WEAK SCHEDULE THEORY

[Ring 6]

ok. 07 and 11 are basically there with all the SB winners. Fluky losses or last drive loss. Three of our wins could have easily gone the other way (14, 03, 01)

But they didn't. It's like saying losing is the same as winning if it's close. There is only winning and losing nothing in between.

 

[mosslost]

We will have to agree to disagree.
The 2001 patriots were the best team in the NFL in 2001 because best is defined by the rules of the league and the rules say you play a regular season then playoffs and crown a champion. The 2007 patriots were not best at doing what wins a championship so whatever else they were best at wasn't enough.

You can't really compare teams from different years so you have to include only champions.

ok. I am just stating that the championship does not necessarily determine the best team in any given NFL season, and that is for sure.

 

[mosslost]

But they didn't. It's like saying losing is the same as winning if it's close. There is only winning and losing nothing in between.

I agree, when talking about how cool it is to collect championships. However, it is simply truth that you can win the championship, and not be the best team. This is a fact, it's not really a debate. 85 Celtics, greater than 81.. and so on.

07 Pats greater than 01 Pats. That is all I am saying basically. They just are in fact overall much greater.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree, when talking about how cool it is to collect championships. However, it is simply truth that you can win the championship, and not be the best team. This is a fact, it's not really a debate. 85 Celtics, greater than 81.. and so on.

07 Pats greater than 01 Pats. That is all I am saying basically. They just are in fact overall much greater.

100% disagree.
Champion by definition is the best team.

 

[RobertWeathers]

it's funny Bellichick recently said and has in the past the he couldn't believe that he won with that team so quickly.

Yea I read his commentary on the 01 team and while he said he didn't know if they were the best talent-wise they were up there. While its fair to say that the 04, 07, 14 teams were loaded with talent, if you look up and down the roster the 01 team was loaded with three kinds of talent. 1) solid vets that had standout careers like Phifer, Pleasent, Patten, Woody, Faulk, Smith, Compton, O-T-I-S, Wiggy, Andruzzi, Brown, Hamilton, etc, 2) Probowlers like Law, Milloy and 3) players that had the talent but didn't hit stardom yet like Tb12, Seymour, Vrabel, McGinest, Bru, etc.

Thats a pretty good collection of talent in which was validated as the core went on to be part of two more SBs and made multiple probowls.

 

[mosslost]

100% disagree.
Champion by definition is the best team.

The funny thing is I don't "Disagree" with you. Because it is not actually a debate. What I am saying is fact.

 

[mosslost]

Yea I read his commentary on the 01 team and while he said he didn't know if they were the best talent-wise they were up there. While its fair to say that the 04, 07, 14 teams were loaded with talent, if you look up and down the roster the 01 team was loaded with three kinds of talent. 1) solid vets that had standout careers like Phifer, Pleasent, Patten, Woody, Faulk, Smith, Compton, O-T-I-S, Wiggy, Andruzzi, Brown, Hamilton, etc, 2) Probowlers like Law, Milloy and 3) players that had the talent but didn't hit stardom yet like Tb12, Seymour, Vrabel, McGinest, Bru, etc.

Thats a pretty good collection of talent in which was validated as the core went on to be part of two more SBs and made multiple probowls.

Yes, agreed. And some of them were on the SB 31 team in 1997, in the infancy of the Patriot greatness era. 2001 was fun.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Yes, agreed. And some of them were on the SB 31 team in 1997, in the infancy of the Patriot greatness era. 2001 was fun.

A great point. Ted Johnson, Law, Milloy, Willie, Drew and Troy. All talented players.

Too bad Bruce Armstrong couldnt hang on for one more year.

 

[mosslost]

A great point. Ted Johnson, Law, Milloy, Willie, Drew and Troy. All talented players.

Too bad Bruce Armstrong couldnt hang on for one more year.

Don't forget that kicker we had??

 

[mosslost]

Don't forget that kicker we had??

I forced my 12 year old to watch the SB 31 NFL Films one time back around 2007 or so, he never wants to watch "old losses" he said, but he watched this time.. and he was actually stunned to see Law, Johnson, McGinnest, Adam, Bruschi.. he was like it's the "infancy of the dynasty". It kinda was, BB was there too.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Don't forget that kicker we had??

How could I?

 

[Ring 6]

The funny thing is I don't "Disagree" with you. Because it is not actually a debate. What I am saying is fact.

No it is not.
The rules state that you play to determine the best team and the determination is champion.
You cannot be a better team than the champion.
That is the only fact at work here.

 

[Ring 6]

A great point. Ted Johnson, Law, Milloy, Willie, Drew and Troy. All talented players.

Too bad Bruce Armstrong couldnt hang on for one more year.

Light was a key to that team. Who knows Armstrong would have been better.

 

[mosslost]

No it is not.
The rules state that you play to determine the best team and the determination is champion.
You cannot be a better team than the champion.
That is the only fact at work here.

