The offense could be better than 2007

[ScottieC]

Not really.
NFCS isnt real impressive. The NFCW had this years SB team.
Which teams in the NFCS would you expect that we wouldn't beat with either our 07 or 08 team? I see none.
AFCS vs AFCW. You actually have to look at the entire conference schedule because we play one from the other divisions
Last year
SD loss
INDY loss
Pitt loss
Den
KC
Oak

This year
Indy
Tenn
Bmore
Den
Jax
Houston

How is that substantially tougher? You think we would have lost more than 2 of the 5 that werent indy?
To say that the 09 schedule is a lot tougher is to say we would have lost at least 3 games to Tenn, Balt, Jax or Houston. That is silly.
Or to say we would lose to Atl, Carolina, NO or Tampa. I guess your opinion of those 4 mediocre teams, or of the Pats is very different than mine.

Note that 'strength of schedule' is a lot more appropriate gauge for an 8-8 team that SB contender. It doesn't make much difference if you are playing a bunch of 8-8 teams or a bunch of 3-13 teams when you are the Patriots, because you arent losing to bad teams OR mediocre teams.

Above all, things change so dramatically year to year that schedule analysis is useless.
A year ago the NFCS was considered horrible. The NFC is a weak conference. That creates mediocre teams such as Atlanta or Arizona being able to look 'tough' but they really aren't. The NFC has the Giants, some awful teams and then a whole bunch that are 8-8 teams disgusied as anywhere from 5-11 to 11-5 based on how the ball bounces. Then of course they all have gains and losses in the offseason.
Project that over a conference and I can guarantee you which NFC conferences are considered strong or weak today will be dramatically different 12 months form now.

Not Really? You don't see the difference in the two divisions?

Ok, you win. You're right.

 

[Ring 6]

Not Really? You don't see the difference in the two divisions?

Ok, you win. You're right.

What difference do you see? I explained exactly why I think its insignificant. Where do you disagree?
Are you really saying that its a lot harder to play medicore teams in the NFCS than below medicore teams in the NFCW?
If we were a 5-11 team, I could see an impact, but not for this team.
DO you know what our record against the NFC has been? Regardless of which division is supposed to be good or bad

 

[Deus Irae]

What difference do you see? I explained exactly why I think its insignificant. Where do you disagree?
Are you really saying that its a lot harder to play medicore teams in the NFCS than below medicore teams in the NFCW?
If we were a 5-11 team, I could see an impact, but not for this team.
DO you know what our record against the NFC has been? Regardless of which division is supposed to be good or bad

For crying out loud, you're usually the sane mod.

AFCS record last season: 38-26
AFCW record last season: 23-41
NFCS record last season: 40-24
NFCW record last season: 22-42

Last year's opponents' combined record: 78-50
This year's opponents' combined record: 45-83

From the year prior...

AFCS record: 42-22
AFCW record: 26-38
NFCS record: 27-37
NFCW record : 27-37

2 years ago combined record of divisions we face this year: 69-59
2 years ago combined record of divisions we face last year: 53-75


You made a bad argument. Just admit it and move on.

 

[ScottieC]

What difference do you see? I explained exactly why I think its insignificant. Where do you disagree?
Are you really saying that its a lot harder to play medicore teams in the NFCS than below medicore teams in the NFCW?
If we were a 5-11 team, I could see an impact, but not for this team.
DO you know what our record against the NFC has been? Regardless of which division is supposed to be good or bad

Andy, I can't/don't know how to argue that.

I think Deus did an excellent job of illustrating the difference.

 

[BadMoFo]

This is wishful thinking. Remember teams started to stop us toward the end of that season, and like someone else has said, a lot of our players are older.

 

[JSn]

This is wishful thinking. Remember teams started to stop us toward the end of that season, and like someone else has said, a lot of our players are older.

So like... some of them are the same age as they were in 2007?

That's fup duck!

 

[Deus Irae]

That's fup duck!

I bet that tastes great with a Hoisin sauce.

 

[ScottieC]

This is wishful thinking. Remember teams started to stop us toward the end of that season, and like someone else has said, a lot of our players are older.

