Team Balance Trend

[ausbacker]

Winning 2 games and getting to the SB and being as close to winning as any team ever that didnt win is now described as failing miserably in the postseason?
So 2007 was as bad as 2010, 2008, even 1991 in your book, since we were the same as 31 other teams?

Absolutely not, but the seasons were still failures given the goal of every NFL team is to win the Superbowl for the current season.

If you want to convince yourself that not winning the Superbowl isn't a team failure to reach a goal, that is your problem Andy, not anyone elses.

However, the discussion is about putting the ball in Bradys hands or running more. So your conclusion is that this is the same thing as putting the ball in Tyler Palkos hands since they won;t win the SB?
Are you even keeping up with the topic?

If you had bothered to keep up with the topic, you would have noticed a simple theme, the OP was addressing the QB performance with wins. The OP also took into account other factors and lead to the ultimate conclusion that if Brady plays well, the Patriots generally win.

Let's remember, I'm not the one who made the comment about not understanding the point of the OP Andy. That was you.

My idea wasn't living or dying with Tom Brady.
I am discussing the concept that when the game is on the line I want the ball in Bradys hands not BJGE.

I have no problem with putting the ball in Tom Brady's hands with the game, nay a championship on the line.

When the game is on the line, I want the ball in Tom Bradys hands. I did not say pass on 100% of the plays. I did not say ignore playing defense. I said that when the game is on the line and you have Tom Brady your best chance to win is to make it about whether he gets the job done that someone else.

When the game is on the line, I want the Patriots to call the correct play for the situation then execute that play.

 

[makoute]

I know teams are supposed to have the "killer instinct" but sometimes you have to just keep things simple. The final offensive drive (the one Brady threw the pick)it was not smart football. First and goal at the 6, time to develop a playoff mentality. Run the ball from a power formation 3 times in a row, worst case is you give the ball back to Washington with a 10 point lead and about 5 minutes left.

Best case is you ram it down their throats, take the wind out of their sails and build some of the mental and physical toughness they will need in January.

The more I see the less I like about this team.

Or at least play action. I don't understand why there was no running back in the backfield, unbelievable. Obrien should've been yelling at himself after that interception.

 

[letekro]

I feel like the more accurate description would be "Wins where Brady had a QB rating under 100, as a fraction of all wins". Then the 1/11 makes sense for 2011.

If you say "Brady won 1/11 games with a QB rating under 100", it looks like the Patriots were 1-10 when Brady's QB rating was under 100.

/pedant

It's not being pedantic to point out that something makes zero sense. This table is fatally flawed in so many ways it's hard to know where to begin.

 

[Fencer]

It's not being pedantic to point out that something makes zero sense. This table is fatally flawed in so many ways it's hard to know where to begin.

The terminological mistake indeed points to a logical one.

It would be much more instructive to have figures that address the question "When Brady has less than excellent results, how well does the team do?"

These stats instead address "When the team wins, what fraction of the time did Brady have great results?" Without more data, we don't know whether he had great results in a similarly high fraction of the team's losses.

 

[ATippett56]

A better statistical analysis would be correlation to wins for the New England Patriots versus the game turnover differential:

W/L >3
W/L +3
W/L +2
W/L +1
W/L +/- 0
W/L -1
W/L -2
W/L -3
W/L <-3

 

[cstjohn17]

It's not being pedantic to point out that something makes zero sense. This table is fatally flawed in so many ways it's hard to know where to begin.

Honestly, I wouldn't know what pedantic meant even if I looked it up. I thought this was a football forum, not a whiny little ***** fest about the appropriate statistical model.

I spent 3-5 minutes to come up with some data that supports the observation "Unless Brady plays fantastic the Patriots will lose". It wasn't always the case but with a superior offense and a weak defense the data backs this point up.

 

[cstjohn17]

There is a strong argument that when you have the GOAT, you live or die with him.
That plan hasn't failed often.

It fails often, teams should play to their strengths but balance is necessary.

The OP pointed a trend. The trend for the Patriots for 2009 & 2010 is that they needed Brady to play very well to win. The numbers are worse in 2011.

I hope they catch fire in the playoffs but I am more inclined to think this year ends short of our aspirations.

i.e. Brady plays average against a good team and the Patriots lose.

