the first 3 quarters then 21 in the 4th when all our top players were out. If you really think that those 21 points reflect well on our #1 units, good for you. Tennessee played all their players. I'm discounting a game because we removed players, you are discounting game because we did well, so the other team must not have tried. Big difference. And Houston was included in everything I have said and calculated other than that one comment.

I don't remember every single starter on defense leaving the game in the fourth quarter and neither does the NFL's official website or PFR. Regardless though, that's pretty much a copout. The NFL's statmakers agree that the Houston game should count and counted it. Therefore, we will as well.

Then what are they skewed by? IT wasn't competition.
The only argument you seem to want to make is that some games were worse than others and that you are valuing yards more than points.
Every team ranked 1-32 has good games and bad games. Pretty much they all do worse against good teams. Yards are not as important as points.

Sure it was. Competition was the #1 skew. Some games were worse than others. For this defense, those games came against what little elite offensive competition we faced. And no, not every defense does worse against good teams. If that were the case, offense would and would always have won championships. That's not the case. That hasn't been the case for the VAST majority of teams that have ever taken the field and that certainly hasn't been the case for some of the Patriots other defenses in the past.

No, you didn't, I showed you weighted for competition, and you dismiss it. Listing every game and giving your opinion is not weighting for competition.

This is what I meant when I said that you weren't making any sense. Since when did statistical analysis become my opinion? I listed the games, gave the defense props for the good jobs that they did (usually against lesser competition) but also noted the things they did wrong. Know who else does that? Our head coach. Once again, you seem to shy away from one of my main points: top five defenses don't allow more 100 yard rushing performances than they stop.

Kontra, you seem like a pretty smart guy, so I think you are purposely doing this.
We are talking about RANKING. You cannot claim that a ranking is skewed by describing what the team did. Thats all you did. Your argument amounts to it cant be fifth because I can name reasons that I dont think a 5th ranked team would do. You would have to look at the other teams and see they didnt do any of those things either. Its really simple.

No, my argument revolves around trying to convince you that this wasn't the fifth best defense in the league. What you just said is only part of it. I've named big flaws in the defense, games in which they were exposed and run over by teams which a top five defense shouldn't have let expose or run over them. I've showed how a points allowed ranking could be skewed by weak offensive competition then analyzed that competition. And then I weighed out our offensive competition and showed you that, based on simple mathematics, our offensive competition was below average. I've THOROUGHLY proven my point.

What have you done? Posted a ProFootballReference link that shows the exact same thing as NFL.com, went on to deny cold, hard, mathematics and statistics, and dodged a simple question as to whether or not you truly believe that this was the fifth best defense in the league.

All of the defesnes that allowed more points than us allowed players to succeed as well.

Name the mediocre players that other defenses allowed to have career days last year.

You are pigheadedly sticking to the idea our competition was weak when the evidence contradicts that.

This is why your counter arguments are failing, why you're contradicting yourself, and why half of your post makes absolutely no sense. You do realize that there is a sharp difference between "weak", which our schedule wasn't, and "below average", which our schedule was... correct?

So now you consider Sanchez a good QB?

Please show me where I said that. You know damn well I don't consider Sanchez a good QB. But he is nonetheless a QB and one which Cincy actually had to account for. They had to account for him more than we accounted for Flacco.

Aboutthe same? You said that you would rather have them in a big game? Again "I was wrong" is a lot fewer keystrokes.

The Jets went to the AFC Championship game, knocking off the 13-3 Chargers along the way. The Bengals had to account for the quarterback position as well as the running game. We got smoked by a team who got smoked by the Colts the next week. We did not have to account for a quarterback and only had to account for their running game. Being that the Bengals defense fared better against better competition at that point and being that they swept the same team which hung 30+ on us even though they were completely one dimensional, yes I think I would have taken Cincy's defense in that big game over our's.