Teams started stopping us because they wanted to be THE ONE that stopped the 2007 Patriots.

Every game past the Colts game was played at Play-Off level. And that Colts game was arguably Super Bowl level.

 

[Ring 6]

For crying out loud, you're usually the sane mod.

AFCS record last season: 38-26
AFCW record last season: 23-41
NFCS record last season: 40-24
NFCW record last season: 22-42

Last year's opponents' combined record: 78-50
This year's opponents' combined record: 45-83

From the year prior...

AFCS record: 42-22
AFCW record: 26-38
NFCS record: 27-37
NFCW record : 27-37

2 years ago combined record of divisions we face this year: 69-59
2 years ago combined record of divisions we face last year: 53-75


You made a bad argument. Just admit it and move on.

You are showing facts I accept, but come to a different conclusion about.
First, the premise of the argument was this:
12-4 would be a big improvement (i.e. represent the entire difference between Brady and Cassel) because of the difference in the schedule.
I would have to assume that the person saying so would expect 3 more losses if the 08 team played the 09 schedule.
The schedule not only include one division, but also 2 other AFC teams. Last year it was Indy and Pitt, this year it will be Den and Baltimore. So the 'tougher' schedule is not including Indy who was on both schedules. Right away 12-4 of the 'difference' is eliminated.
I think its fair to say that there is no significant difference to us in playing Jax and Houston as KC and Oakland. On the rare day we would lose to any of them, we would lose to anyone who showed up.
So the AFC schedule in reality has changed from:

SD
Pitt
to
Tenn
Baltimore

Since Indy and Denver were on both schedules, and I dismiss the differences between the poor teams.

We were 0-2 vs SD and Pitt, so it couldnt have been tougher to play Tenn and Bmore

That brings us to the NFC.

I do not believe our results would have been any worse against the south than the 4-0 we posted vs the west.

To summarize, to say that adding Tom Brady only imporves us to 12-4 from 11-5 because of the schedule, I surmise if that were true there are at least 2 or 3 games that were wins on this years schedule that are losses on next years schedule without Brady.

So we have 6 div games, Indy and Denver that are the same as last year.
That means there are 8 different games.

Last year next year
Pitt Balt
Oak Jax
KC Houst
SD Tenn
ariz carolina
seattle atlanta
rams no
sf tampa

We were 6-2 against those teams.
The argument appears to be that we would be 3-5 against these 8, and I find that ludicrous.

 

[JSn]

This is, without a doubt, the most work I have ever seen invested into a pointless debate/pissing match. Fine work gentlemen!

 

[Joker]

my head hurts...for the love of God...PLEASE...make it stop

 

[Lifer]

It would only be better if they roll the dice with T.O. and like Dillon and Moss, he realizes its his last stop, shuts up, and plays.

Brady throwing to Moss, Owens, and Welker would be sick.

 

[Deus Irae]

You are showing facts I accept, but come to a different conclusion about.
First, the premise of the argument was this:
12-4 would be a big improvement (i.e. represent the entire difference between Brady and Cassel) because of the difference in the schedule.
I would have to assume that the person saying so would expect 3 more losses if the 08 team played the 09 schedule.
The schedule not only include one division, but also 2 other AFC teams. Last year it was Indy and Pitt, this year it will be Den and Baltimore. So the 'tougher' schedule is not including Indy who was on both schedules. Right away 12-4 of the 'difference' is eliminated.
I think its fair to say that there is no significant difference to us in playing Jax and Houston as KC and Oakland. On the rare day we would lose to any of them, we would lose to anyone who showed up.
So the AFC schedule in reality has changed from:

SD
Pitt
to
Tenn
Baltimore

Since Indy and Denver were on both schedules, and I dismiss the differences between the poor teams.

We were 0-2 vs SD and Pitt, so it couldnt have been tougher to play Tenn and Bmore

That brings us to the NFC.

I do not believe our results would have been any worse against the south than the 4-0 we posted vs the west.