 

[lamafist]

Honestly, I wouldn't know what pedantic meant even if I looked it up. I thought this was a football forum, not a whiny little ***** fest about the appropriate statistical model.

Why can't it be both?

I spent 3-5 minutes to come up with some data that supports the observation "Unless Brady plays fantastic the Patriots will lose". It wasn't always the case but with a superior offense and a weak defense the data backs this point up.

But you didn't. Rather, you came up with some data that supports the observation "there aren't as many games in which Brady plays less than fantastic as there used to be."

With 14 opportunities to win games in which Brady had <100 passer rating in 2001 compared to 3 so far this season, the Patriots could have a 1-in-5 win% in games in which Brady had <100 passer rating in 2001 and still ended up with more total wins in that situation than if they had a win% of 100 in the same situation this season.

What's more, you're ignoring the fact that 100+ passer ratings are significantly more common among ALL quarterbacks in 2011 than they were earlier in Brady's career. With offenses more and more based on high-% pass attempts, a 100+ passer rating just doesn't signify the same thing it did back in '01. In today's NFL, if the QB on a team with a good passing offense has a sub-100 passer rating, there usually has to be some sort of triggering adverse circumstances.

 

[robbomango]

37 losses under 100
4 losses over 100

i was bored, don't ask. didn't learn much from compiling this either, lol

 

[lamafist]

It fails often, teams should play to their strengths but balance is necessary.

The OP pointed a trend. The trend for the Patriots for 2009 & 2010 is that they needed Brady to play very well to win. The numbers are worse in 2011.

I hope they catch fire in the playoffs but I am more inclined to think this year ends short of our aspirations.

i.e. Brady plays average against a good team and the Patriots lose.

The 2011 Packers, just like the Patriots, have only one measly win when their QB has a passer rating under 100. Clearly they, too, are headed for post-season disappointment.

 

[lamafist]

37 losses under 100
4 losses over 100

i was bored, don't ask. didn't learn much from compiling this either, lol

In order for this kind of data to actually teach you anything, you'd need to find the 'break-even' point at which the negative effect of the team's decreasing chances of winning games in which Brady has a given passer rating overtakes the positive effect of the increasing chances of Brady having that passer rating in a given game.

 

[robbomango]

In order for this kind of data to actually teach you anything, you'd need to find the 'break-even' point at which the negative effect of the team's decreasing chances of winning games in which Brady has a given passer rating overtakes the positive effect of the increasing chances of Brady having that passer rating in a given game.

maybe, i don't know. it was a dumb exorcise, I don't feel like attacking a more complicated one.:bricks:

 

[cstjohn17]

The 2011 Packers, just like the Patriots, have only one measly win when their QB has a passer rating under 100. Clearly they, too, are headed for post-season disappointment.

It must be fun to be the smartest person in the room, always. Putting aside the data which was a rough sketch at best, what does your experience and knowledge of football (aka. eyeballs) tell you?

Which defense would you rather have going into the playoffs?

 

[RhodyPatriot]

I thought it was odd that they rushed only 20 times for 79 yards against Washington, and especially that BJGE had only 5 carries, including one carry in the 2nd half which was an awful non-conversion on 3rd and short, and Ridley had zero. I've given up on expecting anything from Vereen this year, and Woodhead and Faulk are not big enough or strong enough to be every down backs. More generally, the running game has regressed over the season so that they now have an unreliable ground game that requires little attention from opposing defenses. The failure to run gives opposing teams big advantages in TOP, whereas I would think we'd want the defense (especially this defense) on the field as little as possible. Brady, Welker and Gronk can beat mediocre teams by themselves, but this does not look like a championship winning strategy.

Your point on TOP is spot on. Do we all agree those defenses in '03 and '04 were far superior to this one? Then why would Belichick back in those years specifically gameplan to limit the number of touches Peyton Manning would get when they played the Colts?? The Patriots, with a far superior defense back then used their offense to play a ball control/clock game and did so with great success.
WHY aren't they doing that now with a bad defense?????????
Washington had the ball for 36 minutes. 36 out od 60. Ridiculous.
Why aren't they doing that now, using their O to clock/game manage?
Because they've become the Colts and it's all about throwing the ball and putting up numbers.

