Statistical Trend: Chargers Game Was No Surprise

Discussion in ' - Patriots Fan Forum' started by jmt57, Oct 13, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jmt57

    jmt57 Moderator Staff Member Supporter

    Statistical Trend: Chargers Game Was Not A Surprise

    As ugly as last night's Chargers game was - an all around poor game by the entire team - the outcome should not come as a surprise to anybody. The Chargers are one of the very best teams in the league, and were playing at home in what they probably considered their biggest game of the year. But beyond those facts, there are additional statictics that were overlooked prior to the 30-10 debacle. Here's a look at how all NFL teams have fared in similar scenarios so far this year.

    1. Back-To-Back Road Games

    NFL teams are collectively 4-10 when playing the second game of back-to-back road games in 2008. In none of those wins did the winning team have to travel a great distance across multiple time zones. One of those was against a winless team within the same state, and another was against a quarterback with a separated shoulder.

    Week# - Teams and Score
    3 Dolphins 38 at Patriots 13 (W) [first ‘wildcat’ game]
    3 Saints 32 at Broncos 34
    3 Raiders 23 at Bills 24
    4 Cardinals 35 at Jets 56
    4 Browns 20 at Bengals 12 (W) [short distance, winless team]
    4 Texans 27 at Jaguars 30
    5 Falcons 27 at Packers 24 (W) [QB Rodgers hurt]
    5 Bills 17 at Cardinals 41
    5 Vikings 30 at Saints 27 (W)
    5 Chargers 10 at Dolphins 17
    5 Redskins 23 at Eagles 17
    6 Bears 20 at Falcons 24
    6 Bengals 14 at Jets 26
    6 Patriots 10 at Chargers 30

    2. Traveling Across Multiple Time Zones

    Teams traveling across three time zones are collectively 2-11 this season. The two wins are on a game ending jump ball, and when the winning team was coming off a bye. Eight of those games were decided by 14 points or more.

    1 Panthers 26 at Chargers 24 (W)
    1 Seahawks 10 at Bills 34
    2 Dolphins 10 at Cardinals 31
    3 Cardinals 17 at Redskins 24
    3 Raiders 23 at Bills 24
    3 Jets 29 at Chargers 48
    4 Cardinals 35 at Jets 56
    5 Bills 17 at Cardinals 41
    5 Chargers 10 at Dolphins 17
    5 Patriots 30 at 49ers 21 (W) [coming off bye week]
    6 Patriots 10 at Chargers 30
    6 Seahawks 6 at Giants 44
    6 Eagles 40 at 49ers 26

    To look at the effect of travel a bit more also consider what happens when having to travel two time zones away. The result is not as pronounced, but still worth noting: a 3-6 record. That means that teams traveling across two or more time zones are 5-17 this year. A .227 winning percentage is far enough off the norm that it should not be ignored. It is also worth mentioning that two of those wins were against third-string quarterbacks.

    2 Raiders 23 at Chiefs 8 (W) [1-win Chiefs; 3rd-string QB]
    3 Lions 13 at 49ers 31
    3 Rams 13 at Seahawks 37
    4 49ers 17 at Saints 31
    5 Bucs 13 at Broncos 16
    6 Cowboys 24 at Cardinals 30
    6 Jaguars 24 at Broncos 17 (W)
    6 Packers 27 at Seahawks 17 (W) [3rd string QB]
    6 Raiders 3 at Saints 34

    There is no doubt that the Pats have many issues (besides Matt Cassel) that need to be worked out, including among other things the offensive line's run and pass blocking, lack of pressure by the defense, and coverage by the secondary. The bottom line is that there may be not an excuse, but at least a bit of an explanation for why the Patriots looked so sluggish last night. The effect of travel may be overlooked but it appears to have a large amount of influence on NFL games. Hopefully that trend will continue when Denver comes in to Foxboro.
  2. SVN

    SVN Hall of Fame Poster

    how is this for a stat for our defense.

    last week against SF in 18 mins odd of possesion the 49ers scored 21 pts. It got masked because they got some 3rd down stops and our offense held on to the ball and we won the game.
    this week in 30 odd mins we give up 30 pts. You can blame the offense and cassel for not playing keepaway but this is a trend here...
  3. dhamz

    dhamz In the Starting Line-Up

    Small issue with statistical trend 2 - the Pats actually did not travel across any times zones for this week's game.
  4. jcdavey

    jcdavey In the Starting Line-Up

    i heard a stat that last night was the first time (combined with miami's win in foxboro) that the pats have lost two games in a season by more than 20 points, since BB has been your HC
  5. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox Supporter

    #50 Jersey

    JMT57 - There is only one problem with the stats that you posted. The Patriots did NOT travel across 3 time zones for the Chargers game. They stayed on the West Coast after the 49ers game. Something that they are going to do again when they play Seattle and Oakland later in the year as well.

    So, to say that the Pats looked sluggish against the Chargers because they traveled across 3 time zones is BS and just an excuse.
  6. cavtroop

    cavtroop In the Starting Line-Up

    #87 Jersey

    I don't know if its just an excuse. It still disrupts your routine, you are away from home/family/familiar surroundings, etc. Don't get me wrong though, they looked like hell.

    However, has any other team done what the Patriots just did - saying on the opposite coast for back to back games? If so, I'd like to see the results of that.
  7. jmt57

    jmt57 Moderator Staff Member Supporter

    As cavtoop mentioned, I would suggest that perhaps living out of a suitcase for a week has the same effect, if not worse, than traveling coast to coast. If I instead used the words "Playing A Game 3000 Miles From Home", would you consider the possibility that it may have something to do with the outcome? Regardless of the semantics or the travel arrangements, teams are still 4-10 in the second of back-to-back road games, and 2-11 when playing three time zones away from home. No, it should not be an excuse, but it may be part of an explanation of what went wrong Sunday. I thought it was something completely overlooked and therefore worthy of discussion. To me, 2-11 is far enough off the norm that it is worth looking at.

    Perhaps you would instead prefer another "Cut (fill in the blank) Now" thread?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page