To summarize, to say that adding Tom Brady only imporves us to 12-4 from 11-5 because of the schedule, I surmise if that were true there are at least 2 or 3 games that were wins on this years schedule that are losses on next years schedule without Brady.

So we have 6 div games, Indy and Denver that are the same as last year.
That means there are 8 different games.

Last year next year
Pitt Balt
Oak Jax
KC Houst
SD Tenn
ariz carolina
seattle atlanta
rams no
sf tampa

We were 6-2 against those teams.
The argument appears to be that we would be 3-5 against these 8, and I find that ludicrous.

Ok, so your conclusions suck. I don't know what else to tell you. No matter what the record ends up being, ignoring the records of the divisions over the past 2 seasons is just silly.

 

[Ring 6]

Ok, so your conclusions suck. I don't know what else to tell you. No matter what the record ends up being, ignoring the records of the divisions over the past 2 seasons is just silly.

This is what happens when you do not read context.
You are arguing that you are right and I am wrong because the topic of the argument isnt relevant to the argument.

 

[Deus Irae]

This is what happens when you do not read context.
You are arguing that you are right and I am wrong because the topic of the argument isnt relevant to the argument.

No, I'm arguing that you're wrong because you're ignoring history and just making up crap regarding last season.

 

[Ring 6]

No, I'm arguing that you're wrong because you're ignoring history and just making up crap regarding last season.

Making up what?

The discussion was that going from 11-5 to 12-4 would be good becuase the schedule is so much harder that Brady would only make us 1 game better. I disagree.
Either Brady is only 1 game better than Cassel or there are numerous games on the 09 schedule that the 08 team would have lost.
My point is show me which ones. No one has done that, or even tried.

Additionally, my point was I out very little credence in strength of schedule, because strength of schedule based on what the teams we play next year did last year is an ignorant approach. You could show me proof that I am wrong if you can show me how strength of schedule for the previous year compares to the actual opponents records in the year of the schedule, but that has already been researched and shown to not be accurate.

 

[Dirk3601215]

Making up what?

The discussion was that going from 11-5 to 12-4 would be good becuase the schedule is so much harder that Brady would only make us 1 game better. I disagree.
Either Brady is only 1 game better than Cassel or there are numerous games on the 09 schedule that the 08 team would have lost.
My point is show me which ones. No one has done that, or even tried.

Additionally, my point was I out very little credence in strength of schedule, because strength of schedule based on what the teams we play next year did last year is an ignorant approach. You could show me proof that I am wrong if you can show me how strength of schedule for the previous year compares to the actual opponents records in the year of the schedule, but that has already been researched and shown to not be accurate.

Please, Cassel was a flash in the pan 1 year wonder. He caught lightning in a bottle and the whole team rallied around him. Essentially, the final 4 games were a "last hurrah" of sorts. In any NORMAL year (where the franchise qb does not go down in game one) last years team would have finished 9-7. Sorry but its true.

By the way Andy Johnson, if you think Cassel is even close to Brady's level then I think you need to have your pats fan status revoked. Notice how cassel could only succeed out of shotgun formations? When he was under center he rushed his reads and lost track of his primary definition. He was also VERY RELUCTANT to force a ball into a tight window (get some balls cassel). He was almost useless whenever the pocket was muddied or crowded. And his deep ball accuracy was laughably bad.

We will all see him for what he really is next year. A one year wonder who caught lightning in a bottle.

 

[Deus Irae]

Making up what?

The discussion was that going from 11-5 to 12-4 would be good becuase the schedule is so much harder that Brady would only make us 1 game better. I disagree.
Either Brady is only 1 game better than Cassel or there are numerous games on the 09 schedule that the 08 team would have lost.
My point is show me which ones. No one has done that, or even tried.

Additionally, my point was I out very little credence in strength of schedule, because strength of schedule based on what the teams we play next year did last year is an ignorant approach. You could show me proof that I am wrong if you can show me how strength of schedule for the previous year compares to the actual opponents records in the year of the schedule, but that has already been researched and shown to not be accurate.