 

[lamafist]

It must be fun to be the smartest person in the room, always.

You'd think, but it gets old pretty quickly. That's why I usually try to even things out by drinking heavily.

Putting aside the data which was a rough sketch at best, what does your experience and knowledge of football (aka. eyeballs) tell you?

Which defense would you rather have going into the playoffs?

My "experience and knowledge of football" tells me that when it comes to answering questions like your last one, there are far too many contributing factors to go by "eyeballs" (or data, for that matter) alone.

For one thing, I haven't watched the Packer defense play nearly as much as I have the Patrtiots', and when I do get the opportunity to watch the Packers, and their defense gives up a terrible 3rd down conversion, it doesn't sear itself onto my brain via frustration and disappointment the way it does when the Patriots do the same. So right away, I know it's going to be hard to make an accurate assessment using just my eyeballs, and this is before you even take into consideration things like different strengths of schedules, etc.

I do know that neither defense was able to get a stop on Eli Manning and the Giants when they needed to in the fourth quarter, but since the Packers got the ball back with 58 seconds rather than 15, the take-away has been very different. I also noticed that the Pats' D forced more punts against the giants in the first half than the Packers' D did all game, and gave up 11 fewer points over more drives. I also notice that the Packers' D gave up more points over fewer drives against the Chargers than the Pats' did.

Overall, the Packers' D has been worse than the Patriots' in points allowed per drive, touchdowns allowed per drive and punts forced per drive. Unlike the Pats' D, they haven't shown the ability to stiffen in the red zone. The Packers D has been better in turnovers forced per drive, particularly INTs, though this could largely be due to their offense forcing opponents to play reckless in the 4th quarter.

Overall, looking at the two defenses' production so far this year, I think it would be pretty hard to make the case that you'd rather have Green Bay's going into the playoffs. Quite the opposite, in fact. Rather I think the best argument for the Packers' better likelihood of postseason success would be their offense's amazing consistency as compared to the Pats'.

 

[Ring 6]

Absolutely not, but the seasons were still failures given the goal of every NFL team is to win the Superbowl for the current season.

If you want to convince yourself that not winning the Superbowl isn't a team failure to reach a goal, that is your problem Andy, not anyone elses.

When did I say otherwise? If you are dismissing that there are other levels of success beyond 1 winner and 31 losers, that is your problem, not anyone else's.

If you had bothered to keep up with the topic, you would have noticed a simple theme, the OP was addressing the QB performance with wins. The OP also took into account other factors and lead to the ultimate conclusion that if Brady plays well, the Patriots generally win.

Let's remember, I'm not the one who made the comment about not understanding the point of the OP Andy. That was you.

I was not responding to the OP. And you were not either. You were responding to my post.

I have no problem with putting the ball in Tom Brady's hands with the game, nay a championship on the line

Then you agree with me, because that was my point all along.

When the game is on the line, I want the Patriots to call the correct play for the situation then execute that play.

Duh? The point is that the best play for the situation is most likely having the ball in Bradys hands, instead of relying on the run and deemphasizing Brady.

 

[Ring 6]

It fails often, teams should play to their strengths but balance is necessary.

Brady has the highest winning percentage in NFL history. That isn't failing often.

The OP pointed a trend. The trend for the Patriots for 2009 & 2010 is that they needed Brady to play very well to win. The numbers are worse in 2011.

I'm not sure that what it indicated. It indicated the games where both he played well (based on a poor yardstick of QB rating btw) and they won. It did not give a complete answer.

I hope they catch fire in the playoffs but I am more inclined to think this year ends short of our aspirations.

Thats why they play the games.

i.e. Brady plays average against a good team and the Patriots lose.

I think you will find, it analyzed that the Patriots record when Brady plays average against good teams, is as expected, not as good as against bad teams or when he plays great, but I think you can say that about every team, cant you?
I see nothing earth shattering here. The better your QB plays the more often you win. Yeah.

 

[Ring 6]

It must be fun to be the smartest person in the room, always. Putting aside the data which was a rough sketch at best, what does your experience and knowledge of football (aka. eyeballs) tell you?

Which defense would you rather have going into the playoffs?

Do you think the Packers defense is good?