I don't want to battle you over it, but it is not true and not really defendable. It is a fact, that a better TEAM can lose to a lessor team. And that can happen in the Super Bowl or even the playoffs. I understand feeling that the championship is everything, but it does not, in fact, determine the BEST team, necessarily. It often will be the case that the best team becomes the champion, but it is not necessary for the best team to become the champion. I'm sorry, but those are the facts of the case.

EDIT:And noone is entitled to their own facts.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Light was a key to that team. Who knows Armstrong would have been better.

IIRC Armstrong was pretty much done in 2000. His lateral movement really had eroded. His knee was also in rough shape. Drafting and playing Light was the right move.

I just wish Bruce got a ring.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

100% disagree.
Champion by definition is the best team.

There's a difference between being the best and being the greatest. Champions are the greatest. But teams who lose are still worthy of being remembered and appreciated.

Truthfully, I wish they kept up the 16-0 banner.

 

[RobertWeathers]

There's a difference between being the best and being the greatest. Champions are the greatest. But teams who lose are still worthy of being remembered and appreciated.

Truthfully, I wish they kept up the 16-0 banner.

I go back and forth on the banner but there is no question the 2007 Patriots need to be remembered. That kinda dominance, grit and determination demands respect and reverence.

The problem is because they did not close the deal, they cannot be considered the greatest.

 

[mosslost]

There's a difference between being the best and being the greatest. Champions are the greatest. But teams who lose are still worthy of being remembered and appreciated.

Truthfully, I wish they kept up the 16-0 banner.[/
not seeing the difference. If you win the championship, you get to be the "Champion", that is what it is. In some cases that is the best team but most definitely not in all cases. And you certain can say that some Super Losers (07 Pats for example) are greater teams than some Super Winners (01 Pats) for example

 

[mosslost]

I go back and forth on the banner but there is no question the 2007 Patriots need to be remembered. That kinda dominance, grit and determination demands respect and reverence.

The problem is because they did not close the deal, they cannot be considered the greatest.

That banner definitely should have stayed up. (Since they put it up in the first place) It can be debated whether you should have put it up in the first place. But it is definitely stupid that they took it down.

Also, back to this whole "greatest" team thing.. The 16-0, has been done once. teams as rediculous as Tampa Bay can win a super bowl once in a while, and somebody wins it every year. 16-0 regular season happened once, and 18-1 has happened I think three times. (85 Bears, 07 Pats, and maybe one of the 49er teams) there might be one or two others I'm not sure

EDIT: 18 and 1 has happened three times.. 84 49ers, 85 Bears, 07 Pats

 

[Nikolai]

One example doesn't refute something that has some level of causation.
I don't think other than who scored the most points in a game you can find anything that lead to anything else 100% of the time.

Sure, but I'm not sold that the correlation is causation here. The only analysis I've conducted showed that the 2010 Patriots had a very tough schedule and they demolished some of the best teams in the league on the way to 14-2. They didn't seem like they were out of gas like the 2007 team.

I never implied battle tested = success or untested = failure but it does seems that teams who survive difficult schedules tend to have an advantage in the post season

I would have to take your word for it. I've never seen any facts or study to back it up or refute it. All I know is that the one time I looked at it, the correlation didn't hold up.

So I did a little digging and looked at strength of schedule. I don't like this as much as my 2010 analysis where I assessed the record of the team at the time the Pats faced them because it's important to factor that in as well, since teams become better or worse as the season progresses. Anyway, this will do for a quick look. I put the rank out of 32 is in parentheses.

*Note: This is based on the strength of schedule as it comes out the next season; for example the 2015 numbers reflect the 2016 "strength of schedule" where they use the final record of the 2015 season.

2015 - Denver (14), Carolina (12)
2014 - New England (22), Seattle (4)
2013 - Seattle (6), Denver (2)
2012 - Baltimore (5), San Francisco (9)
2011 - NY Giants (1), New England (32)
2010 - Green Bay (13), Pittsburgh (27)
2009 - New Orleans (27), Indianapolis (11)
2008 - Pittsburgh Steelers (29), Arizona (27)
2007 - NY Giants (15), New England (32)
2006 - Indianapolis (5), Chicago (31)
2005 - Pittsburgh (7), Seattle (29)

So we see a few things here.

Average SB winners strength of schedule: 13th in the league
Average SB losers strength of schedule: 20th in the league

Some takeaways:

- Five times the team with the weaker schedule beat the team with the stronger schedule, but interestingly, that's happened in each of the last three Super Bowls.

- New England managed to reach the Super Bowl twice despite having the easiest schedule, though they lost both times.

- New England (2014) is one of only three Champions since 2005 to have a strength of schedule in the lower third of the league.

Overall, I see a correlation between teams with stronger schedules beating teams with weaker schedules in the big game, but when we factor in just getting to the Super Bowl, the average strength of schedule is 16th in the league; rather pedestrian.

I realize that it's only a SOS comparison and it only goes back to 2005, but I'm too lazy to dig deeper. I just wanted to see what the numbers say.