Here's a good example:

To say that the 09 schedule is a lot tougher is to say we would have lost at least 3 games to Tenn, Balt, Jax or Houston. That is silly.
Or to say we would lose to Atl, Carolina, NO or Tampa. I guess your opinion of those 4 mediocre teams, or of the Pats is very different than mine.

It's just pulling things out of thin air. The reality, whether you like it or not, is that next year's schedule is significantly more difficult, on paper, than this year's schedule was. I know that you're a homer, but come on. Even if the team were to go 16-0 next season, someone saying 12-4 is a good finish is making a very common sense determination.

Sometimes in life, it's good to drink the Kool-aid. Sometimes, though, like when Jim Jones is serving it, it's better to re-think your position.

And, for the record, I think that Tennessee, Baltimore, Carolina and the Saints would have waxed the Patriots last season, if the games had taken place early in the year.

 

[Ring 6]

No, I'm arguing that you're wrong because you're ignoring history and just making up crap regarding last season.

And I am not ignoring history, I am downplaying it because for example a team with Miami on their schedule last year had an easy schedule with a 1-15 patsy the week they played the AFCE champs.

Also, I am actually looking at the football teams instead of doing a math problem. You can put up all the numbers you want about the NFCW and NFCS and will continue to tell you that none of those 8 teams are in our class, and it doesnt really matter what their combined records are, we are going to do about equally as well against either. You are adding up cumulative records, and I am looking at FACTS that the Patriots, especially with Brady, almost never lose to mediocre or bad teams. The fact that the NFCS is full of mediocre teams and the NFCW bad ones makes it statistically appear like a tougher schedule, but the reality is that none of the 8 are good enough to beat us unless we play horribly.
In other words, I don't say 8-8 is a tougher schedule than 4-12, FOR THE PATRIOTS because they will almost never lose to either team.

 

[Ring 6]

Here's a good example:



It's just pulling things out of thin air. The reality, whether you like it or not, is that next year's schedule is significantly more difficult, on paper, than this year's schedule was. I know that you're a homer, but come on. Even if the team were to go 16-0 next season, someone saying 12-4 is a good finish is making a very common sense determination.

Sometimes in life, it's good to drink the Kool-aid. Sometimes, though, like when Jim Jones is serving it, it's better to re-think your position.

And, for the record, I think that Tennessee, Baltimore, Carolina and the Saints would have waxed the Patriots last season, if the games had taken place early in the year.[/QUO

So you now are arguing your own argument and telling me I am wrong because I am not arguing the argument you made up along the way????????

The basis is this:
The schedule is so much harder that we should be happy with one more win WITH Brady than we could muster without him.
THAT IS THE POINT THAT IS UP FOR DEBATE.
YOU CAN MAKE UP WHAT YOU WANT THE ARGUMENT TO HAVE BEEN AS MANY TIMES AS YOU WANT. BUT YOU ARE STILL CHASING YOUR TAIL.
I cannot be wrong because you want to pretend I was responding to a different topic.

For the idea that
The schedule is so much harder that we should be happy with one more win WITH Brady than we could muster without him
to be true, then either:
Brady and Cassel are equal and we would have won 1 more game in 08 vs 09s sched
or Brady is 1 game better and we would have done the same in 08 vs 09s sched
or Brady is 2 games better, etc, etc
I PRESUME that Brady, all things equal is 3 wins better than Cassel.
You can tell me you think he is worse if you wish, then you would actually be participating in the actual argument that is on the table, not making up a new one.

So, with that presumption, for 12-4 to be something to be happy with, we would have been a 9-7 team AT BEST by playing the 09 sched in 08. THAT IS: IF BRADY MAKES US 3 GAMES BETTER, BUT THE SCHEDULE DICTATES WE SHOULD BE HAPPY WITH 1 GAME IMPROVEMENT THEN THE SCHEDULE IS 2 GAMES HARDER
OR
WE WOULD HAVE LOST 2 OR MORE EXTRA GAMES AGAINST THE 8 TEAMS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ON THE SCHEDULE.
I strongly disagree.
We would have beaten all of the NFCS just like we beat all of the NFCW.

And, you cannot qualify we would lose to everyone if we played them early in the season unless you can somehow get all 16 games early in the season.